Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 24, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:24

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #703

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, hi.
	Didn't see you there.
	I was too busy chilling in my casa.
	But I suppose I could spare some time for the podcast of the Loisiers today.
	I'm your host, Connor, joined by Dan.
	Hi, guys.
	We had a transformative experience over the weekend.
	We saw our guy in the Barbie movie, which, and I can't believe I'm saying these words, never thought I'd say that working here.
	Yeah, we're talking about Barbie today, which is going to be kind of strange.
	What else are we talking about again?
	Yeah, some silly topics like Vivek Ramaswamy.
	Vivek?
	You could at least pronounce the guy's name right if you like him.
	The guy needs a nickname, like Vik or something.
	Somebody's going to give him a nickname sooner or later, so he might as well pick one.
	And then Absolute Zero, how they're immiserating us by saying Net Zero is somehow not enough.
	Brilliant.
	Wonderful.
	Without further ado, let's jump into the topics then.
	Why not?
	Yep.
	So, White Women's Black Panther came out.
	Yes, I did steal that joke from a tweet.
	The Barbie movie released, much to my joy, because the theatre was packed with lots of pretty blonde women wearing pink.
	And also us, the lotuses, went and saw it.
	Now, not most of the hosts, it was most of the back team.
	You can see the photo on Twitter, where I'm grimacing because I'm surrounded by baby pink and inflatable sharks.
	But everyone else had a great time, and I had a great time watching it, because the film was an utter disaster.
	But they didn't realize what they made.
	They have no idea that they have made the best propaganda piece for reclaiming masculine vitalism against the matriarchy ever created.
	So I saw it with a slightly different lens because I went to it thinking I'm going to watch this to see is it something I could show my daughters because I've got two daughters in the target age range.
	No.
	So I was looking at the first level dynamics but actually when I saw that you were going to do a segment on it and you've come with this base narrative.
	Yes.
	There is a sort of subtext going on that actually, on a second viewing, I think I could quite get into.
	Oh, it's accidentally?
	Because Ken is kind of our guy, isn't he?
	Ken is, as the Ryan Gosling meme goes, literally me.
	So my editor at The Critic has coined the term, because John Doyle put out a tweet saying he was going to do a Ken video, because he already did neo-Gastonism after Beauty and the Beast.
	We're saying that Beauty and the Beast, Gaston is actually the hero, of course.
	Because if you're in 17th century France, who do you want?
	It's the noble hunter who makes friends with all the men in the village, who palms off the advances of harlots and actually just wants to settle down and give you a lot of sons, and kill the giant werewolf threatening the town.
	Oh, well I got that the first time I watched it.
	Yeah, most people didn't.
	So he nicked Neo-Gastonism, because I would have loved to have made that interpretation, but well done John Doyle.
	And then John Doyle said something about Ken, and I said Neo-Kenonism, and instead my editor at The Critic said, no, Neo-Ken-Cervatism.
	That is the Kennergy we are going with today.
	Ken is our guy, and I've seen lots of conservatives say that the Barbie movie is WOKE!
	It's awful!
	It tries to be, but don't let them get away with their propaganda.
	Because if they screw up and accidentally make something we can claim, we will claim it.
	Don't give an inch.
	So it is definitely trying very, very hard to be woke, but it's made by such incompetence they don't even know what they're talking about.
	Yeah, but they kind of did it accurately to the point where it actually displays all the weaknesses of woke as well.
	Yeah.
	Which I'm sure you're going to get into.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And no transphobia in this segment, Dan, because we want it to go on YouTube, even though the Barbie movie is very transphobic.
	Yeah, actually it is.
	It really, really is, actually.
	Yeah, we'll jump into that.
	Don't worry.
	But first, speaking of relationships which failed and benefited the sane man at the expense of the insane woman, if you subscribe to our website, you'll get articles like this one with a narration track from John Crow.
	This is an article I wrote while I was away in America.
	Lovely.
	And it was on Jonah Hill and why men can't marry mermaids.
	I saw this wonderful painting in the Harvard Art Gallery and thought, well, that's probably how Jonah Hill's feeling this week, considering his ex leaked a bunch of texts that he sent where he was perfectly reasonable and she was like, I want to post nudes on the internet.
	So they broke up.
	And the thing with mermaids is the wrong half is fish.
	That's exactly what I say.
	So try and have a relationship with a beautiful woman that posts herself half naked on social media.
	It's about as sterile as trying to shag a mermaid.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, let's get into the Barbie movie.
	There was some stuff before it released.
	So there was some woke stuff, which is right before the film came out in the trailer.
	And this was in a scene in the film, you know, where Weird Barbie pulls down the map to the real world.
	Right.
	The map on it showed a dividing line in the South China Sea.
	So it shows the nine dash line.
	And that's the Chinese Communist Party saying that they own part of the South China Sea that Vietnam says is just off its coast.
	In 2014, Vietnam nearly got into an armed conflict with China because China plopped an oil rig right off of their coast, and so it's been banned in Vietnam because they're pandering to the Chinese market to try and get the Chinese.
	People did point out that it's really funny that Oppenheimer is not banned in Japan, but this is banned in I also saw plenty of memes, I'm not stealing these, where they said that one of Barbie's first products, also launched in Japan, so did Oppenheimer's.
	And I was just kind of impressed that we've got some blonde white people featuring in a film that's coming out these days.
	Yes, yeah, but it was to denigrate the Kens, and they were very diverse cast members, but the fascinating thing about the Barbie and Ken casting, one, it's totally fine to objectify men at all levels and make them just himbos, and all of the men were fit and in shape.
	Now, there were various degrees of effeminate and masculine, but that was part of the parody, whereas all of the Barbies You were allowed to be as grotesquely obese, dysgenic, and mutilated as you liked.
	So the Barbies were very egalitarian in Life is Plastic, but all the Kens had to be shredded chads.
	That's also true.
	Physiognomy bears out, it turns out.
	So, speaking of woke, these are the people behind it.
	Greta Gerwig was the director.
	Greta Gerwig did Little Women and Lady Bird.
	So, I didn't know who directed it, but it was very clear watching it that it was directed by a childless Californian obese woman.
	No.
	So, she is skinny, she is married to another California director, the guy that did Marriage Story, and she does have two kids.
	Wow.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	She's also directing this, this new Snow White film.
	Have you seen Snow White's New Dwarves?
	Is that one where Terry Crews is Snow White?
	Um, you're not far off, actually.
	Right.
	So these are the Dwarves.
	Well, only one of them's a Dwarf.
	Yes, do you know why?
