Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 18, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:31

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #656

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music Hello and welcome to the Podcast of the Lotuses for the 18th of May 2023.
	I'm joined by Connor.
	Hello there.
	And today we're going to be talking about the hill to die on, which was a bad one.
	Conservatives are sick to death with liberalism, and it's really not that hard.
	Stop being cringe.
	Get some help.
	I think we can actually prove it's really not that hard as well, at least for companies.
	We'll start off just by promoting something.
	There's news, there's events to be told, which is 3.30 UK time.
	This is on Friday.
	We'll be doing a Yeah, it's a podcast, right.
	Live on Rumble.
	For some reason, it being on Rumble rumbled me.
	Anyway, but you can go over to Rumble on Friday at 3.30.
	We're doing a podcast on We Were Never Asked, which is between Carl and Bo there, which, guess what we were never asked?
	Yeah.
	Anyway, we shall be getting.
	So the hill to die on is a tricky question, which befuddles, I think, every political actor of all time.
	It's like, should I die on this hill, or should I just die, I don't care.
	And, um, well, there's one in the modern time, at least of the American left.
	Which even I don't get.
	Like, they've died on some weird friggin' hills.
	I mean, like, the whole Black Lives Matter movement, Pick Any Martyr, weird hill to die on.
	I mean, the lady who was stabbing other black people in her house before the cops turned up and shot her was a weird one.
	That didn't go very far.
	Jacob Blake, for example, who... Wasn't even thinking of him.
	Well, yeah, yeah.
	Convicted... Well, actually...
	Had a restraining order against the baby mama and was in the process of digitally raping her and reaching for a knife when the cops shot him in self-defense.
	And Kamala Harris decided to show up to the hospital and pay deference to his family.
	He was a wonderful pillar of the community.
	But no, we're talking about instead, how about I teach blowjobs to kids?
	I mean, that is the weirdest one I've ever seen.
	Oh joy, this again.
	We'll start off with mentioning something on Notices.com, being the origins of intersectionality, because, of course, if you want to know the ideological origins of such a human being, it starts with Kimberley.
	So, go and check that out.
	Thanks, Noodlehead.
	Yeah, I'm not even kidding in this case.
	We'll go to the link here.
	This is the thing that went viral, NBC's news reporting of it.
	An Illinois teacher offended her middle schoolers, sorry, offered her middle schoolers a best-selling LGBTQ-themed book.
	Parents filed a police report over her book choice.
	How could they do this?
	Look at this innocent lady.
	You've broken something there.
	But this innocent lady over here, who is smiling, so how could she be bad?
	Is holding up a book?
	You know, it's just a book.
	Just words on a page.
	Yeah, Roz from Monsters, Inc.
	looks totally trustworthy.
	Yeah, how could this happen to me?
	Played in the background as she was taken away in cuffs for some reason or something.
	Yeah, it turns out me and News Media are lying.
	Big, big shock.
	In fact, you can scroll down there.
	I think Twitter has a little note that's just like, that's not the book.
	It's a different book.
	Right.
	It's another kind of book with a different title.
	Can I point out that her last name is Bonner?
	Yeah.
	Bonner, over here, 42, she gave an interview to today.com, which NBC is reporting on.
	She is quoted as saying, we just read and celebrate books.
	Right.
	We just read books, such as this book is gay, which was the book entitled, for reasons, you know, just to tell the kids, you know, the gays, they exist.
	Anyway, that concludes our lesson.
	I don't think you'd need a whole book for that, would you?
	No.
	One of the books titled was Juno Dawson's This Book is Gay.
	It's best-selling non-fiction book, which... Yeah, it's really, really non-fiction.
	Informative instruction manual.
	Yeah, for anyone coming out as lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans.
	Right, so that's interesting.
	At the age of 11.
	So an instruction manual on the matters of sexuality for children.
	Yeah, well, specifically homosexual sex, bisexual sex, which I think is kind of redundant, and also coming out as trans, which has nothing to do with those, but okay.
	By Wednesday, I received notice that parents had gotten hold of pictures from the book their children had taken in class, Bonner says.
	By Friday, I was told the parents had filed a police report against me, but who knows?
	They said they filed it for child endangerment.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	The notion that I was putting children in danger because of books... I didn't feel safe, Bonner says.
	I knew I couldn't go back.
	Yeah, she was scared of those damn evil parents who want to kill schoolteachers for giving kids books.
	I'm gonna guess that this was pornographic.
	I mean, I just got that asked.
	The media really do try their best to just completely mislead people as to the facts of the case.
	I mean, this is one of my...
	I think all the time favourites here.
	Which is like, local lady reads book to children and hostile parents try to kill her.
	Yeah, that's all there is to this.
	Don't look any further, citizen.
	In fact, we shall.
	At another LGBT book.
	There we are.
	Big Jugs, with Lexi and Kaylee over there.
	An LGBT classic, I'm sure.
	How could anyone say that giving such a thing to children would be inappropriate?
	I have no idea.
	Yeah, turns out the book in question is not just a helpful little plan for the gays that exist.
	No, it's not like that.
	It's a bit more.
	It's a little bit more.
	We have here the ins and outs of gay sex.
	Oh, God.
	Very, very light, I'm sure.
	Just, you know, they do that.
	They do that.
	No, no, we're going to go quite in detail.
	Instead, says the book, we're going to try and probably end up censoring this on YouTube if it's too bad, but we'll try not to.
	We'll go to the next link here where we have boy on boy sex and then scat porn.
	Because that's sex, apparently.
	Yeah, so for our audio listeners, I'm sorry for traumatising you, they genuinely have definitions in there for rimming, which is licking the bottom, and scat, eating poop.
	And a whole bunch of others.
	This is the Redhead Libertarian here responding to someone being like, oh, it's just a book about teaching kids that the gays exist.
	I don't know.
	I feel like this is more a kink tab section.
	Yeah, so let's put it this way.
	If a male school teacher had an interview with the media where he was saying, look, I was just showing pro-LGBT videos.
	I was just showing instructional videos about acceptance, and then we find out he's showing two girls one cup in a classroom, we would have the same reaction.
	But he would be doing it for hateful reasons, whereas our hero over here is doing it to, um, liberate the gays?
	I mean, the two girls, one cop girls are certainly liberated.
	I'm liberating the gays by showing that to your kids.
	Yeah, I mean, this is what I mean by it's a weird hill to die on.
	I mean, everyone has to pick a hill at some point, I suppose you say.
	No, no, no further.
	For Jordan Peterson, it was, I will not be forced to do compelled speech, especially for things I do not believe.
	And that was a pretty good hill.
	Yeah, fight the battle.
	I want to teach kids about scat porn because I'm a teacher in eighth grade.
	It's not the one I was expecting from an American leftist in my lifetime.
	But what was I expecting, really?
	How far they've gone already.
	The next one here is just inside the book.
	They have instructions on how to use Tinder and Grindr.
	Because if you're 11, you might need that.
	Right.
	Are we still playing Club Penguin?
	How sex apps work.
	Upload a tiny pic of yourself to the app.
	The app works out your location.
	The app tells you who your nearest homosexuals are.
	You chat to them because they are near.
	It's easy to meet up with them.
	Yes, for 11 year olds.
	Critical reading, I'm sure.
	How else would you make it in life?
	I certainly didn't, without knowing how to use Grindr.
	It's been ruined.
	It's the one thing that's held me back from being an astrophysicist.
	No, it's not.
	We also have the next one here, in which we have them whining about not teaching kids about gay sex at 11.
	I mean, the author in question is ranting in the book Like some schizoid on 4chan.
	Yeah, it's in all caps.
	It says, I challenge any politician to discuss this with me, in all caps, I will ruin them.
	They start off, the fact they didn't also teach you about same-sex couples is nothing less than institutionalized homophobia.
	Talking of the schooling system here.
	Right.
	Straight sex was presented to you as the norm.
	Well it is.
	To make 5% of the population feel abnormal.
	Well, you by definition are.
	Do we even try?
	You're someone who doesn't even get that.
	You're trying to make the 5% seem like they're abnormal.
	Yes.
	What is the definition of the word normal?
	What do you want?
	We've kind of evolved those apparatus to reproduce with them, and so if they're non-reproductive acts, then yeah, they kind of are self-negating and abnormal, so they shouldn't be promoted.
	But you don't even have to talk about the thing, just numbers.
	The 95% is presented as normal, whereas the 5% is presented as abnormal.
	It's like, yeah, that's how math works, your definitions, you're brain-lit.
	Are you reading the next line by any chance?
	Because we're going to have to censor my reaction for YouTube.
	Is there something icky about gay sex?
	Is there something wrong with it?
	I challenge any politician to discuss this with me.
	And in all caps, I will ruin them.
	Um, schizoid posting is all I have to say about that.
	This person is schizoid posting in their book.
	Clearly sane.
	And the teacher in question was like, you know what?
	This is definitely appropriate for 11 year olds.
	This is also the last thing being the Pornhub's tab of tabs available.
	If we get the last one here.
	What?
	It's called a cheat sheet.
	But it's literally just full of, uh, here's all the words you might want to look up if you want to look up this thing, including the scat, of course.
	Because, um... Yeah, that's... I mean, there's a real difference here.
	There's water sports and golden shower in there.
	Point being, sex education, kink education... Can we make the distinction?
	I think we can.
	I think most adults could.
	I think a teacher definitely could.
	And then decided not to.
	In the classroom, in this case.
	Because, you know, the hill she had to die on was... Glory holes.
	I want to teach kids about, well, how to be a sub and a dom to these 11-year-olds.
	At least all the other books that we've gone over and have been banned.
	The reason they were banned was they're like showing off, uh, here's how gay people have sex and there's like someone giving someone a blowjob or something, right?
	Which, um, you know, imagery.
	And, uh, yeah, wrong.
	But at least you could argue, okay, this is a form of sex, like if you've got some gay kids in the classroom.
	Stretch of an argument, but you could make it.
	Which is like, we need to, you know, let them know you can do this instead of that and then, you know, lower chance of STI or something.
	And you could rationalise it through that lens of public health or something.
	Instead, we have a lady here who's just like, yeah, I'm literally just going to pull out everything from like a kink website and teach it to the kids.
	Well, do you want to know something disturbing?
	So basically this list was in Swindon Town Council's Sex and Education Guidebook that Josh and I reported on and Forwarded to Parliament, and as soon as we reported on it, they took it down from the website.
	So, they're taking their lead from these people.
	Who, um, can be trusted with your kids, I am sure.
	And you're paying for that.
	I love the last thing here, though.
	Someone did Photoshop just the list instead, over the book she was holding.
	So there we are.
	I mean, it might have looked a bit weird in the thumbnail, if she was like, I'm just an innocent hero who's been picked on by the teachers.
	Yeah.
	What book was she holding, though?
	Everyone seems to have missed this.
	Right.
	Because it's a pretty open-shut case of is she in the right or the wrong?
	Yeah, she's obviously in the wrong.
	Real question on my mind though, and obviously every time this happens people ask the same thing, why are all the teachers like this now?
	Yeah.
	Why is it the case that for some reason, you know, teachers when I was young, here's how to do addition and subtraction.
	Teachers now, have you tried this kink of eating... Yeah.
	Excrement.
	Well, we have her instead.
	We have her background because she wrote the book in question that she was holding there, Igniting Social Action in the ELA Classroom, Inquiry as Disruption.
	Right.
	So she's just a communist.
	Well, let's not judge a book by its cover.
	Let's judge it by its content.
	Which is not better.
	I mean, it has it on its cover.
	Yeah, but it's on the foreword here, written by someone else describing the book, of course, so we'll just go through this real quick.
	Throughout, Bonner demonstrates how inquiry breaks away from traditional forms of education that are historically rooted in capitalism, settler colonial legacies.
	You know, it could be good.
	Who gets to disrupt and who gets to label something as disruption?
	These are acts maintained by adults and often funneled through white privilege.
	Okay.
	Your race, your gender, your various markers of cultural identity do not impair your ability to be a disruptor.
	Frankly, if you match the general demographics of the teaching profession, if you're a white woman reading this, you have an advantage and an obligation to disrupt, boldly, loudly, and in solidarity with your students and with the BIPOC members of school communities.
	This is exactly what the authors are doing in the pages that follow.
	Right, this is just typical Freirean critical pedagogy, where Paulo Freire decided to say, what we should do in the classroom is disrupt the hierarchy so that teachers and students are on the same level, so that rather than telling students to behave, teachers should be receptive to the innocence of the students to decondition the teacher from all of their pre-societal prejudices, and in turn, the teacher should condition them with Marxist rhetoric, so they're constantly revolutionising each other.
	Well, I don't know about in this case, because that's not how she defines what she's doing.
	Well, she's saying disruption, like that is... Yeah, she's using the word, but it's not exactly what she means, in a sense, there.
	Because I went on to read her writings.
	I mean, she starts off with, the first line is literally, we need to state this up front, I'm white and able-bodied, also straight and cisgender.
	I'm not reading anymore when someone says something like that, but we did and Because I mean when someone's sitting there just telling you honestly about themselves It's just like you're not really any use to me then because you're in your own little world.
	It's like I'm a white woman Oh, there we are.
	Okay, cool.
	Shut up I don't want to listen to it.
	But she goes on stage, she basically tried to indoctrinate her students.
	This is her definition of disruption, which is she at first introduced conversations on a wide scale about, oh, society and inequality, because that's valid.
	We're talking about inequity and that's on the school curriculum.
	And then would expand it to some crap that happened in the news recently.
	BLM nonsense or whatever, right?
	And then she says, literally when George Floyd happened, they needed to go further And she decided that, no, I will literally introduce conversations about race in every goddamn situation I can.
	That's her definition here.
	She says, in no way is she hiding this either, she literally spells it out in the learning goals.
	Quote, we ask students to consider how language choices and individuals' experiences impact the larger whole.
	Through identifying these details, students begin to find entry points into doing the work of igniting social change.
	Okay, so you went into teaching.
	You wrote a book about what you do as a teacher.
	And the one big thing about what you do is turn students into... A revolutionary vanguard.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's not hidden.
	It's not hard to find when they're publishing your book with it in.
	And the school in question here was just like, I don't know.
	I thought she was just an innocent little wild woman.
	No!
	Like, you have to screen your employees, surely, and apparently not.
	In any case, when the person comes to you applying for the job and is like, here's my pronouns, also my job is to turn the kids into leftist vanguards.
	You're hired.
	I mean, again, it's not a surprise, really.
	Where do you think this is the hell she decided to die on?
	Of teaching kids about scat porn, which, um...
	Yeah, don't hire leftists.
	You don't want your kids being taught about scaffolding in school, like what's wrong with you?
	The problem is though, so the incentive structures all the way down do incentivise this, so you've got the World Economic Forum setting policy on social and emotional learning, which involves these kind of principles.
	You've got the UN's 21 AIDS principles, not a joke.
	that says that children can consent to sex and that not giving them gender-affirming care is child abuse and that this is part of their 2030 agenda that seeks to make education a right.
	So that's baked into their curriculums, which obviously quite a few lazy midwits that work in schools will just pull from because they'll just do the appeal to authority fallacy.
	And then when the teachers unions, which obviously control all the striking and said whether or not the school should stay open under Covid and all that, they're flooded by Marxists because most unions are.
	So most of the power structures will keep people like this in place and incentivise the schools to hire them.
	You've got these weird, like, elements that will sit around applauding it, of course, but if you're in a school board, I mean, you don't have to tolerate it.
	I mean, factually so, in this case.
	She actually tries to justify it, though, real quick, before we get to what ends up happening to her.
	She decided to say that she had to show the kids this.
	She had to let them know about her kink list.
	Because, um, well, over the years, Bonner had watched as her students graduate to college, only to return a year later, she says, because they had a tough time accumulating to a bigger, more diverse space.
	I don't know how much scat porn's going on at those universities, but I don't really think that's what brought them back.
	Quote, I wanted to do something to support them, said Bonner, who also has a 10-year-old son.
	I'm sorry, lad.
	After listening to her students, questions, and interests, Bonner structured a curriculum that she says included a diverse library of texts, including books centering black, indigenous, and LGBT characters and themes.
	Presumably, she read them.
	If she didn't, well, you were a bad teacher.
	And if you did, you're a very bad teacher, to put this in front of kids.
	More than 1,600 books were banned during the 2021-2022 school year, right, NBC News?
	Didn't tell you what was in them.
	Let's see, what's it about?
	None of the titles.
	Quite a lot of uses of the word queer, but never mind.
	Read them in your own time.
	Find out what on earth those terrible schools are doing by banning just books.
	Nothing more.
	More copies of Jugs down the drain.
	More than half of the books banned or challenged had LGBTQ themes, they write.
	I mean, I don't know how they could do this to Jugs.
	A wonderful outlet for LGBTQ youth, I'm sure.
	The day after Bonner learned about the police report, she received a letter from the school district saying she'd been put on administrative leave.
	And this is what I mean, like, you don't have to tolerate it.
	No one at any level has to tolerate this, no matter how many particles higher up in our society keep applauding this crap.
	You just go, oh, yeah, um, not even thank you very much.
	Really?
	Just get lost.
	There's actually something wrong with you.
	And when it comes down to it, people are going to agree with that decision.
	If you instead keep them on, as we've seen in other school situations, you can get quite mad.
	Rightfully so.
	Botta said she also then decided to resign.
	Which, um...
	I mean, she knows she did something wrong, is all I can get from that.
	The following Thursday, the school district held a special board meeting and voted unanimously to accept Bonner's resignation.
	And, um... What a thing.
	Why would you put your list of scat porn and everything else in front of kids?
	I mean, we've gone through ideologically, that's where she's ended up as a person.
	I don't know what the hell she does with her life now.
	Good luck, I suppose.
	Ever having a job, ever.
	And that's the reason you should never go down these routes.
	But of course, I mean, can we really blame this moron for thinking that's okay?
	I mean, as you alluded to, the power structures are that way.
	And one of the things that really piqued my interest this morning, as I saw the Secretary of State of the United States sort of come up with a wonderful, wonderful statement recently.
	He's talking about It Hobbit Day.
	You know, It Hobbit Day?
	It Hobbit Day?
	It Hobbit Day.
	Bless you?
	I don't know what's happening.
	like Christmas yet, but there we have.
	International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. - I'm staying in bed that day. - The crap.
	It's like we haven't actually figured out how any of these go together.
	Instead, I'm going to shove transphobia with homophobia.
	That doesn't make sense because if you're, you can't be homosexual without being transphobic.
	This is the ideological problems here of what you're doing.
	That's why I'm calling it trash.
	Are you telling me I can't be homophobic, biphobic, interphobic and transphobic all at once, Callum?
	I think you can do all at once.
	Watch me.
	You can try, that's for sure.
	But you definitely can't be non-homophobic and also not be transphobic.
	Don't work.
	And the Secretary's going to make it even clearer than none of this works, because he says, on that day of calling for an end to all homophobia, biphobia, interphobia, I don't know what interphobia even is.
	Intersexphobia?
	We call for an end to harmful conversion therapy practices, including those that attempt to change a person's sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics.
	That was accidentally, um...
	Accidental true wording, but he doesn't mean that.
	Local leftist accidentally calls for the ending of transitioning people and then realizes nothing, presumably.
	I don't know if you can see, there's an awful lot of comments and not a lot of likes.
	Yeah, there's 700 quote retweets.
	The point I'm referencing this, it's not because local man who works for the Biden administration and is hugely powerful is retarded.
	That's given.
	What's new about this is that not even his own writings make any kind of sense in any way, and people correctly can see this, but that's my point back to the lady from previous.
	I mean, I can't really blame her for being as retarded to sit there and think, oh, you know, this is okay, I'll put this in front of kids, when the higher-ups who are telling you that this is okay are just as brain-dead by the looks of it.
	Well, the Biden administration recently came out during the Teacher's Awards and says that Biden said you love these kids more than their parents do and then they recently released Biden gave a Rose Garden press conference and they released a graphic saying there is no such thing as someone else's child.
	They're all our children.
	So Joe Biden wants to teach your kids about eating poop.
	Cool.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Alright, I've got a slightly more white-pilling segment for you.
	I thought it was white-pilling.
	She got a just dessert in the end.
	Lost her job.
	Dessert was probably a... Oh, no.
	Anyway.
	I am sick to death of liberalism.
	As I'm sure lots of us are excessively.
	Glutted by atomizing materialism.
	And I'm not the only one, it turns out.
	So, last couple of days I have been at the National Conservatism Conference, which some of my colleagues have covered bits of in my absence, and so I'm going to do some dispatches from the floor, and I have to report that the conversation within the right is getting a lot healthier, and we've gotten to the point now where lots of us just don't care about what the progressives say about us.
	We just reject their moral framework outright.
	So, We at the Lotus Seaters, it turns out, have far more friends than we ever anticipated in the mainstream, and I'm here to report that we're actually doing something constructive.
	So, all good news.
	So before this conference started, I thought I'd just summarise the state of play, as worded by Mary Harrington, who I spent most of the conference with as well.
	Lovely woman.
	And she said, we don't have a Conservative Party in Britain, we have a Whig-Graduatist Party and a Whig-Accelerationist Party.
	Because both Labour and Conservatives agree on the direction of travel, it's just how much money and how quickly are we going to get there.