	Peter Dinklage from Game of Thrones, you know, he said it's really Dwarf-phobic to cast Dwarves as the Seven Dwarves, even though he's made an entire career of multiple millions of dollars playing a Dwarf.
	Wait, he's pulling the ladder up behind him?
	It's a very short ladder.
	But yes, he is.
	These are the dwarves.
	Again, audio listeners, we've just been confusing the audio listeners for this entire podcast, I'm sure.
	You wouldn't have understood the intro if you're an audio listener.
	But we have three black people, two male and one female.
	One dwarf who might only have one arm, judging by the photo.
	Jesus is in the back.
	And then two white men.
	So there's three white men, four white men if you count one of the dwarves, that's taken a job away from six dwarves.
	white, not great.
	That's not Snow White.
	That's her stunt double.
	But the real Snow White doesn't look far off.
	It's Rachel Zegler and Rachel Zegler's a Hispanic woman.
	So...
	The whole thing with Snow White is like white?
	Yes.
	Skin as white as Snow.
	Snow, not quite white.
	I mean, you probably shouldn't make skin complexions to dirt or anything comparisons because that would be very racist.
	You shouldn't do that.
	So we'll skip over that bit.
	But it is the character.
	But okay, fine.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So it's been written by Greta Gerwig and it will not feature Prince Charming and instead focus on a stronger Snow White who dreams of becoming a leader.
	And she says that people are making jokes about Oz being the PC Snow White.
	It is because it needed that.
	Now that's Rachel Zegler who gave an interview about Snow White with the woman playing the Evil Queen.
	You know the Evil Queen that's really jealous of Snow White's youth and looks?
	Yes.
	Would you like to see what Snow White and then the Evil Queen look like?
	Yeah, go on then.
	What, seriously?
	Yes.
	So Gal Gadot is playing the Evil Queen who's jealous of mid-white.
	She's much, much hotter.
	Yes.
	So in this, Rachel Ziegler says, it's not 1937, Snow White's not going to be saved by the prince, and she's not going to be dreaming about true love.
	She's dreaming about becoming the leader she knows she can be, like her late mother.
	So it's all about power and domination, not gender complementarity, not wholesome family values.
	And that's just like Barbie.
	So Greta Gerwig has a track record here.
	Not going to be how she plans it out.
	There was also more pre-release discourse.
	Speaking of mid, are you aware of this that happened recently?
	So, this is an Anon account I quite enjoy following.
	I must disavow all of his takes, including this one, where he said that Margot Robbie's a hard 7.
	You used to find a Margot Robbie in every Blockbuster video in 1995.
	Well, I used to go to Blockbuster videos in 1995.
	Not Margot Robbie?
	No.
	No, no, no.
	This got 31.8 million views on a single tweet.
	And it got to the point of where, at the Turning Point Action Conference, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz got up and said, let me just be clear, Margot Robbie is not near the 10 is a 10, whether it's common core math or not.
	Sitting Congressman is commenting on Twitter anons rating Margot Robbie's level of attractiveness.
	I love where politics has got to.
	He was just a troll in the first place.
	Oh, yeah, I mean, he's doubled down on it.
	Because have you seen those memes recently?
	It's mainly featuring Zendaya or that Zegler woman that's playing Snow White, where this is who Hollywood wants us to think is a model versus like random cashier and she's smoking.
	But Margot Robbie doesn't really fit.
	That category.
	I mean, literally, in the Barbie film, they say, when Margot Robbie's saying, I'm not pretty anymore, Helen Mirren's narration cuts in and says, note to the directors, casting Margot Robbie in this role may not have been the person to make this point that you would hope.
	To be fair, Margot Robbie in, whatever it is, the big short was... Wolf of Wall Street.
	Yes.
	Yes, you're thinking, we can't show that scene.
	I'm sorry.
	It's out there.
	Enjoy.
	Yeah, anyway, you creepy old perv.
	It turns out that Matt Gaetz and his wife are actually big Barbie fans, and so they went to, this is an Aspen Ideas Festival party thing, it wasn't actually the premiere, but they decided to dress up in a Barbie theme, because it was Barbie themed, because it coincided, and this is where I'm going to start complaining that the Conservatives take on this.
	I mean, Lauren Chen, friend of the show, she did a video where it said it's woke feminist messaging, and that's definitely how they try to do it, right?
	Matt Gaetz's wife says that disappointingly low testosterone from Ken and then Ben Shapiro did a 43 minute interview where he destroys Barbie by being a grown man that torches Barbie toys.
	I mean I understand Ben's having a little bit of fun, he's playing into the character and he's right on some of his criticisms here but I think all of the conservative influencers that have commented on this film have missed the point.
	Because yes, that's what the movie was going for.
	The movie was trying to denigrate men.
	This is the take you got, right?
	That it was just disparaging men endlessly.
	Well, that is the surface level take.
	I mean, there was bits of it that I started to think, actually, that's really quite funny if you looked at it from a different perspective.
	It's quite funny because the normie women that I know went to see it hated the film.
	They were like, I'm not going to rewatch it.
	Oh, it makes women look...
	Just pathetic.
	But the story's incoherent unless you're playing into the online discourse they're trying to satirize.
	But they satirize it so poorly they actually are pro our side, which is we don't hate men and chads rise up.
	Yeah, I mean there's definitely bits of this.
	Are you going to get into the whole kind of story?
	Yeah, we may as well break down.
	I do have some comments on that.
	Yeah, we'll spend quite a lot of time on that.
	Just a bit more preamble.
	There was a kind of sign that things weren't going as the filmmakers intended in an interview with Greta Gerwig for Rolling Stone.
	And in this she explains that one of the scenes that you first see when Barbie and Ken enter the real world, you know when they're rollerblading along Venice Beach?
	Oh yes.
	Barbie is beset by sexism from police officers, from instruction workers, from volleyball players.
	They were filming that scene to say that the world of men, the patriarchy that really exists, is constantly assaulting women with sexism and compliments that have, quote, an undertone of violence from all sides.
	The funny thing is, when they filmed this, it didn't play out that way.
	So this is a quote from Greta Gerwig.
	When we were actually shooting on Venice Beach with Margot and Ryan in neon rollerblading outfits, it was fascinating because it was actually happening in front of us.
	People would go to Ryan, high-five him and say, awesome Ryan, you look great.
	And they wouldn't actually say anything to Margot Robbie.
	They'd just look at her.
	It was surreal.
	In that moment, she felt self-conscious.
	As the director, I wanted to protect her.
	Right, so it's sexism if Margot Robbie does and doesn't get compliments, but everyone's walking up to Ryan Gosling going, yeah, bro, literally me.
	And he loves it.
	And he loves it.
	And he was humble enough to interact with everyone as well.