	And also, how are we going to sell it to the plebs?
	Are we going to pretend to be on their side, or are we just going to tell them openly that we're going to glut their country with immigrants and that their culture is disgusting?
	So, we were kind of left politically high and dry.
	We still pretty much are.
	If you'd like to hear more from Mary, by the way, you can subscribe to the website.
	This was a free interview, but for as low as £5 a month, you can help us keep the lights on and keep us bringing guests in.
	This is my chat with her.
	Definitely someone who is on our side, so go and check that out.
	And she's right about the Conservative Party, at least from the leadership position, because this has come out recently, and this was a real point of contention at the conference, from the opening address to the end, and that was that immigration is slowly destroying Britain.
	That was not something you could say a couple of years ago, that's something that we discussed in my first podcast on the channel about how we could not get a house, which you put all the data on, and that was something that they were discussing explicitly there.
	The leadership at the top is still reluctant to commit to this position, because Rishi Sunak was asked with the projections that now from the conference there's going to be a net migration this year of 700,000 to a million, so that's plus a million foreigners.
	He has refused to commit to lowering migration numbers.
	So we had last year an all-time high of 504,000, and he said, speaking to reporters on route to the G7 summit in Japan, I've inherited some numbers and I want to bring those numbers down.
	Right.
	You've inherited the numbers.
	Yes.
	You were part of the government that pushed those numbers up.
	You also haven't said what you bring them down to.
	And you're the Prime Minister.
	Yeah, I do love it when you've got the guy who's bidding government is like, well, I inherited the situation from myself.
	Yes.
	So I've inherited my bank account from myself as well.
	It's terrible.
	Terrible news for everyone.
	But it's also, you're the Prime Minister.
	You could do something about this instantly.
	Why don't you?
	It's almost like you want it to continue.
	Well fortunately the conversation is changing and there are actually many MPs and journalists and academics and younger conservatives, small c, which are holding them to account and that was the the leading thing that came out of this conference that was Gratefully organised, and I must say as well, I felt surrounded by people that came up to us that said their view of the lotus seat is that said that they appreciate the things that we're saying and that we're moving the conversation.
	So it was really moralising.
	So I wanted to move on first to Louise Perry's speech.
	Because this was a great example of the contrast between the message that's coming out of the Tory party, which is materialism, GDP line go up, we've got to have high-skilled immigration, something I learned at this conference.
	You know their definition of high-skilled when they wanted to bring the... £27,000 a year?
	Yeah, yeah, they dropped it to about £20,000-odd.
	Right.
	Definitely high-skilled, which is pretty much below graduate wages, and that Liz Truss was considering free movement with India at one point as well.
	Didn't you say recently that you'd heard rumours that the Australian and Canadian governments were thinking about free movement with the UK as well?
	Yeah.
	Right.
	To be honest, I think anyone English should just leave.
	I don't think I could live anywhere else though.
	Sentimentally, I don't think I could live anywhere else.
	But it's just, I look at the numbers in terms of, like, Peter Hitchens was sat there one day just looking at the numbers and quoting them on some BBC panel.
	And he was just like, yeah, I've given up.
	And I was like, yeah, I know, I know, usually you've given up.
	But like, he just lists how bad it was in terms of if you could just go to Canada or Australia, especially for the nurses or doctors.
	I mean, there's a reason we have to import so many in the UK is because everyone we train just leaves.
	Yeah, I spoke to a guy who is actually a current practicing doctor who says everyone within the AHS hates the system, but we just can't do anything about it because the management are there.
	So he's moving to Australia in the next few months.
	But the salary is not even double.
	It's more than double to go to Australia.
	Yeah.
	I mean, who's going to turn that down?
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	Yeah.
	See, fortunately though, the reason I don't want to flee is because there is actually a counter-movement that is manifesting, and my overall message of this is the Conservative Party is definitely going to lose.
	Yes, Labour are going to get in.
	It's going to suck.
	They're going to be slightly faster at destroying the country than the Conservatives are, but as the Conservatives enter defeat, it allows us a chance to give them a boot up the backside, and that's good.
	So I wanted to go to Louise first, and this is a great example.
	Go back, please, John.
	Great.
	Louise is a great example because I spoke to her on the channel.
	She's a former Labour Party member.
	She's friends with Joanna Cherry.
	She was for many years.
	And since she's become smacked by reality, she's become slowly more and more conservative.
	And she really represented this position of immigration is lowering house buying and is specifically lowering birth rates.
	And that was a major point of this conference.
	It was young people not having any kids and the government is actively disincentivizing them having them.
	And she articulated the conservative position Really well.
	So in this speech, which I encourage everyone goes watch, I'm not going to play all the clips because we won't have the time, she compared the abandonment of tradition to the Portuguese mismanagement of the importing of a fruit called cassava from the New World.
	So when the Portuguese rocked up to the Americas, they found that all the Native Americans were like scraping, washing this weird fruit.
	And they thought that they were wasting their time doing that.
	They thought it was ritualistic.
	Turns out cassava is loaded with cyanide, but the cyanide is only in trace amounts.
	So if you eat loads of cassava, it builds up within you and poisons you.
	And the scraping, washing and all that was getting the cyanide out of the fruit.
	So you don't necessarily know why people do things, but they might have a practical reason.
	So you shouldn't just throw them away.
	And she was saying the same thing with sort of postnatal practices, like when a woman would have her family around her rather than just shipping the kids off to daycare.
	That might have some unforeseen consequences.
	And so in this, she said something.
	Demographic imbalance may well represent the greatest threat to the long-term stability of Britain and indeed the rest of the world.
	Put simply, our age pyramid no longer looks like a pyramid.
	An aging population depends on working-age adults to fund the welfare system.
	An economic system dependent on high levels of debt also depends on above-replacement birth rates.
	The whole system is a Ponzi scheme.
	Reliant on continued population growth in order to sustain itself.
	Immigration can offset the problem, it cannot solve it.
	If birth rates continue to collapse, then so too will the welfare state.
	Right now we're witnessing the process of demographic crisis in its early stages, and most people do not recognize it as such.
	If modernity is cassava, then this is the cyanide.
	When would we have been able to say that, like, two years ago?
	It would have been the Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory.
	It would have been that we're trying to make women birth cattle, like it's The Handmaid's Tale.
	Again, conversation is moving substantively, even a year on after I first joined this company, and we were talking about the thing that we couldn't talk about, which is how immigration stops you from getting a house.
	Gradually, within the right, the conversation is changing.
	And I wanted to highlight this particularly because Miriam Kate, led one of the first talks, if we go to the next one John, in the conference.
	Now Miriam Cates is a backbench MP but she's fast becoming everyone's favourite MP because she is someone who has seen segments from this show, spoke to her, very nice woman.
	She is someone who is doing the parliamentary inquiry into the exact kind of materials you covered in your last segment which is the inappropriate sex education stuff and she has sanctioned from Rishi Sunak to do so.
	Now I'm not saying Rishi Sunak genuinely believes in conservatism, but at least she's got the go-ahead from the government to investigate the goings-on in schools that are untoward.
	But she hasn't stopped there.
	She's actually a genuine social conservative.
	And recently, as I covered with Dan, Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, decided to try and increase birth rates by funding daycare from ages 9 months to 2 years, to the tune of 30 hours a week.
	So the government is going to pay someone else to take care of your kids, rather than cut your taxes so you can stay home with your own kids.
	And obviously the exact kind of state employees educating them are going to be giving them the exact kind of scat books that you were covering last time.
	So this is an openly socialist policy pushed by a conservative government.
	No shock given Jeremy Hunt's wife is a member of the CCP.
	And when asked about this, Miriam Cates decided to come out and condemn it.
	She said, it is absolutely wrong.
	I can't think of a policy that's been announced during the last three years that I've been more upset about.
	I've got to be honest, I did shed a tear on the day that a government I shed a tear as a government minister on the day that it was announced because, well, it's utterly unconservative.
	The idea that the role of a parent, the role of a mother, is to get back to work and contribute to GDP, and that you can somehow outsource that unbreakable bond to institutional childcare, as brilliant as those care workers might be, no one can replace mum.
	We're seeing a move away from conservatism, more towards the relational language that people like Karl have been talking about for quite some time.
	This is the point.
	We might be demoralized here, as both presenters and an audience, seeing all this awful news all the time and feeling like we're just talking to ourselves all the time.
	But it turns out some people are actually listening and so I wanted to draw attention to Miriam Cates' opening speech because I wanted to draw a contrast between her reception and the reception of some of the academics like Louise Perry versus the government ministers and we'll see the direction of travel.
	So if you can play the first clip please John.
	I've no doubt we'll have fascinating debates but these issues are peripheral at best unless we first turn our attention to the most pressing issue of our generation I don't care if you're a Red Tory, a Communitarian, a follower of Burke, or, heaven forbid, a Libertarian free marketeer.
	None of these traditions has a future.
	None of our philosophical musings or policy proposals will amount to anything long-lasting, unless we address the one overarching threat to British conservatism, and indeed the whole of Western society.
	No, it's not climate change.
	It's not Russia or China or Iran.
	It's not the neo-Marxist ideology that has so weakened our institutions.
	It's not inflation or taxation or poor productivity.
	No.
	There is one critical outcome that liberal individualism has completely failed to deliver, and that is babies.
	Across the nations of the developed world, the birth rate is collapsing.
	In the 1960s, British women had an average of around 2.6 children each.
	Now it's fewer than 1.6.
	For the first time ever last year, half of women reached their 30th birthday without having a child.
	The fertility rate in the UK is now well below replacement, and it continues to fall.
	Now, perhaps you're thinking this is not a problem, or only a minor problem, or a problem for the future.
	But there simply is no future if we don't reverse this trend.
	A fertility rate of 1.55 is not gradual decline.
	Even without further fall, in just two generations' time, there will be 40% fewer births than there are today.
	That leaves population collapse.
	Now I remember a time, a couple of years ago, where if we said that there is a demographic issue, and that if we had demographic collapse that will allow other nations and other values to outcompete us and allow our ideals to go extinct, we were maligned as alt-right and lots of people conceded grounds to the screaming leftists who want nothing more than to destroy our civilization.
	And now mainstream politicians are saying it in front of cameras.
	That's a pretty substantial move on the discourse.
	That's a really positive development.
	And she's cutting against, as a backbencher, the current government that's doing it.
	and positioning herself as someone who could change the conversation when the conservatives ultimately lose.
	And she's laying the blame directly there at the feet of materialism, consumerism, atomized individual liberalism.
	So she's talking in a completely different moral language than what the current progressive, bi-party consensus are doing.
	There's a deliberate breakaway more towards our side of the argument.
	Quite encouraging.
	Let's go on to the next one.
	British economic, industrial, educational and social policies over recent decades have collectively increased the cost and diminished the returns of raising children.
	But having a home and a secure job and support from your family, community and nation are not the only preconditions to starting a family.
	You must also have hope for the future.
	And that hope is sadly diminishing in so many of our young people today.
	Because liberal individualism has proven to be completely powerless to resist the cultural Marxism that is systematically destroying our children's souls.
	When culture, schools and universities openly teach that our country is racist, our heroes are villains, humanity is killing the earth, you are what you desire, diversity is theology, boundaries are tyranny and self-restraint is oppression.
	Is it any wonder that mental health conditions, self-harm, suicide and epidemic levels of anxiety and confusion characterize the emerging generation?
	If we do not teach our children to value, to be proud of our nation and its history, is it any surprise that they do not want to be responsible to be proud of our nation and its history, is it any surprise Liberalism is literally dying out.
	So that was a critique that would have only been consigned to our website and the kind of conversations that Karl's been having with Stelios, or even a couple of years ago AA's video saying that the Libertarians and the Liberals were making the same materialist argument as the Marxists, and so they struggle to persuade the younger generation when they're promising more freedom or more prosperity.
	Well, the Marxists have a more persuasive way of framing that, particularly when you can do less to get more, hypothetically.
	And now, again, mainstream Conservative politicians are identifying that and breaking away from the Blairite paradigm that has captured both parties.
	I mean, I don't know if you have any thoughts, but it is seeming quite encouraging to me that they're listening.
	Maybe, I'm not saying none of that has an impact, of course it does, but the main reason I think that the birth rates have become what they are is because you just don't need kids anymore, ever since you have a massive welfare state.
	Because the whole reason I have kids is so someone can take care of you when you're older.
	And if you don't need that, well then you don't have to.
	Because we're not talking about people who are engaged politically at all, we're talking about dinos over here.
	Why are they not having kids?
	No, some of them are.
	This is the point.
	So actually, and I'm speaking to Stephen Shaw later, the people that are having one child go on to have more than one.
	But there's loads of people that never have any kids at all.
	And so the dinos are having kids, but there's loads of people that never even get their start.
	Yes, because they don't need them.
	Well, you do.
	So the actual inverting of the pyramid scheme to pay for social welfare means that eventually the tax base is going to run dry and the pension pot's going to go low.
	And also, if you keep importing migrant workers to take care of your elderly relatives, they're just going to get continually abused.
	Yeah.
	Like the system needs it to continue.
	Yes.
	And if you don't have the kids, then you've got to import people.
	That's what the elite solution has been.
	But the fundamental reason as to why that change seems to have happened in my view is because I could get old, get a pension and not have to worry about my wellbeing because daddy state will take care of me.
	Whereas if you make that no longer true, well then yeah, everyone needs to have kids because someone's got to take care of you.
	And I'd much rather it be the family that takes care of you because they'll do a better job on average.
	Yeah.
	And that's the Conservative position that's being articulated there.
	And it's not being articulated by anyone in government, but it has been being articulated by people that are both in this office and sympathetic to us.
	And it seems to have finally reached the ears of either staffers or MPs themselves that are now saying this on national platforms.
	So we are having an impact.
	She also used, which I thought was quite interesting, the phrase national contraceptive to describe how all these economic factors are basically castrating people, prolonging their adolescence, sticking them in universities and making them put off children indefinitely, which was a phrase coined by my friend Nina Skinner in a Mallard article, and Mallard is another outlet which is sympathetic to us, so again...
	Small grains, big heap.
	The most interesting part of this though, and linking back to her criticism of Hunt, was her specific part on going to war against the daycare system.
	And I want to listen to what she says and then contrast it with another article, because it sounds awfully familiar.
	Let's play this clip please.
	The Chancellor's recent announcement that the taxpayer will spend £4 billion on childcare for babies from nine months old to get women back into work devalues the crucial role of motherhood.
	There is no shortage of evidence supporting the long-term benefits of a mother's physical closeness and nurture for the first two or three years of a child's life.
	And polling reveals that the majority of mothers want to spend more time with their very young children.
	And yet this childcare policy implies that the chief role of a mother should be as a GDP contributor whilst outsourcing her child to the state.
	The language of many politicians and commentators paints motherhood as an oppressive drudgery that any self-respecting woman wants to avoid, and stay-at-home mothers as lazy, economically inactive or unambitious.
	When motherhood is so undermined and undervalued by public policy, is it any wonder that fewer and fewer women choose the role?
	And the great hypothesis of the liberal elite, that women have babies in order to outsource their care as quickly as possible, that women should derive more fulfilment from a paid job, any job, than they do from nurturing their own children, is just a thought experiment.
	One that is in conflict with empirical evidence and biological reality.
	It's not progressive.
	It's a fantasy that is slowly strangling Western nations.
	So it's interesting that she's making the argument for the privileging of the oikos, the family, as the primary mode of political selection over the individual and the political sphere.
	And this sounds awfully familiar.
	If we scroll down please, John.
	Because a little while ago I did an article on, speaking of her again, Mary Harrington's book.
	Mary's a good friend of Miriam Kate's.
	And I wrote about this childcare policy.
	And I'm not saying that Miriam derived it from me, because there was also a friend of mine, Portia, who did a similar article in The Spectator.
	But again, this all sounds very similar.
	So I wrote, In the spring budget, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced his intent to subsidise 30 hours a week of childcare for one and two-year-olds.
	The celebration of this policy by self-professed conservatives is perplexing.
	This redistributive approach to making families more affordable is a continuation, rather than a reversal, of the displacement of the family by the state of the primary unit of political power.
	It regards motherhood as a temporary impediment to women's total workforce enrolment, aiming at eliminating time out of work altogether.
	It fails to discriminate between stronger two-parent and weaker single-parent models of family.
	This both omits the role of a father as provider, as integral, and the well-being of the child as the primary concern.
	It subordinates the entitlement of a child to be raised by loving parents to the state's desire to register the economically inactive domain of motherhood on a GDP growth graph.
	It is fundamentally unconservative to make the economic viability of starting a family contingent on the managerial economic efficiency of the state.
	It seems that Miriam and I are indirectly echoing each other here.
	So again, we may be marginalised by leftists like Otto English or Guardian readers or whatever, but we actually have a lot more influence than we think.
	Our message seems to be getting out there.
	It's a white pill.
	We shouldn't be demoralised here.
	Now, of course, people on the self-reported right decided to counter-signal Miriam Cates.
	We go over to the Spectator article.
	From Zoe Strimple, who I've had conflicting reports as to whether or not she has children, because she says she's raised two children in here, but I've also heard that she may also be childless, so... Could be totally worthless advice.
	Miriam Cates and I have a totally different idea of what Thatcherism is all about.
	She doesn't understand that she's not talking about liberal materialism.
	She just doesn't get it.
	These people don't get it.
	Our critics are speaking from a totally different moral position that we don't have to accept.
	To me, the Lady T era was more feminist than any other, or after, because it included all people, including women, in its vision of work, wealth, power and success.
	What Thatcher knew is that everyone likes money, even lefties, especially money they've earned themselves, creating an environment in which people can reap the rewards of their work of their wealth.
	was something she could do.
	Speaking as someone whose mother worked full time while raising two children, the no-one-can-replace-mum idea seems naive and uncreative, strongly rooted in sentimentalised Victorian ideals of domesticity.
	It's also a little misleading.
	No-one is replacing mum, but someone, or some people, are allowing little Juno or Oscar, how insufferably middle class, to be looked after brilliantly.
	While mum can continue to build her career, retain professional confidence, stay sane, She just hates children.
	That's it.
	This is why you don't understand what Miriam Cates is saying.
	Totally different moral worldviews.
	Shore up family resources, which will in turn help when little Oscar wants to go to an expensive university.
	Alright, so I can work to palm them off on someone else, and pay my wages to palm them off on someone else, and then palm them off on a university, and wonder why when they come back, they hate me, I have no relationship with them, and they're taken in by leftist politics.
	Why could the Conservatives possibly be losing?
	It's not family first.
	The hell does she even mean expensive university?
	The state pays for university.
	Yeah.
	We get a loan in this country, but you don't need to pay it back unless you earn over a certain amount and it gets wiped in 30 years.
	Unless she's talking, she's going to send them to...
	I don't know if there are universities like this in the UK, like Eton, where you've got to spend 12 grand at a semester or something up front.
	My point is, she doesn't seem to be engaging with reality at all.
	Maybe the only way I could strawman it is if you had sent to Oxbridge for your master's and you took the maximum loan, but obviously it wouldn't cover the course costs and the accommodation costs.
	I think there may be some truth to her not having kids because she doesn't seem to know how it works.
	Yeah, I don't think she does.
	Yeah, no, no, no.
	I have been informed and reliably, yeah, she seems like an idiot.
	For this reason, Rischian Hunt's childcare policy, aimed at making it easier for women to go back to work after having children, is a good one because it channels the spirit of Thatcher.
	You moron.
	That's exactly why Miriam Cates hates you.
	She is saying, I don't want Thatcherism.
	I do not want the ghost of Margaret Thatcher inhabiting the Tory party.
	Neoliberalism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race, mainly because it's going to discontinue the human race if it keeps going on.
	And so it doesn't matter if it's anti-Thatcher or anti-feminist.
	She hates it because it's directed to send mothers back to work and atomize them from their children.
	We have completely incommensurate moral worldviews, and we should double down on ours, because you have had your time.
	So Danny Kruger decided to double down, another MP that's very much on our side.
	He actually voted for the mandatory care jab for a while, and then since has expressed such regret that he decided to speak out against the WHO.
	Misspeak, but same thing, I suppose.
	pandemic treaty recently, and on side effects of unspecified medical treatment.
	I'll leave it at that.
	Nice fella.
	And so in his speech, he unreservedly said, the normative family, the mother and the father sticking together for the sake of the children, is the only basis for a safe and functioning society.
	Marriage is not only about you, it's a public act to live for the sake of someone else.
	And this actually had, I haven't got the link here, but Pink News crying, saying, this is the most anti-LGBTQ plus conference ever.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Don't care.
	Sorry.
	I'm going to have kids.
	I'm going to have a nice little family.
	And I'm not going to be an unwholesome degenerate.
	And I'm not going to apologize for it.
	Don't have to.
	Don't have to listen to you.
	Now, the interesting thing is that these two speeches bookended Suella Braverman's speech.
	And this is the contrast I wanted to draw.
	So I'm not going to play any clips from this.
	Again, watch it in your own time.
	As you can see, if you're looking on the video there, she's got a teleprompter in the corner.
	She's the only person across all three days that brought teleprompters in.
	So it felt very much like she showed up for her hour, she did a, or half an hour rather, did a premature leadership bid that was entirely scripted, disconnected from the audience, and didn't watch the morning where Miriam Cates, Mary Harrington, Louise Perry had been dunking on liberalism.