	But Greta Gerwig saying, oh, Margot Robbie's not getting the compliments she deserves.
	Well, I have to shield her.
	But as Barbie, if she's getting hit on, oh, this is patriarchy.
	We must institute the matriarchy instantly.
	These people's brains are broken with contradictions.
	And organically, people are playing out and conveying their...
	Because they only have a single lens to view absolutely everything, whether it fits or not.
	Yeah, it's about paradigmatic female oppression.
	Yes, that's what I...
	If I don't get my daily need of online or in-person validation, I will cry about it.
	If I get the validation I don't want, it's literally sexual harassment.
	Yes.
	So this is just a sign that they made this movie with an intention and it wasn't quite what they thought.
	The other sign that it wasn't quite what they thought is, you know the Oppenheimer Barbie discourse?
	People have been doubling up some screenings.
	Are you watching Oppenheimer by any chance?
	I'm sure, I'm sure I will.
	Right, so I'm not a Chris Nolan fan.
	I don't really like any of his films.
	So I'm not bothering.
	So I'm doing the Chad movie and only seeing Barbie.
	So is everyone in MAGA country.
	I'm not joking.
	If you look at the Google Trends by state, Barbie is trending in red states, whereas Oppenheimer is trending in blue states.
	This is incredible.
	It really is.
	I think it's because this might be the old phrase that Liberals read, Conservatives watch TV.
	So Conservatives in red states are just going for the normie culture thing.
	They don't realise it's subversive.
	Then actually they're going and seeing it and will probably identify harder with Ryan Gosling, whereas everyone that wants to look pretentious is going to go see Oppenheimer for three hours.
	Yeah, I haven't read a book on Oppenheimer.
	I mean, he's an interesting fellow.
	Yeah.
	But it's a Chris Nolan film.
	It's apparently long and overindulgent.
	Though I might see it because Florence Pugh gets a feel for it.
	I very much get the impression it's going to be one of those films that I admire more than I like.
	Yeah, okay.
	Yep, I agree.
	Barbie, I liked far more than I would ever possibly admire.
	Yes.
	For all the wrong reasons.
	Oh yeah.
	Barbie was kind of fun, I will give it that.
	I thought it was profoundly unfunny when they tried to be funny, and then it was hilarious for all the wrong reasons.
	Yes.
	So I'm just going to pull up the trailer and let it sit on in the background and play without sound because I just want to talk about the plot because this is such a surreal moment because the film opens and they give this whole spiel about how Barbie has inspired a generation of women.
	They literally say in the in the narration, all the problems of feminism were solved by Barbie.
	Barbie can be anything and all of the other Barbies other than stereotypical Barbie, who's the one that has the Well, not midlife crisis.
	I would say approaching the wall and not being able to have children crisis.
	That seems to be what it's getting at.
	Yeah, actually that fits.
	Yes, considering she's getting cellulite and she goes to the gynecologist at the end of the film and she's inspired by a mother and the whole press to have the normal Barbie is, can we just have a Barbie that's just a mum?
	That will sell, right?
	And the only person that's ostracized of all the Barbies is the one Barbie that got discontinued, which was pregnant all the time.
	And they say it's weird, but then it comes off like, well, motherhood is denigrated in the permanent youth.
	So 90% of this film is really anti-mother.
	Yeah.
	And then the last bit is that's what she picks.
	Exactly.
	Because there's a whole montage sung over by my wife, Billie Eilish, of home video footage of women being mothers.
	Yes.
	And then she goes straight to the gynecologist.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So she's having an existential crisis about the fact that she can't have children.
	So she's living in a feminist utopia, and when she actually gets the choice, she goes and lives in the patriarchy.
	Yes.
	And becomes a mother.
	Yeah.
	And it's biologically essentialist as well, because what does she need to become a real woman?
	She needs something that involves her going to the gynecologist.
	Yes.
	Which is kind of transphobic.
	She needs the essential plumbing.
	It's very transphobic.
	How dare you?
	Especially considering they had a trans Barbie, and the trans Barbie was the doctor.
	Right.
	Good point.
	Yeah, very interesting.
	But anyway, during this montage, we see that they have a black female president who is oppressing all of the Kens.
	Oh, yeah.
	The Kens are incredibly badly treated.
	Yeah, yeah.
	They're the lumpenproletariat.
	So all the Kens, they're basically homeless and they just have to look good and they're just there to sate the desires of the Barbies.
	They literally just live on the beach or on the streets.
	Yeah, to validate the Barbies without ever having any hope of intimacy, because they're ultimately sterile.
	And they're all aware that they don't have genitals, but they all desperately want them, because they feel very embarrassed by it.
	And as soon as Ken goes to the real world, somebody just says hi to him and asks him for the time, and he can't believe that somebody's spoken to him and engaged him as a human being.
	And the important thing about that as well is that he's offering a woman the time.
	So that is, he is serving a functional purpose to a woman.
	He's not dominating her, he is needed for an earnest reason.
	And the fascinating thing is as well, and again, if you guys haven't seen this, we're just spoiling the whole film because I don't actually advise you go out and pay to see it, but it's still hilarious so when it comes out in streaming it's probably well worth it.
	This, the spoilers, you will not believe what we're saying, but this is word for word exactly what happens.
	When they go to the real world, there is a montage where Ken looks at horses, various American presidents, men's faces on the dollar, men high-fiving in sports teams, Sylvester Stallone in mink coats, and he suddenly realizes that patriarchy is awesome.
	Now, it's not patriarchy in the way they think it's patriarchy, because when he goes to talk to the soy jack that's selling cars... So that bit is going to get memed to hell, I'm sure.
	Oh, there's going to be so many little Dark Age montages.
	When he goes to talk to the guy, the guy says, oh, you need all these credentials.
	And the guy says, oh, we're still doing patriarchy, we're just doing it more covertly.
	But they never actually provide any examples of it, because when he goes to try and get a job, the female nurse just turns him away, going, you aren't sufficiently qualified.
	But when he comes back and says, well, maybe men should be in charge of Barbie land, the Barbies, who are super educated, are suddenly somehow spelled out.
	Well, that's the thing.
	So when they go back to the Barbie land and the Kens take over... In all of five minutes, by the way!
	Yeah, so it goes to show how brittle and fragile the feminist utopia was.
	But what do the Kens do?
	Well, they start life-bonding with the Barbies.
	Yeah.
	And they start providing useful functions.
	They start doing jobs.
	They start, you know, taking their Barbie to the beach and playing guitar for her or watching a movie with her.
	They start basically pair bonding.
	They start falling in love.
	Yeah.
	And they start providing, you know, value to their community.
	Yeah.
	And they stop competing with each other and stop hating each other all the time.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Because then Simu Liu and Ryan Gosling's Kens become best bros.
	Yes.
	And then they go to war only because the Barbies deliberately so discord by cheating on them.
	Yes.
	And there's a line where it says, and right when they think they're most powerful, you take it all away.
	And it's like, right.
	So you use sex and lies to turn men against each other, to erect a matriarchy.
	Because, especially the world that Kens created, they were doing, they were basically providing the, the, the 1950s role, They were doing all the work, and providing lifetime partnerships to the Barbies, and the Barbies were all perfectly content and happy with this, until they literally grab a Barbie, throw her in the back of a van, and subject her to a brainwashing session.
	A feminist struggle consciousness raising session.
	Where they give the Barbie the contradictions of the real world, for which the Barbie should have absolutely no frame of reference, because if the patriarchy was really non-existent, the matriarchy was perfect in Barbieland, why would they have the contradictions of being a woman out in patriarchy?
	Yes, and then use that psychological brainwashing to convince the Barbies to cheat on their Ken, to make the Kens hate each other so that the whole thing collapses.
	Yeah, so that while the election is happening, Oh yeah, the Kens are meant to be changing the constitution.
	The Kens are too busy infighting, so the Barbies just go in and flood the ballot box.
	Fortify.
	They go and fortify the election.
	Against the wishes of the newly appointed Supreme Court and all of that.
	Yes.
	Which is madness.
	Yeah, yeah, alright John, okay.
	Yeah, so it's mental.
	Just unbelievable stuff.
	So, that was also the other thing, is when Barbie goes to the real world, she realises she's created an entire generation of women who hate her.
	And even though all the other Barbies exist, where they've got all of these roles, she's still the most prominent one, and she's created a generation of insufferable teenagers who literally call her the embodiment of sexualised capitalism, rampant consumerism, and a fascist.
	Yeah.
	So, feminism does not make women as happy as they think it does.
	And the whole reason, that mother was screaming at Barbie towards the end, when Barbie was sitting there going, I'm no longer pretty, I'm useless, the Kens have taken over.
	She was complaining about all of the contradictions, how you're meant to be, you're meant to stand out, but not go against the sisterhood, how you're meant to work, but you're meant to be a mum.
	And it's like, right.
	But that's all problems of feminism.
	You don't lay at the feet of feminism.
	Whereas all the Barbies, until you tell them about the problems feminism created, are happy in Ken world.
	Yeah, so this is the thing.
	So the surface level analysis of this is the entire film is constructed to say that the interests of men are incompatible with the interests of women and vice versa.
	And therefore there can never be harmony between the two.
	It has to be this conflict and struggle.
	So you start the movie with the Barbies on top completely suppressing the men.
	Even though when it flips the other way, the men basically just become husbands and providers.
	And both sexes are happy.
	Yeah, and both sexes are happy.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So the first time I watched it, my impression was like, I don't want to take my girls to see this because it is putting out this worldview that women and men cannot be happy at the same time.
	Yes.
	unless men are in charge, in which case men and women can be happy at the same time.
	So, or, um, yeah, but I'm not sure they would get that at sort of nine, especially not with all the swearing in it as well.
	There's a needless amount of gratuitous gay jokes and yeah.
	And, and yeah, wrapping with yeah.
	Over the, over the end.
	The interesting thing as well is that even the narrator recognizes the Ken's need a civil rights movement when the matriarchy is reinstantiated, because when the Ken's petition for a position on the Supreme Court, the female president goes, maybe a lower appellate court, we'll see.
	And the narrator chimes in and says, as you can see, there's still a long way to go until the Ken's get the same amount of power that women have in the real world.
	Now, I don't think they understand how that line sounds.
	But there are women on the Supreme Court.
	That's exactly the point.
	This country's had like three women Prime Ministers at this point.
	There's currently three on the Supreme Court in the States, and so this is why that line doesn't come off as I think they mean it sounds, because it sounds like it's acknowledging that the Kens don't have anywhere near the level of influence that women do in our world, in their world, so we need a Ken civil rights movement.
	Yes.
	That's how the film ends.
	Well, Ken's and their world don't even have homes.
	No.
	They're all homeless.
	No.
	Until the Kens take over, they take over the houses, and then in the real world the reflection is the Ken houses sell better to boys and girls.
	So they're also more profitable, more beloved, and Barbie world is happier.
	Yes.
	What were they thinking?
	They thought this was bad?
	Yeah, this is going to be like one of those films like Starship Troopers.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Go and see Cole's old video on Starship Troopers if you don't understand.
	I watched Starship Troopers at the time and thought, oh, this is fantastic.
	And it was only like 10 years later I read an article that explained that it was actually meant to Be the opposite of what I thought it was.
	Well, Robert Heinlein wrote the book as the kind of libertarian sci-fi utopia.
	Then Paul Verhoeven didn't read the book but wanted to make the film as a parody of fascism.
	So he dressed up all of the libertarian utopia in the fascist uniforms.
	So he gave it the paraphernalia but none of the moral content.
	And then he was like, well, obviously the humans are evil, but no, the bugs attacked first, they committed genocide, and the humans are just defending themselves.
	Yeah, I've heard the book is different, but the film was just like, this is based plus cool uniforms.
	Yeah, but the film is, the humans are under existential threat from the bugs, he launched an unprovoked attack and killed Rico's entire family.
	And so yeah, he signs up.
	It's like, and they're bad?
	Yeah.
	The same with Barbie.
	It's like the Kens are a lobotomized surf class that only exists as emotional validation cattle for the vapid Barbies who will never allow them to stay the night.
	And they also have no frame of reference for sex, yet make all these sex jokes.
	Bad writing.
	And then the moment the Kens ascend and show some competency, other than the one joke you put in there about building a wall vertically because you wanted to take a shot at Trump, the women are happier.
	Even the president is happier serving beers to her boyfriend on a beach.
	Things are working better.
	In the real world, it's more profitable.
	And the only person that comes in and destroys it are, one, Weird Barbie, who got played with too hard, who wrote the film, by the way, and is a lesbian that gives Barbie the Birkenstocks.
	And, actual Barbie, who's a vapid narcissist, who falls over and cries because her boyfriend dumps her because she didn't recognize him, and then said, the entire world must change around me, and still isn't happy when Barbie society gets fixed the way she wants it.
	So then she abandons it, stops being Barbie, and goes and be's a mum.
	Yes, that's the thing, isn't it?
	So you've got this feminist utopia and Ken sees the real world and starts to recognize that actually men have value.
	So he goes back and he basically reconstructs society overnight.
	Everybody's happier.