	Because some quotes from this, that again, the media hasn't reported and framed properly, because the only thing you'll see from Suella's speech and Jacob Rees-Mogg's is that the protesters showed up and tried disrupting it.
	They tried disrupting the most moderate of speakers, ironically.
	She told her parents' story about being immigrants, coming to Britain and working their way up.
	She described Britain as a paragon of democracy, equality and opportunity.
	None of those are conservative phrases.
	It's just boilerplate liberalism.
	Again, she did say...
	How is this a paragon of opportunity, this island?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Okay, whatever.
	Yeah, house prices are now 12 times the average income.
	Thanks to you guys.
	And I know she wants to lower immigration, but she, again, has been in the party that has slowly eroded all of the institutions of Britain and its affordability.
	So thanks.
	She did say, to her credit, the British identity isn't simply interchangeable with liberal values, and then went on to say that the purpose of conservatism is to protect fundamental rights and liberal values.
	So we've got conserved liberalism.
	You're a Blairite.
	You're just a through and through Blairite.
	And this is why she did not get as warm a reception as Miriam Cates or Dani Kruger.
	She got the obligatory applause at the end, but most of the time I was passing notes over WhatsApp going, you know the say the line bar meme?
	The most cheers she got is when she said, 100% of women don't have a penis.
	Wow, thank you.
	That is the level of discourse we've gotten to.
	I'm glad the Conservative Party knows primary school level biology, and that deserves cheers.
	I'm not accepting that level of slop when my country is being flooded by people that hate me that I have to pay for, and lots of other politicians and journalists aren't taking it either.
	This isn't good enough, and you have been upstaged by other people that are moving the conversation, that are thankful to listen to us.
	So thank you very much.
	So if we can go to this next one.
	I just wanted to play this clip, because interspersed between attending the conference, I went on GB News and did my usual bit with the show Jubilee, which is very lovely.
	And this woman here is Jo Phillips, and she's actually a pretty entrenched person in the media class.
	She's quite nice off-air, but on-air she was flabbergasted by the fact that I didn't play by the liberal handbook.
	And I wanted to play this clip not to do Leo and only play my own clips, but because I think this is the kind of language I would hope that we would use when addressing these people, when addressing the boomer truth paradigm, and when not accepting their normative framework.
	Because I just turned around and said that Suella Braverman was a liberal.
	And also that Miriam Cates was right about daycare.
	And she lost her mind.
	So, if we can play this, please.
	You know, there are lots of places for these things, but I think everything is so very toxic, and what I think we're seeing is a maneuvering as to who's going to take over from Rishi Sunak.
	Well, he was there.
	Do you think it was toxic?
	No, it was very constructive, actually.
	And I think the reason you think it's toxic is because for the last 30, 40 years, there's been a neoliberal Blairite consensus paradigm where we're moving in one direction, and both parties are bought onto it.
	They're just arguing over the speed of travel.
	That's why Within the tent, and even among some of the MPs, they were saying, our party's pretty much indistinguishable from the Labour Party in terms of where we want to go, just how much we want to spend getting there.
	And so, I'm not surprised that you think that this is inappropriate or toxic, because you're part of that consensus.
	The people that are at that conference want a radically different view.
	You don't know what I'm part of, actually.
	Well, you're formerly a Liberal Democrat, right?
	I was, yes.
	I'm not a member of the Conservative Party.
	But you're saying, for example, that immigration and the culture wars are not chief concerns, whereas... They're not.
	For us, they definitely are.
	But for you, within a small part of the Conservative Party... I think you overstate how small it actually is, and I think that's why many people are checking out the politics, because they don't feel substantially represented by the members that are in Westminster.
	But what's happening is that this is not helping the Conservative Party by seeing whether this is a move further to the right.
	Who can be more right-wing than the next lot?
	Can I check, what do you call right-wing?
	Because what we were just talking about a second ago is incentivising family units.
	We were talking about people doing entry-level jobs in some cases when perhaps they're currently not incentivised to go out and work.
	So those kind of things, managing your borders.
	What do you determine to be right-wing?
	I think things like extending childcare and saying that's anti-conservative.
	But wasn't he saying?
	So what you're doing, specifically for Jeremy Hunt, is you're making it so that motherhood is an enterprise that must register on the state's GDP balance sheet.
	Right, so what do you think?
	That women should stay at home and look after children?
	Yes, that's... Really?
	If they have the children, yes.
	Do you know what?
	We're in 2023.
	I don't care about current year.
	I don't, I'm sorry, I don't, it doesn't matter.
	And this is what's worrying, that this is this, this American imported... It's not American imported, hang on, you've got, you've got... Christian, fundamentalist, stay at home, motherhood... Okay, you can smear it what you like.
	The burden of proof is on you, because the mass daycare industry is a recent innovation versus how human beings have been biologically and historically raised.
	And what's best for the child... Great example.
	There's a meta-analysis... Do you have children?
	Not yet.
	I'd really love to.
	I really would.
	And you'll expect your partner, if she's a woman, to stay at home and look after the children?
	The partner I would pick would want to stay at home with the children.
	Would they?
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Michelle, you and I should go home, because clearly we shouldn't...
	So, the point I wanted to make with that is that she didn't feign outrage throughout the entire thing.
	She's just genuinely incapable of understanding beyond the consensus paradigm that she has inhabited, that she has benefited from for the last few years, that I wouldn't want to abide by that.
	That Miriam Cates, that Mary Harrington wouldn't want to abide by that.
	And it's because, frankly, I, you, your inability to get a housemate, have suffered under that paradigm.
	We want to check out.
	I just love the chats being like, raising children is American.
	Yeah, I know, yeah.
	It's an American import.
	You couldn't have these ideas yourself.
	I've run into that so many times as well with MPs.
	They're just like, oh you want to be like America.
	What?
	How does that come into the conversation?
	And also, like, who funds you?
	It's like, nobody.
	That's why I can't have a house.
	That's why I'm broke.
	It does make you wonder, like, the person who starts asking, like, you must be funded by big money or something, is like, no, how would I get that?
	Do you know?
	I wish!
	No one else who works in online media who is funded by the audience ever asks that question, I find.
	It's only people who come from some kind of weird shadowy organisation who are like, yeah, well, who funds you?
	Nobody.
	What about you?
	Oh, I get funded by the such-and-such foundation.
	Yeah, of course you do.
	Yeah, young Turks do not want to talk about their backers, I am sure.
	So, my point with that clip is not just to promote me, but the point is that we don't have to accept their framing.
	We can say that the things we want are good, that they have had their time, that we do not want the same direction of travel as them, and it doesn't matter if they're outraged, it doesn't matter if they're indignant, it doesn't matter if they say, but it's current year!
	I don't accept your paradigm.
	I don't want the same things as you.
	Goodbye.
	I've had enough.
	So, let's go to day two.
	The highlight of day two, or the low light, I suppose, because most of day two is pretty boring, I've got to be honest, was Michael Gove.
	So Michael Gove showed up and he didn't want to do a speech.
	Instead he was convinced with Madeleine Grant of The Telegraph to do a sit-down conversation and they didn't take any questions.
	And Michael Gove was asked a pretty direct question, do you think that there are any MPs that would be better at home in the Lib Dems?
	Because lots of people in this audience have said that the Conservative Party currently is indistinguishable from them and he said I could not name a single MP.
	Now, right off the top of my head, and we'll mention some of these shortly, I can name, like, Caroline Noakes, for example, that wants 50-50 parliament and hates my guts.
	Or Michael Gove himself, because when asked what are some substantive achievements from a Conservative government for the last 13 years, he said the streamlining of universal credit, which means putting all of the benefits into one stream, which now has 5 million dependents, a record number of people getting handouts from the government, and also, and this is a direct quote, The diversity, both superficial and intellectual, of our institutions.
	Superficial.
	Superficial diversity is an achievement for Michael Gove.
	So more browns equals more good, Conservative Party 2023.
	And you wonder why we hate you.
	You do wonder sometimes how stupid they are, but then... I'll say that.
	You're poor, but at least you're governed by an Indian, man.
	I don't care.
	Line is going up, is it not?
	Oh, it's not.
	Bugger.
	Yeah.
	So, again, the encouraging thing about this, though, was that he was included.
	Included to the detriment of Calvin Robinson, by the way, who, very nice to get a pint with him again, he'll be back on the show soon at some point, and I'll be on his show on Saturday.
	Calvin was scheduled to speak, he was promoted to speak, and he was scheduled to speak on the same day as Michael Gove.
	And Michael Gove says, we don't want to bring too much God into this conversation, so they had to try and move Calvin to the Wednesday, but Calvin was flying out to the USA.
	So Calvin was de-booked at the request of Michael Gove.
	So you can see the containment trying to be enforced on a conference that had very good intentions from the top, and people sussed this out because when Michael Gove said all these things, dead silence.
	No claps like for Cates, or Harrington, or Perry.
	Dead silence.
	You are a dinosaur, you have ruined the country, and we are moving past you.
	We don't care about the outrage of Lib Dems, and we don't care about the ideas of Lib Dems masquerading as Tories for the last decade.
	You are pointless.
	So if we move on to the final day, one of the highlights that I wanted to include, and I know I'm skipping over some of the talks by Matthew Goodwin, who should hopefully be in soon, Emma Webb, who gave a fantastic defensive tradition, but the highlight of day three for me was really David Starkey.
	David Starkey's a very nice fellow.
	I've spoken to him a few times off-air.
	It would be lovely to have him on the show.
	And again, this just shows the contrast of how we don't care anymore.
	So in David Starkey's speech, he spoke mainly about how we can appeal to history, not necessarily other avenues, to defend British culture.
	Because British culture, unlike other nationalisms which he said are poisonous, That's what Douglas Murray brought up on the dinner in the Natural History Museum on Monday night.
	He said just because the Germans have screwed it up twice inside a century doesn't mean that Britain shouldn't be proud of its own heritage.
	David Starkey said that Britain has a unique history of conservative revolutions and moral iteration that make it the best country in the world.
	And I wholeheartedly agree with him.
	And in that framing, he said that there are movements, specifically like the Black Lives Matter movement, which are disingenuous.
	So decolonization is not a goal towards moral progress.
	But instead, quote, they are attempts at destroying the entire legitimacy of the Western cultural tradition.
	The idea that they are here to defend black lives is preposterous.
	They do not care about black lives.
	They only care about the symbolic destruction of white cultures.
	There is a determination to replace the Holocaust with slavery, which is why Jews are under such attack by the left, because they are jealous, fundamentally, of the moral primacy of the Holocaust.
	So David Starkey went for the throat there.