	He actually does something and then all the Kens, they start doing stuff, right?
	But then Barbie comes back, like you say, and she just collapses on the floor and basically bangs her fists up and down and says, somebody fix this for me.
	And then, the other thing as well, the Kens, despite calling it patriarchy, aren't dominating the women.
	No.
	They're just helping them.
	Like, they pathologise it, saying, a woman comes and sits down next to a guy and says, I've never seen the Godfather, can you explain it?
	He's so eager to share an experience with her.
	Or your analogue character in the 10-gallon hat giving her investment advice, you know.
	But the point is that they are very obviously happy.
	The Barbies are glowing at this point.
	They're perfectly content.
	And they gave them the right to vote.
	It's not like they came in and took the government by force.
	They just convinced them to do this and then they said in two weeks time we'll vote.
	Vote.
	Not a fascist takeover.
	They gave them the option.
	And they had to stop the Kens from going to the polls to re-erect them.
	So they actually achieved a democracy.
	Yes.
	An equal democracy.
	With gender complementarity.
	Yes.
	And then the feminists arrived and immediately instituted a fascist takeover.
	Yes.
	And then didn't allow the Kens to represent the election.
	By fortifying the election.
	Exactly.
	Yeah.
	And then the ending... In fact, they used sluttery to distract the Kens long enough to go and fortify the election.
	And their beta male orbiter as well, because remember Alan?
	Yes.
	There's only one of him.
	And he is the enabler.
	And then at the end, he's crying because he sees Ken crying, because actually he just wanted to sleep with Ken the whole time.
	I must have phased out by that point.
	Yeah, I don't blame you.
	But then the ending for Ken, and this is the subversive part of the film, is that men and women have to exist apart.
	Either men are subordinate to women and really emotional, or Ken can go off and find himself without Barbie.
	Now, that is obviously meant to be, well, men need feminism and men need to come back and realize that patriarchy is wrong and then they might be worthy of acceptance.
	And sometimes a woman might not just choose you and it's okay.
	No, no, no.
	Ken had a lucky break, my friend, because that was the worst Barbie out of the lot.
	She's gone.
	She's gone off to the real world.
	He understands how the government and how society should work, so he deserves a better goal.
	Ken is our guy.
	And he had the best musical number in the whole thing.
	Easily!
	Like, I don't know if you've seen the edit yet, but there is currently an edit of Patrick Bateman walking into the office with, you know, walking on Sunshine Plains, but instead it's the I Am Ken and I'm Enough song.
	It's just, it's gold.
	Like, they don't know what film they made.
	Not even the slightest.
	Yeah, because it is, they have unintentionally created an advert for patriarchy.
	Yes, they've created, and I saw someone make this as a meme, but I wanted to explain its concept.
	Are you familiar with what the Longhouse is?
	I think I am, actually.
	So for those who aren't, it's an analogy that comes from a gay Romanian Anon author called Bronze Age Perver, and his analogy imbibes some proto-feminist anthropology.
	The longhouse didn't really exist, but he's taken a feminist idea that there were Nordic longhouses where men and women were sat on the floor and dictated to infants from the den mother.
	And he said, this is all a civilization where your behavior is controlled.
	There's no room for violence and you have to constantly comply.
	Otherwise you don't get fed.
	So for those listening, we're displaying a picture of literally a long Nordic house.
	So it's a sort of large sort of great hall, but it's very long.
	Obviously, therefore the name Longhouse.
	My understanding is that basically everybody lived in it.
	It was not divided into rooms.
	So it was all open.
	So it was subject to Um, constant oversight, surveillance and monitoring.
	Yes.
	Which led to a society which became organized, long, basically, um, feminine values.
	Yeah.
	The smothering mother.
	Smothering mother.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah.
	So, so it was essentially an attempt to snuff out all male vital energy.
	Yes.
	How is that not Barbie land?
	Yes, that is.
	And so Barbie unintentionally gave us the tragedy of coming so close to the fall of the longhouse with gender parity for complementarity and well-being while also being somewhat still free.
	Yes.
	And sex and lies ruined it.
	So this is, I mean, this is the sort of the tragedy the Barbie.
	So because of course only one Barbie has actually ever seen anything outside of it.
	Yeah.
	So, so she, I mean, she, she just accepts the world that she's in at the beginning.
	Then she sees the real world.
	Then she goes back and discovers that actually now all the Barbies are kins of pair bonding and, and there's, there's now gender equality.
	Yeah.
	She hates it because she sort of programmed to hate it.
	And that weird, um, psycho in the hills.
	Weird Barbie.
	Yeah, yeah.
	She says, OK, well, we need to brainwash people until we get back to our sort of fascist state before.
	And as soon as Barbie achieves it, she realizes, oh, what have I done?
	Get me out of here and goes to live in a world run by men again.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Well, at one point they literally say you're either weird or you're ugly.
	There's no in between.
	And it's like, right.
	So you're either a miserable, matriarchal lesbian that oppresses men.
	Yes.
	or, sorry, no, you're brainwashed or you're ugly.
	That was it.
	So, or you're brainwashed by the patriarchy and what, happy with a husband?
	Right, okay.
	I know which one I prefer.
	So I totally get what you're saying.
	I don't think anyone should take their young daughters to see this.
	No.
	Because the bits we're discussing, because you got the bit right at the end which basically shows, you know, what I just said, which is she wants to get out of this.
	Yes.
	And you get the unintentional deconstruction of feminism and it's an advert for patriarchy.
	Yeah.
	But the main part of the movie, the biggest part of the movie, and the most simplistic messaging, the bit that children would pick up on, is that women and men cannot live together unless one of them is in charge and dominating the other one.
	Yes.
	So, for God's sakes, don't take children to see this.
	No.
	This is the weird thing.
	Who is it marketed for?
	Because it's obviously marketed at weird, arrested development adults and feminists, but the whole marketing campaign was very kid-friendly?
	Yes.
	Yeah, it's not a kid's movie, is it?
	No, it's not.
	It's just not.
	They say Mother F on it, don't they?
	It's 12A, so you can take kids to it, but it's obviously not made for kids.
	It's made for Greta Gerwig and the weird lesbian woman, Kate McKinnon, who plays Weird Bob.
	As you're pointing out, it's actually made for Republicans because they're the ones going to see it and they're finding it hilarious.
	It's made for us.
	It's literally like Ryan Gosling's Our Guy.
	It is the tragic fall of a hero who almost ended the reign of Longhouse.
	Yes, it is a tragedy, isn't it?
	I'll wrap this segment up by basically saying it's akin to American Psycho or Starship Troopers.
	Don't let the left have this.
	Gloat.