	He decided not to abide by the intersectional stack, and said instead that, okay, the Holocaust is the stick with which to beat German culture, because German culture taken to its excesses produces totalitarianism, And the critical race theorists want to displace the Holocaust with slavery as the primary sin of the total West so that they can attack, in the same way that the Germans are perpetually terrified of becoming Nazis again, attack the West as being eternally terrified of succumbing to slavery again.
	I think he's identified something really good there.
	It's a foundational myth.
	So every society, at least in the West, is foundationally set upon the Holocaust, I would say.
	It's why, even in Britain, we get berated about the Holocaust.
	It's like we literally were the ones stopping it, bro.
	It's the post-war boomer paradigm.
	What do you want?
	And in the United States, you'll find this most apparent in that their foundational myths obviously include the Holocaust, somehow, even though the ones that stopped it, but also segregation and slavery.
	And it's why whenever you hear a speech from an American left-wing politician, that's the three points in history they ever know about.
	That's it.
	It's the only three things they can mention, it's the only three things they can reliably say and know the audience know about as well, because their entire society is, well, has that as its foundation.
	These are our three points of history, really.
	Well, if you're a left-wing American, because of course you can pick any foundational myth you want for your society, and you don't have to pick foreign genocide, for one, which makes no sense, or the slave trade, Like, no.
	I mean, for the United States, the things you'd pick would be, I don't know, the Revolutionary War as your foundational myth.
	And right-wing Americans do do that, rightfully so, and accurately to what America is.
	Because the other parts don't really help you explain it.
	I mean, you could guess that, I don't know, you could argue that maybe desegregation helps you understand America.
	maybe slavery but i mean definitely not the holocaust helps you understand why america is what it is no it's it's a weird foundational myth point but he's absolutely right that they instead you can see this uh bickering between um diane abbott no yeah you get it often between money left this but the bickering between who had it worse in history and it's just like oh i'm gonna let you guys fight i'm leaving Yeah.
	These are the intersectional fault lines.
	It's the same between, as you've pointed out past with the Birmingham protest, the Islamists and the LGBTQ lobby.
	In America particularly, there's a contention between the black Hebrew Israelites and the Jewish community who would like to determine who is more oppressed.
	And so Starkey is not abiding by cultural taboos here.
	He's saying that our enemies are trying to hoist us by our own standards.
	And that we shouldn't stand for it.
	And even though the Huffington Post can cry and whine, they point out, and this is in the article, his speech on Wednesday morning was met with applause from the audience.
	Because it was true.
	Yeah.
	And so, from positions sitting through the auditorium, it's very telling as to what the crowd wanted.
	And the really encouraging thing as well, not just were there loads of our viewers there, who came up and said hello and congratulated the whole team on our work, 30% of the attendees are under 30.
	It's pretty major.
	These are the people that are going to be having kids.
	These are the people that are going to be transmitting the values, and they're on our side.
	And so I just wanted to finish with a contrast between what the Conservative Party think of Starkey versus what we and the attendees thought of Starkey.
	Because this happened About two weeks ago now, at the coronation of King Charles III, and David Starkey, and I think this was just after I ran into him on the same day, funnily enough, I was privileged to be invited to the outside Buckingham Palace pre-coronation coverage, and David was there in the little alcove in a blanket awaiting to speak to Nigel, freezing her, and when he was asked about the coronation preparations, and he said that Rishi Sunak had been noticeably invisible, and he said, I think one of the reasons that I think that a lot has gone wrong, for example, why Parliament has not been properly represented at the coronation,
	of a parliamentary monarchy is because the government simply isn't interested.
	It's not interested in the constitution.
	You have a prime minister, I think, a man of immense talent, of extraordinary skill, debatable, but not really fully grounded in our culture.
	That's all he said.
	And so the Tory wets called him racist.
	This from Nadim Zahawi, who is the party chairman.
	Never mentioned race.
	Yep, never mentioned it at all.
	Stop losing that word.
	He said about he's constitutionally illiterate and disinterested in parliamentary history.
	Now, bear in mind, David Starkey particularly focuses on the Tudor period, so he knows a hell of a lot about the formation of the Church of England, about the creation of English constitutional norms.
	Yeah, what does he know?
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, actually, ironically, what does that guy know?
	Yeah, well, Nadim Zahawi, who has been kicked out of plenty of jobs for not paying his taxes and for manipulating YouGov's results during the pandemic as the chair of YouGov, while also being the vaccine minister, said, That is an ill-informed opinion, a racist opinion.
	He only needs to spend a few hours with Rishi or me in Stratford-upon-Avon or Yorkshire to realise how our culture is strong and has been rooted in diversity, pride and love.
	No, no, it's not been true.
	That's not true at all.
	1997.
	Yeah.
	Well, you can argue it's been rude since then, but you know, there was kind of a bit more history before 97, where things might have happened.
	You can't have a cultural value be diversity.
	That's an oxymoron.
	Because that means our culture is preferring other cultures.
	That would be cannibalism.
	That's stupid.
	Since 97 there has been that.
	Like, he is correct.
	There is then a revolution in that terms.
	And that's how they view all of British culture and history now.
	Through the Blairist lens.
	Whereas, obviously, Starkey is like... You know there was other history?
	Yeah.
	Some things happened before the 1990s, and Starkey's got them, such as, I don't know, being a heretic or a heathen would make you not fully rooted in our culture, for a heavily Anglican ceremony about ze king.
	Funny that you said that.
	Calvin got lambasted for the same thing, for saying that Rishi Sunak is a heathen, because definitionally, he's a heathen.
	So, doesn't mean he should be hundred and quartered for it.
	It doesn't mean he's a bad guy.
	I'm not going to pass laws being like, cut off his head.
	Yeah.
	Well, you're not Islamic.
	Well, actually, technically.
	I've seen you in the Afghan garb.
	And then I'll just finish from a quote from our favourite Lib Dem Tory MP, Caroline Noakes, who said, What a vile and racist comment to make.
	The PM grew up in my constituency and is as British as both me and David Starkey.
	He didn't say he wasn't British.
	The coronation is a great opportunity for us all to celebrate our wonderful and diverse culture.
	And Starkey's comment says far more about him than the PM.
	You're right.
	It says far more about Starkey.
	And it says far more about the...
	Well, you know what?
	It says far more about the actual Conservatives that are in this conference.
	Because notice, Starkey wasn't de-booked, he wasn't cancelled, he was applauded, he was platformed, the Twitter account shared all of his quotes, he was celebrated.
	This was the prevailing mood at this conference.
	So this is the point.
	This is why I wanted to talk about it.
	We're actually being listened to.
	And so, the Conservative Party are absolutely going to be defeated.
	And I think, frankly, deservedly so.
	They're cancerous and they need time in remission.
	Fortunately, that time in exile allows us, MPs like Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger, and all of you out there who attended this conference and said hello, to have more influence than we ever thought possible.
	So, chin up, lads.
	We're going to make it.
	Alrighty.
	I've got some awesome good news.
	Okay, go on.
	Gun lobbies not being cringed for once.
	Nah, they never cringe.
	There's a gun company that's decided to stop being cringed, which is much better.
	I went shooting recently for the first time.
	I was rubbish, but, you know.
	Fun.
	Yeah, I'll get prepared for the apocalypse.
	So it's really not that hard not being cringed, or at least stopping being cringed, if you're a company.
	All it takes is one Tweeter Rooney.
	I'm going to share this ancient magic with all of the corporate social media managers watching.
	It's easy.
	Just don't post cringe.
	It's not really that hard.
	And you'd think it would be, but it's really hard for a lot of folks out there.
	We'll start off just by promoting something here on LetItSizz.com, being Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, which was a Ew.
	you know disaster and uh so is bud light so moving to bud light very similar outcomes well they're they're stock on 911 so that's that's uh that's a segue i don't know if you can change that to a month instead of a day there so we can see more of a impact of um what happened yeah move to a month we can see um something happened this is the parent company obviously that owns bud light and every other beer under the sun in the united states or at least the crap ones and
	And even with Bud Light only being a small portion of them, they've lost 11% of their stock price.
	Because... I've heard in some regions as well, that's the average, in some regions it's between 29 and 34.
	Well, the real worry for, because there's a difference between sales and stock price, obviously, and a lot of investors are looking at this and thinking, um, those sales prices, you know how you keep going to the shop and no one's buying Bud Light?
	You know how you go to a football game and there's one guy selling Bud Light and he has no customers?
	Yeah.
	And everything next to him has a million customers.
	That's the baseball stadium, Fenway, yeah, where the entire booth has just nobody queuing for it.
	I mean, when there's video evidence of no one buying the product, I mean, I do kind of get worried about the sales figures, and maybe I shouldn't invest in the company, and people are bailing, and they should bail harder, obviously.
	Well, so our friends over at TimCast, shout out to Phil Labonte specifically, made the point that this is never going to go away even if they do apologise for the Dylan Mulvaney thing, and the reason is, what's going to happen is, you and your bros, you're going to go out to a bar, there's going to be a girl sitting at the end of the bar, you will order your drinks, you order a Bud Light, and one of your buddies is going to go, pfft, what, are you gay?
	Yeah.
	And you're never going to buy that beer again.
	That's it.
	It's going to be known as the gay beer.
	Even if they are drinking fruity cocktails, they're going to be going, well, yeah, this is fruity, but it's delicious, and your beer is gay, and it tastes terrible.
	They've taken too long to respond for them to ever recover from this.
	Literally, how will they ever financially recover from this?
	They won't, probably.
	And it's worse than you think, though.
	It's not just, bro, he's gay, he's drinking Bud Light.
	Well, apparently bars have stopped selling Bud Light to avoid that exact situation, because not only is it, ha ha, he ordered the funny drink, it's, Let's beat him up.
	So, let's go to the next one here.
	It's Joe Rogan talking about the news that a bunch of bars have stopped selling Bud Light because they keep causing bar fights where people keep calling each other gay and them going, uh-huh, and him going, uh-huh, and then they fight.
	America's bars are literal playgrounds?
	Yeah.
	Well, that's...
	That's just funny, I'll be honest.
	Look, this is the thing.
	Marketing's important.
	You don't let the moron with the pronouns handle your social media account and think everything will be fine.
	Like, no, no, no.
	You've got to take this seriously if you actually want to sell the product, because otherwise your product gets blacklisted from every bar purely for the fact that people are fighting over whether or not it means you're gay.
	I mean, this is not something you should not take seriously if you ever want to sell product.
	Yeah, I don't really let the politics affect me.
	I've been drinking my whole life.
	And of course, the memes are still very funny, and we're going to enjoy one of them.
	Just complete Dino randoms.
	Like, yeah, I'm going to keep making Bud Light memes, and they keep coming back.
	Let's play this one.
	This is a new gold.
	Oh.
	Yeah.
	I don't really let the politics affect me.
	I've been drinking it my whole life.