	Because it's our film.
	Enjoy.
	Cool.
	Shall we talk about... let's talk about Vivek.
	Vivek?
	He gets particular about that.
	Vivek Ramaswamy.
	He should just have a bloody... he should have a nickname.
	Let's call him Vick or something.
	Because he's got a complicated name, but I think he's actually an interesting character.
	Yeah, he was on Timcast the day after me, so I'm gutted I didn't get to meet him.
	I know people in our circles, they're all about Trump, aren't they?
	Let's just put it back to Trump.
	Um, I like Trump a lot.
	I completely get why people are behind the whole Trump thing, but, uh, and he did do something remarkable.
	I mean, he did break effectively the fourth wall.
	We see the globalists, we see the media, we see the elite class for what they really are now.
	The emperor has no clothes.
	Yes.
	And Trump did that for us.
	So I unironically believe he should be on Mount Rushmore.
	Because it would just annoy the libs even further.
	But he did a genuine service.
	He did the embassy closing, like you say.
	But he also has very big failures.
	Yeah.
	Pointing Anthony Fauci, stimulus spending on the Well, he's still very much pro the, you know, the thing in the arm.
	Yeah.
	Even now.
	Allying with Lindsey Graham, appointing Jared Kushner.
	Well, that's the other thing.
	He's got an awful friend-enemy radar.
	So, yeah, like you say, pro-Kushner, but he fired Steve Bannon.
	Yeah.
	Well, actually, he reunited with him recently at the Sound of Freedom screening.
	Oh, good.
	And because of that screening, he said he wants to give the death penalty to child traffickers.
	Based.
	That is good, but he did boot out Bannon and bring in people like, oh, the bloody moustache man.
	John Bolton.
	Yes.
	So his idea of friend and enemy distinction is basically who's sucking up to him at the time rather than telling him the hard truth.
	So I don't like that at all.
	And also he hung people out to dry like Michael Flynn.
	And there's not just Michael Flynn.
	He's the most prominent example, but there was a whole bunch of people.
	The January 6th protesters who he could have pardoned before he left, but instead he went with Kodak Black and doubled down on criminal justice reform with Kim Kardashian.
	But like, if Trump... I mean, this wouldn't happen, but if Trump offered me a job, I would just say no, because I know that the establishment would come after me, and then they would tie me up, and I would basically lose everything in legal fees, and he wouldn't lift a finger to help.
	And it wasn't just Flynn, it was a whole bunch of people who he let down.
	And the other thing is, you know, he wraps himself in the rainbow flag.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I don't like that.
	And he constantly deferred to the left, and he let them slow him down massively.
	So it's like, oh, you want an inquiry into this?
	Okay, well, let's spend like...
	40% of my time engaging with your bloody inquiry into your made-up nonsense.
	So he didn't send in the Federal Guard to crack down on the George Floyd riots.
	He's got a lot of boomer assumptions because he gets all of his news from the TV, even though he's getting it from Fox News.
	It's still TV.
	Well, it's Fox News.
	It's just containment.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And bear in mind, I actually really like Trump.
	I just have major criticisms of his first term.
	Yeah, so, exactly.
	So I'm on board with all of that.
	If Trump is elected, if Trump is a nominee next time round, I'll be extremely happy, even though I think that the FBI will basically just take over the count.
	Well, he is hoping to do Schedule F and get rid of them all, but that's if he wins the most safe and secure election of all time the second time round.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So, I have concerns about that.
	So that's why I've been thinking more broadly about this.
	There's DeSantis, of course.
	No.
	No.
	Just a flat no.
	No.
	I've only ever seen him in the TV soundbite format.
	No, okay.
	So, signed a hate speech bill which applies to Florida citizens while in Israel.
	Uh, recently has made lots of blunders with AI deepfakes of Trump hugging Anthony Fauci and falsifying his voice and not acknowledge their deepfakes.
	And also has done campaign ads recently, which one of them was very funny, but it's terminally online.
	The most recent one had the black sun and Ukrainian soldiers marching at the end to an image of DeSantis.
	Oh.
	Yeah.
	So he's committing campaign suicide and I don't trust that his giant war chest from the establishment isn't going to compromise him on foreign policy.
	Yeah, okay.
	I haven't seen enough from DeSantis yet to really know how the guy thinks because he's just doing the TV stuff and you can't tell what people are like from the soundbites.
	I've been getting drawn to these more... Marginal?
	Marginal candidates, yeah.
	Vivek is now third place and he's nearing DeSantis' major loss.
	Well, I did a segment previously on ROK and I really like him, even though he's a Democrat, right?
	Yeah, I do.
	Pro-choice, anti-nuclear, gun-grabbing... But, I'll tell you, the pitch for RFK is, you know, you can simplify... I mean, what are the three branches of government in the United States?
	It's Pfizer, BlackRock, and Raytheon, right?
	And RFK wants to basically, even though he doesn't go after BlackRock, which I would love, that's my thing, he wants to smash the regulatory strait, which takes out Pfizer, and he wants to go after the military-industrial complex to close down the CIA, which takes out Raytheon.
	Yes.
	Now, even though of all of those things that you mentioned, if he were to take out those two pillars, the regulatory state and the military-industrial complex, that is worth a huge amount.
	I agree.
	And also, the thing I really like about RFK is because he's a more marginal candidate, he goes on the long-form discussions, and you find out what the man really thinks about stuff, rather than this boomer TV soundbite thing, which I just hate.
	Well, Trump isn't even doing the debates this time around.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Whereas Vivek is going on shows like Tim Pool's multiple times and giving long-form interviews, he needs to go on Rogan as well.
	I'm sure he's probably been invited.
	Exactly, yeah.
	So, I mean, if DeSantis or Trump, I would love to see DeSantis or Trump go on, or even Biden go on a long-form discussion like Rogan.
	I think DeSantis did one with Ben Shapiro, but then that's not saying much.
	Right, okay.
	That's probably why I didn't notice that one.
	While we're talking about Trump, we ought to mention this from the website, which is a Comics Corner on superheroes by Connor.
	What do you talk about on that one?
	So this is the first part of a two-part, so the second part should be coming out this next month.
	This is just the entire history of the American comics industry, including how it was probably funded by the Mafia.
	I didn't know that.
	But that is propaganda too.
	I didn't know that.
	But let's try and get into the head of this man and see what he thinks.
	Let's go to the first clip.
	We have to end this war.
	We can end this war and start prioritising the interests of actual US citizens here at home.
	So I think...
	Judging by the response you just got, I think a chunk of, I don't know what percentage, but a lot of Republican private voters agree with you.
	Not all, but a lot.