	It hasn't changed me, so...
	That makes sense.
	Yeah.
	Average Bud Light maker with his thong.
	Yeah, put it back, move on.
	And, um, well, as much as the memes are the memes, um, the truth is also the truth, which is entirely what the memes are.
	No one's buying it.
	Like, no one.
	If we go to the next one here, we can see.
	It's just, uh, some guy talking about the fact that, uh, every single shelf was sold out in Florida.
	Except Bud Light.
	Every case of Bud Light was still there.
	Have you heard that they're giving retailers $20 rebates, which basically means that they're giving the beer away literally for free if they sell them at that.
	Because it's $19.99?
	Yeah.
	I mean, you've got to be pretty desperate to be like, look, drink the beer.
	Just show people that you're drinking the beer in public so people don't think it's gay anymore.
	So, eh, I don't know, man.
	It's already the Alex Jones water.
	That's what it is.
	Well, this is what basically collapsed the comics industry in the 1990s, because they kept doing, like, variant covers and special marketing gimmicks, and so the shops bought loads of the comics.
	And then when people realised they weren't that special and they couldn't buy them to then invest and sell them on as collector's items, they stopped buying them.
	So the shelves were just full of unsellable comics.
	So the lines got cut and loads of comic shops closed.
	So Bud Light are just cramming stores and bars full of Unsellable, undrinkable, piddle water.
	They're just gonna fold.
	Yeah, I mean it was a bad product to begin with anyway, but I mean that's why I'm really, uh, there's some people who like, well, I say some people, Donald Trump's son, who's like, stop it, they're an American patriot, it's like, I don't really care, it's all crap.
	Yeah, also I don't trust Americans' opinions on booze, because even though your bourbon's kind of okay, I was drinking with Americans this weekend and they were like, you can really put away your drink, and I'm like, yeah, because I've been drinking for about five years before you guys.
	But part of the reason as to why America's beers have become such an international meme, and sorry to judge, but it's this!
	It's this product specifically that kind of made you a laughingstock internationally.
	Bud Light is actually terrible.
	So the fact that this happened to them is great news.
	And I joke about the whole, you know, bro, he drinks the drink, so he must be gay.
	Well, even the gays agree.
	Too gay for us.
	Get out of here.
	This is the part of the story that people seem to have not picked up on, because of course, you can't be homosexual without being transphobic.
	So loads of gay bars have stopped serving Bud Light because, well, not because they think people are going to start arguing and fighting each other about being gay in the gay bar.
	That's kind of a given, which is why it's fun.
	But as I said, they're arguing about, do you not know what being gay is?
	Because if someone's transgender and can become a man through saying they are, and then I'm a homophobic person for not wanting to have sex with that man with no penis, You've kind of destroyed what the concept of being gay is.
	Because, you know, gay men, funnily enough, like cock.
	Quite fans of it, it turns out.
	Did you just describe gay bars as being fun, Callum?
	They are fun.
	Do you remember the one in Canterbury?
	Which one?
	I don't know, there was one down the road.
	Oh, was it when they did glitter bomb nights at Tokyo Tea Rooms?
	Something like that, but it was cheaper than every other place in Canterbury.
	I think that's only because they kept buying you drinks, Callum.
	Well, I got free drinks.
	Anyway, also the two litre things, the steins.
	Nowhere else in Canterbury did that, so.
	When you turned around, did they go plop plop fizz fizz?
	Anytime.
	You go with friends, just to make sure.
	Anyway, trust the gays.
	No joke, don't ban me, YouTube.
	Anyway, but you can see here, loads of gay bars just being like, yeah, we're not having Bud Light.
	So not only are the non-gays not drinking it, the gays are also not drinking it because, well, it's gay.
	And then who's left exactly?
	Because you may remember that lady who did all this and she gave an interview as to why and her reasoning was that well our customer base was not growing because it was all those damn straight white men drinking product whereas the real drinkers were the Rainbow Brigade and then not even the Rainbow Brigade are drinking so you now have zero customers zero sales but the future is bright.
	It's actually encouraging as well, because, so the other angle that I covered with Dan after you covered the marketing angle was the fact that they're signed on to the Corporate Equality Index, which is part of the ESG scoring.
	And it's basically run by the Human Rights Campaign, and they're the biggest LGBT lobbying group in the world.
	And so they've got hundreds of law firms, the Open Society Foundation, BlackRock, State Street Vanguard, and a bunch of corporations signed on.
	And they give you a scorecard for if you pay for your employees' gender transitions, you do pronouns, or you have LGBT people on your board or in your marketing.
	And so you get subsidized to do this, even if it's unprofitable.
	The thing is, this is so unprofitable that now the head of BlackRock is saying, I'm kind of questioning some ESG investment again.
	So this is actually a flashpoint case of not just challenging get work go broke from the customer base, but also it's counteracting how much money ESG can prop up these companies.
	This is really good for us.
	And there is also an easy way to solve it, which of course we'll get to.
	But firstly, MillerLite also made an ad talking about how they were mad at women in bikinis.
	This is the next link here.
	It's been brought back up.
	It's an old advert.
	It's not new.
	It's back in the day when Yas Queen, feminist, was popular.
	But that's dead and gone.
	I mean, I'm surprised people even mistook it for a modern day ad, frankly, but whatever.
	But the whole point here just being, I don't like women in bikinis from the marketing lady in charge.
	And her whole reasoning is, I don't look as good as them.
	Which is entirely who you put in charge of your ad department, of course, because that'll go well.
	We can go to the next one here, we can see the lady responsible here.
	She is on the Stephen Colbert report, because that's usually where ad executives go.
	Yep.
	Like, no.
	She's here talking about how Stephen Colbert is a model white male, because he's for the Rainbow Brigade.
	Well, he platforms any member of the regime, and that's why she's on there.
	She should be a nobody, but she's not.
	But again, I mean look into the mindset of the kind of person you hired to be in charge of your advertising.
	Leftist who's obsessed with race politics.
	Good job.
	This isn't even just like a guess from one advert.
	If you go to the next one here, I think it's MythInformed, we're also putting up.
	These are internal documents from, well, internal videos from Miller Lite's internal force where they're telling them about diversity and inclusion and blah blah blah.
	And it's as bad as you can guess.
	And I'm not going to waste my time because we all have to deal with it.
	But Joe Rogan saw this on his podcast and also, again, just gave a speech about being like, does no one learn?
	Yeah, no one does learn.
	Speaking of old adverts though, I thought we'd just check in with Bud Light's old adverts.
	I don't know if you've seen them.
	They had one specific one which has been re-dug up, which didn't age well for them.
	Aged well for everyone else.
	Let's play it.
	It's Bud Light taking the piss out of the fact that men would dominate women's pool if only they dressed like women.
	Huh, let's play.
	These guys are good.
	Who are you calling guys?
	Yeah.
	The meme magic.
	- You're in the finals.
	Ma'am, for the greatest ace that won't fill you up and never let you down, make it a Bud Light.
	- You're the defending lady's pool champion?
	- Yes, I am.
	- There's just something amazing about that.
	The meme magic, the company really went 180 on the whole thing.
	- Do you remember when the villain of Ace Ventura was actually a dude and that was, all the police officers when they found out were vomiting?
	That was the plot.
	And that was part of the joke.
	And then now we're meant to... Damn, men used to dress up as women to drink Bud Light, and now they do more than dress up.
	Anyway, they are doing one thing to try and get bad customers, which is, as you can see here, they released a version of Bud Light with camouflage on.
	The irony of deception.
	Yee-haw, brother.
	The ironic thing about, you know, camouflage is used for deception, and, um... Ah, no one learned.
	No one learned a damn thing.
	I don't think it's gonna help them.
	Ford also decided to jump in on the situation of being like, ah, my car covered in dirt, but if I wash my car, it becomes a rainbow car.
	Because no one learned.
	Goddammit.
	But Heckler & Koch.
	What?
	They learned.
	They learned fast.
	Sorry, which company?
	Heckler & Koch.
	You know Koch?
	Oh.
	You know something else, Germans?
	Coke.
	Koch.
	Koch.
	Anyway, Heckler & Koch over here, they decided to have a bit of a moment because they put someone also in charge of their social media management, didn't check that they were sane, and quickly regretted it when they started responding to all the beer stuff.
	Responding, gun bunnies no, beer bunnies no, supporting women 100 in one tweet.
	I was like, okay, that's not the usual messaging for a gun company.
	But they backed this up, the social media manager, because obviously people start pointing out, hang on a minute, where are you going with this?
	I know where this train leads.
	This leads to me not buying the gun.
	I don't want to do that.
	I like a gun.
	Anyway, they wrote, wow, woke?
	Allow me to translate.
	Objectifying women was never a good marketing strategy.
	Yes, it was.
	Sorry, I hate the porn industry, but yeah it is.
	As much as you don't like it, even you can admit it.
	It's a great marketing strategy.
	It's effective.
	In the firearms industry, that was a prominent strategy up until recently.
	Many industries have done the same, including beer corporations.
	they decide to write in the firearms industry that was a prominent strategy up until recently many industries have done that included I've done the same including beer corporations as an actual woman writing this find that I'll use more words for you to comprehend you Using bunnies to sell products is trash marketing.
	Supporting women by not doing that is good.
	Let's get back to the grid girls thing.
	Remember the grid girls?
	Yes.
	Basically women in bikinis who look good.
	They're still in the UFC, they still have them.
	Yeah, I believe it was Formula One who decided to ban them on the basis that it wasn't supporting women by paying women to do that.
	Uh, the girls were not happy about it.
	No.
	I know the Lonnie Dowding hasn't been too delighted when she lost her job.
	Yeah.
	Here's the next one here.
	We can see the, uh, person in question.
	The social media manager of Heckler & Koch, who's lecturing the gun industry about modelling over here, objectifying women, used to be a bikini model.
	Oh my god, she's not even fit.
	No, she's not.
	They never usually are bikini models.
	Do you remember when Patrick covered himself in caramel on that SpongeBob episode?
	Orange.
	That's all my... No, actually, it's...
	Year 11.
	That's what it reminds me of.
	The end of secondary school in the UK, when all of the women discover fake tan and think that's a good idea.
	If you go back as well, we can see our social media posts on LinkedIn, because all these freaks who come up with these ideas have LinkedIn accounts.
	And it's just like, yeah, you should take more care.
	You should really take more care.
	Anyway, Heckler & Koch saw that and went, um, we're not Bud Light, we're not going down that route, to hell with that, and very quickly put out this tweet.
	And this is the one simple trick to make sure you don't get boycotted and lose your entire industry.
	If you go to the next tweet we can see it, in which the site point out just an image that says, Heckler & Koch does not engage in identity politics, a policy was violated, changes were made.
	Well done.
	The road forward.