	I don't think any Republican donors agree with you.
	I think that's accurate.
	And I've lost, to be really honest with you, I've lost many large donors, or prospective donors, over this issue.
	And it puzzles me.
	Because I think the tempting thing to say is to have some conspiratorial explanation that they have money at stake in government contractors, Raytheon, or whatever.
	I don't think that's true, actually.
	I think there's something else going on in the psychology of an establishment, in both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, that is reluctant to the idea that we somehow can't be the ones fighting the war that's the popular war of the day, the politically correct war.
	I think there's no such thing as a politically correct war.
	And so what I ask is, how are we actually going to end this conflict in a way that advances U.S.
	interests?
	So this is the smart bit.
	And the thing that puzzles me, Chuck, is nobody in either party is talking about this right now.
	The Russia-China alliance is the single greatest threat that the U.S.
	actually faces today.
	And we are pushing Russia closer into China's arms by actually continuing to arm Ukraine.
	So, what I've said is that I would negotiate a deal that ends the Ukraine war, frees the current lines of control.
	Yes, that means giving part of the Donbas region to Russia.
	I would make a hard commitment that NATO never admits Ukraine to NATO.
	And those seem like unspeakable words in the, certainly Republican donor class.
	But we get something greater in return, which is that Putin, in that case, would have to exit his military partnership with China and remove nuclear weapons from Kaliningrad, which border Poland, and get the Russian military out of Cuba and Venezuela and the West.
	And this is a deal that Putin should do because he ends up winning, he gets things that he doesn't have today, but it secures American interests too.
	So this one is important for me because obviously this war was stupid.
	It was ginned up by the US.
	They sort of pushed them into it and it's a complete disaster.
	People are just getting butchered.
	It is bloody horrible.
	That war absolutely needs to end.
	Trump has said he's going to do a deal and end it but he's quite smart because what he's recognised is that deal is achievable.
	Putin would want to go for it and it advances US interests in the same time.
	Because this is the absolutely crazy thing about the Biden regime is they've basically looked at their geopolitical rivals and each of their geopolitical rivals, China, Russia, and say India.
	And Iran.
	Yeah, well, yeah, to the extent they're rivaled.
	But none of those are really a US beater by themselves.
	China has horrendous demographics.
	I mean, they were a country that on their way to two billion, and they're going to get to like 700 million at some point in the next decade because their one-child policy.
	So they've got horrendous demographics, but they've got lots of capital, they've got lots of know-how, they've got lots of manufacturing capabilities.
	And raw assets all across Africa.
	Yeah, yes.
	Russia has got superb commodity base and energy.
	Demographics are not that great.
	But they're slightly rebounding because of certain policies.
	Yep, they've got fantastic agricultural reserves behind them, especially they end up with the Donbass as well.
	And then India completes that loop because they've got the demographics.
	They're going sub-replacement that you can still move people around.
	The whole monsoon region, they've got superb demographics.
	I mean, I think the average age in India is something like 28.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	So if you take those three countries and you smooch them into one Eurasian ally, you've got a US beta there.
	Yes.
	And the insanity of the Biden policy is basically trying to force these guys together.
	Yeah, they're a matchmaker.
	Yeah.
	And he recognizes that and he's trying to undo it.
	So this is the first really big tick for me because he's at least as smart as I am, probably smarter, and that is my entry level for somebody who should be US President.
	He's a long time thinker.
	Yes.
	So he can think, he can recognise the US advantage and take it.
	So that was the first one that I really liked.
	Let's go to the next one where he talks about Taiwan, because this was at first jarring, but actually quite refreshing.
	Let's listen.
	You wouldn't defend Ukraine.
	Would you have America and the Allies defend Taiwan if it was invaded?
	I would, at least until the US has achieved semiconductor independence.
	So you wouldn't defend Taiwan?
	Because we depend on them for our modern way of life in a way that we don't on Ukraine.
	And the latter part of this sounds a little crass to some people, but I believe in being honest.
	I actually think that... Yeah, I'll get to this point in a second, but to answer your question, Yes, until we've achieved semiconductor independence.
	I believe we can achieve semiconductor independence.
	Right.
	So, yeah, I mean, it is crass, and it is blunt.
	I will defend Taiwan until we don't need their semiconductors anymore.
	But it's just bloody honest, to be fair.
	I mean, when Bush went into Iraq, he didn't say, oh, we're doing it for the oil.
	No.
	Every war is always dressed up in these liberal concerns, these leftist liberal concerns.
	Making the world safer democracy.
	Yeah.
	And it's obviously nonsense.
	And it's so refreshing to hear somebody just say, yeah, well, we can't function our modern economy without their semiconductors and they produce them all.
	So we're going to defend them up until, you know, that's not the case anymore.
	Yeah.
	Trump did that in a slightly less advantageous way where he spoke about Saudi Arabia and doing a deal with them.
	And he said, yeah, we're going to sell them loads of weapons.
	It's going to bring in loads of money.
	It's going to be great.
	And they're like, what?
	Sorry?
	Yeah, I mean, if the U.S.
	really cared about the stuff that it says it cares about, it would invade Saudi Arabia.
	But it doesn't do that.
	It only goes for its interests.
	And the guy's just being honest enough to acknowledge that.
	So even though I found that a bit jarring at first, I like the fact that he's honest about it.
	And he is promoting U.S.
	interests.
	And I get the sense that U.S.
	people probably deserve somebody who puts their interests first for a while.
	But also, I think the fact that he's trying to pry Russia, China, and India apart means that he might not need, necessarily, boots on the ground.
	He can actually take economic measures while shoring up American manufacturing to punish China for going into Taiwan, somewhat.
	Yes.
	And also, the situation with Taiwan is different anyway because of the Taiwanese Strait.
	So, it basically comes down to who's got better submarine technology, is my understanding of it.
	Yeah, and Rory's written a really good piece on the website about that, saying that the West actually has much better naval capacities than the Chinese do.
	Trying to form a beachhead on Taiwan.
	It's a very easily defensible little island.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	How testable that proposition about our naval capacity versus theirs?
	We'd rather not test it.
	However, in terms, it's much harder to invade Taiwan than it is Ukraine by just walking over it.
	Significantly.
	There's another bit, which of course, which is my main focus on the economy.
	Well, I'll play the clip and then we get into it.
	Let's do this one.
	So there's a debate right now amongst Democrats and Republicans on how to deal with our national debt.
	Democrats say raise taxes.
	The only problem with that is that shrinks the size of the economic pie itself.
	It shrinks your tax base.
	Republicans are increasingly talking about making cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
	I think there's a third way, a better way.
	And surprisingly, nobody in this race is talking about it yet.