	There we go.
	Instantly forgiven.
	16,000 like-a-roonies.
	The only pushback I ever saw, checking this out, because, let's be straight, I don't think there are too many American leftists, profile pronoun using, shoicuck, I feel like this should be some kind of like, cowboy talk.
	Coming around here with your pronouns and your soy paste.
	The meme you're thinking of.
	They're not using rifles.
	They're not using guns.
	They're not fans of the guns.
	They're very much on the, oh, do I have to own one?
	Oh, that's very sad.
	Brigade.
	Sir Heckler and Koch were just like, no, no, no, no, no.
	Deal with that immediately.
	Order 66 it.
	And it was done.
	She is gone.
	Heckler and Koch reputation saved.
	You can now buy the rifle.
	And just like before.
	Where was you buying a rifle for money?
	Instead of buying the rifle and having to fund endless propaganda at you about why women don't look good in bikinis, I swear.
	If you wanted a feminist market campaign as a gun company, you could just point out that it's the only way that women can defend themselves from nonces, so... Yeah.
	But anyway, there we are.
	It really is that simple.
	It's all Birdlight had to do.
	It's too long now.
	Rip.
	But your product was crap anyway.
	They're destroying American reputation globally, so bye.
	Heckler and Koch managed to save themselves.
	Good job.
	I would like to introduce you to my project, Quality Universe.
	It's all-in-one creative writing and publishing platform.
	So writers have everything they need to create amazing stories and universes which the readers then can fully enjoy.
	We are in beta and I would like to invite you all to give it a try and tell us what you think about the ideas.
	We are constantly improving features and also importing public domain stories to have more to read.
	Check out the comments or Lotus Dreams Discord server for codes to get the unlimited access.
	Nope, that's a word from our sponsors.
	Well yeah, good luck.
	To be fair, the graphic design and the webpage layout looks really impressive, actually.
	Looks quite high quality.
	See you in the next one.
	Listening to Carl and Stelios yesterday, I thought of this picture I've seen a lot lately.
	Comparing it to our culture in the West, it's almost like when you try to displace the natives with plants that need fertilizer and toxic chemicals just to survive and be useful.
	I don't know.
	Maybe one can make comparisons to how the West imports people.
	Maybe you could.
	Maybe you'd get arrested.
	Let's get the next one.
	Following my comment on the idle state of Canadian politics and society, it's worth following up with a note on the Canadians themselves.
	Warm-hearted, generous, friendly, humorous, polite to a fault, it's something to wonder that a people so practical, hardy, and unwilling to offend should embrace wokeness at the national scale.
	I think the issue is with a certain jealousy of America, and yet a compulsion to be different from them.
	Canadians are desperate to be seen as the nice North Americans.
	For the most part, the Canadians do come across as pleasant, but they have, since around 2010, Yeah, but when you promote wokeism as compassion, tolerance, and people who don't look too much into this, or at least haven't been exposed to information that we share, have it marketed that way, then they're susceptible to taking on those talking points.
	So, you know, Canadians might be more pliable to being woke, to be polite to It may just also be the proximity to the United States.
	I mean, you've actually got massive crossover.
	You can just go and visit it, it's right there.
	They all live in that one line.
	Or that one dot on the other side that also is right next to the border.
	So, I think it's probably just cultural exchange as well.
	It became like the Yankees, which...
	Take on more of the good things.
	Take the guns.
	Take the freedom.
	Take the frontiersman spirit, considering your country's so sparsely populated.
	You would have thought that they'd be more independent, but... Yeah, what I came to realize about all of this diversity and inclusion in media as well is that it's not about building black culture.
	It's not about celebrating black culture, history, or make something based on gospel or jazz or swing, all the amazing black things of the 40s and 50s.
	It's about hating white people.
	They don't like black people.
	They just hate white people and are so jealous that they have to tear it down.
	And that's why it comes across as so hateful because it is!
	Yeah, it's a David Starkey position.
	I just wanted to chime in as well, considering that Sophie, I know she put a video comment in last week about Guardians of the Galaxy, asking my take.
	I was on the podcast at the time.
	Accidentally based!
	It has a couple of bad songs in it, and Adam Warlock was wasted, but the plot of number three is a black Scientist abuses animals, kind of Anthony Fauci style, to genetically engineer an equitable utopia, and commits genocide and captures children in the process, and he's defeated by a group of straight white guy's friends.
	What did James Gunn mean by this?
	How did that get greenlit?
	Alright.
	It's actually pretty good.
	Don't give Disney your money, but it's pretty good.
	So on the written comments, Baron Von Vorhock says, "When it comes to that woman giving out porn to children, and then feeling scared when the parents find out about your plot, it is truly the groomer cries out in pain as she strikes you." Yeah.
	John, while we're doing the comments, do you mind loading up that photo that I sent you and comparing it to the bikini woman in Callum's last segment?
	Matthew Harshorn says, "I'm pretty sure there was a Matt Walsh segment a few years ago where he said the rate of abuse of children in public schools by teachers was far greater than the Catholic Church, I have not fact checked.
	I know he is Catholic.
	It seems like the agenda has given more public cover for people with those malicious intentions.
	When will we finally get a spotlight focusing on school, public school abuse?
	I mean, I don't know what the statistics are.
	I don't know if he's right or not about that, but...
	Yeah, I got nothing to say because I don't know anything about the numbers.
	Yeah, I don't think we can lose that one.
	There's a lot of things you could lose.
	I don't want to give kids scat porn.
	I think it's a fairly reasonable position.
	constantly give up hills without a fight eventually you will find yourself without any ground to keep keeping porn out of schools is a mission we cannot fail yeah yeah i don't think we can lose that one there's a lot of things you could do i don't want to give kids scat porn i i think it's a fairly reasonable position i mean how unpopular does anyone really think that is oh this this was the comparison i was making earlier to the bikini model woman yeah
	This is often what people look like when they smother themselves in baby oil, tan too dark, and then stand on stage.
	I thought it was fake tan again.
	They usually use beds, to be fair.
	For competitions, they often use beds.
	Either way, she messed up bad.
	Derek Power says, I've said it once and I'll say it a thousand times, Marxist-based writing is boring AF.
	Boring.
	Yeah, that wasn't a fun read for her crappy book as well.
	There's a billion words before I get to my point.
	The meme is true.
	The language is always veiled.
	Let's go to the conservatives are sick to death of liberalism.
	Omar, to anyone who thinks being a housewife is prison or misogynistic, you have to ask, why do you find being with and raising your children a chore?
	Do you not love them?
	Do you honestly think men would rather be a slave to work rather than be a father?
	If you leave your kids in daycare when they're young, you deserve to be shoved in a care home when you're old.
	I am going through all of the daycare data for about a two and a half hour podcast with Josh, releasing very soon.
	It has been edited, we've just got it in the schedule, so keep your eyes peeled on the website for that.
	Things are really bad.
	One of the things I brought up on that show was that there's a meta-analysis of children's blood cortisol rates from when they wake up and whether or not they're kept at home versus stuck in daycare.
	And if they're kept at home, their natural rate of cortisol subsides during the day because they've got close contact with their mother.
	If they are sent to daycare, their cortisol stays at the same level, elevated, and it doesn't just stay at the rate that they were when they were babies, because obviously when you're born it's slightly higher, it stays that way throughout adolescence.
	So that might be one of the reasons why rates of anxiety and difficulty relating to people has been so engendered in our generation.
	Things are really bad.
	Yeah, well, all you've got to do is show us segments like Callum's as well, to the fact that you can't trust some resentful state employee not to ideologically propagandise your kid and sexualise them.
	And also, why would you trust anyone but yourself to raise your kids?
	Frankly, I'm not going to do that.
	Silver.
	What I want to know is what is liberal about our current order.
	They force us to say things and ban what they don't want to hear.
	They force us into our homes and are forcing us into pod cities.
	They enrich and rig the system for elite globalist interests at the cost of local business and rob the local man of their representation.
	Nothing about this is liberal except the aesthetics of having whatever freedom the state permits.
	Yeah, it's Soviet liberalism.
	That's the point.
	It's not the sort of It's not a secular version of Locke.
	It's the promise of an overarching, material, abundant civilization that provides for you, while also saying that any involuntary relation you have is oppressive.
	So it's treated social relations for you to get things as some kind of incursion on your freedom.
	So it's providing you all the material conditions for you to be the most free, while also eliminating the amount of dependency you have on people.
	And all that means is you're some atomized, miserable consumer.
	And so the answer to the excesses of that liberalism is not more liberalism.
	That's the point that they're making, and I think that's pretty good.
	But we are in an abusive relationship with the state, as we see under lockdown.
	Lord Nerevar, as I said yesterday, and I will double down on this, it's nice that the Conservatives in the UK are finally starting to notice how awful the Conservative Party is and want it to change.
	It's too late, they've been like this ever since the Cameron-Clegg days, I'd say Thatcher, and nothing has been changed in grassroots sense since then.
	There is some.
	We're slow, but I know the people.
	Why now, when there's a little over a year to the next general and very limited time to fix the problems we have with our leadership?
	In reality, British Conservatives can kick up as much of a fuss as they want now, but the matter is, the party's unelectable and they'll be squashed under a Labour dictatorship regardless.
	Yeah, we will, which is why we need to make the most of their defeat.
	Because I think it's noble to look at the marginal parties and perhaps try to unite the right.
	But also, the way that British politics works is a game of old institutions and hierarchical power, and if we can persuade them that it is in their interest to listen to us, that might also be a route.
	And that's the route that I'm going down, and we seem to have actually made some inroads within people that have the ear of the parties, including the MPs.
	So, white pill, fellas, white pill.
	On to the stuff for the final segment.
	I was just reading this thing, so I'm talking about the fact that You don't actually need an ever-expanding population either, necessarily.
	I tweeted earlier just some footage of automated farming.
	We have machines, it's okay.
	You don't need ten kids to pick the crops anymore.
	You don't need to import millions of adults to do it.
	If you had children, they'd filter through the system organically and be able to adapt to the rate of house building, the rate of innovation, so you would have that cultural filter system.
	My more fundamental point is that we don't need mass immigration.
	I'm yet to actually meet a single argument that is true as to the reason why you need it.
	The only best argument I've had for keeping legal immigration to a significant number is, well, culture exchange is useful.
	It's true, yeah.
	If you want to call beheadings cultural exchanges.
	I'm talking about the positive cultural exchanges.
	I'm not saying blacklist Pakistan for being Pakistan and Pakistan at the length of rest as usual.
	But yeah, that's the mass migration.
	There is not a single point that's ever true, that's ever argued for it.
	The most recent one from the Biden admin just being, well, who will pick the cotton?
	A machine will pick the cotton.
	It'll be fine.
	We don't need to go back to the plantation.

▲