	It's one of my core issues.
	economic growth, GDP growth in this country.
	So you're right, if we continue growing at one point something percent growth as we are now, we're gonna run out of money.
	But if that number is just three plus percent GDP growth, we're actually in the black, our fiscal problems automatically disappeared.
	And we've actually, for most of our national history, grown at four plus percent GDP growth.
	So this is possible.
	I have a plan to actually get us to five plus percent GDP growth.
	And it's not that complicated.
	First, we have to unshackle US energy.
	Energy is the main input into the economy.
	Drill, frack, burn coal, and raise nuclear.
	Do it without apology.
	For some reason, you're not even supposed to say those things out loud.
	I'm going to implement them as my policy.
	Second thing is put people back to work.
	I think a big part of what we've lost in this country is our pro-work culture in America.
	We've paid people to stay home.
	Take away the disincentives that we create to work itself.
	That's also one of the obstacles to GDP growth.
	Anyone who's building a growing business will tell you that finding workers is their main obstacle.
	And then the third thing we got to do is reform the Federal Reserve.
	And I've written extensively about that.
	Now that's the bit I really like.
	I'll put the Federal Reserve back in its place and say you have one job.
	Stabilize the US dollar.
	Period.
	So at first I was listening to that and I was thinking, okay, there's hints of magical thinking here because let's just grow our way out of it is basically MMT.
	And so when he starts saying, you know, we can, we can get to sort of three, three, four, 5% growth, I was thinking maybe a bit magical thing is I, I think I could probably do it in this country.
	I'm less familiar with the US, but I could do it in this country, but I would have to basically be dictator because it would involve the absolute demolition of the regulatory system of much of the state.
	It would basically involve winding back all of the EU regulations.
	It would involve doing the things that he then starts to talk about, which is to really bolster the energy situation.
	Because I've often talked about the absolute base of any economy is going to be agriculture and energy.
	And energy is probably the key one, even though we're doing a slow suicide of our agricultural base in Europe for some reason.
	So he starts to address it.
	Getting to 5% is perhaps achievable, but he's essentially right.
	If you get the growth rate high enough, all of these deficit issues start to evaporate.
	And he is talking about the right thing.
	Whether it's actually possible to do it, because the immune system responds to anybody who started to unwind the regulatory state and all of these departments that are holding everything back, There would be such a vicious immune response to doing something like that.
	But, I mean, this is a guy who's started and built up several billion dollar companies.
	So, you know, potentially.
	So, I have a few things to say on that.
	Number one, the way that they would slow him down is either bureaucratic gumming up the works, so you'd need a Schedule F style thing to get rid of most of those agencies.
	And he said in his recent Tim Karst appearance, and so I'm going to pull some comments from that off the top of my head, that he would absolutely do that.
	He'd get rid of some departments, Like the FBI and the Department of Education.
	I really like that, yes.
	Some he would significantly depreciate, like the Department of Energy, the EPA, and the Fed.
	However, the concern I have is that the reason he got into the political fight, and this might be a strength and a weakness, was that during the BLM riots, his company asked him to put a Black Lives Matter statement out, so he put out one about equality of opportunity, and he got lambasted for it because it wasn't enough, and so he went, actually screw you guys.
	But that does mean he might be initially sensitive to reputational destruction, which is what they went after Trump with.
	He might be immunized against it somewhat, but he's still quite a compassionate, attentive guy, and he doesn't seem angry and vengeful like Trump does.
	The second point is the growth idea.
	He has not ruled out an immigration moratorium.
	He has skills-based instead.
	Now, what we've seen in Australia and the UK is that skills-based just means they set the limit for the amount of money you're bringing in as just above minimum wage.
	And so that's a way of providing growth rather than the capital.
	It could be done that way.
	I'd be worried that his State Department would try and do that under his nose and he might not realize it.
	With all of these things, the devil is in the detail, but essentially what he's proposing is the right approach.
	Yes.
	So even though I'm going to say that is a bit soundbitey, what he's saying- Is the right thing to do, you know, let's see if you could pull it off.
	But at least he understands the issue and at least he understands how to fix it, which I've not heard from any other candidate at this point.
	So RFK doesn't get the economy side of things at all.
	He doesn't approach, even though he's really good on those other things like the farmer and the military-industrial complex, he cannot do economics.
	Whereas this guy can do economics and he's a bit soft on those things that RFK are strong on.
	Yes.
	And he understands the problem in a way that I've never heard articulated from somebody like Trump.
	The only positive I will say, not the only positive, but the positive I will say to add on top of this is that he's got the right heuristic in that if you're going for growth, there also must be certain things that are beyond the purview of the market.
	And he said, so like surrogacy and prostitution and things like that.
	Capitalism, without an underlying morality to hem it back in, you just get a universal solvent effect that commodifies human beings and makes them a standing reserve.
	It goes from being natural like the Amazon to being a product on an Amazon warehouse shelf.
	He understands, on Timcast, he said that the parallel founding of the US was also Adam Smith's publication of The Wealth of Nations in 1776, same year.
	But he said his prior book was actually about the theory of moral sentiment.
	And he said there were certain things that needed to be ring-fenced out of commodification because they're equally valuable to the human project.
	And that's how you get the morality that undergirds the social contract.
	I'm glad you said that, actually, because Obviously we're time-constrained in these segments, and there was a whole bunch of the morality stuff that I could put in.
	So for example, he is essentially arguing that things like the trans thing, the COVID lunacy, the Ukraine thing.
	He doesn't say this exactly, but it's filling a God-shaped hole.
	And he does say that exactly on SimCast.
	Oh, okay, right.
	OK, so he was alluding to that in other interviews, I haven't seen the Tim Carr thing, but he was basically saying people used to have religion and family that provided their bedrock, and that would sustain them long term, but at the moment they don't have that, they have these short term fads, and that's the only thing they can sustain, and that's why they have to jump.
	OK, Covid's gone, now we're jumping to the Ukraine thing, and there is going to need to be, because the Ukraine thing is about collapse.
	Because that's all drying up.
	There's going to need to be another thing that they can go all in on, which provides them their two-year or 18-month religion and family substitute.
	So he's really good on that as well.
	I'm glad you mentioned the abolishment of the FBI and the education.
	So I'll have to skip over the FBI one, but we do have a bit on the education.
	Can we play that one now?
	I think the federal government is not, as a factual matter, directly involved in education.
	I think it is a, therefore, a deadweight waste for money to cycle from the taxpayers to the Federal Department of Education to then disperse those funds inefficiently as they do.
	Tilting the scales to four-year college degrees over choices that people might have otherwise made that are better choices for them.
	Vocational training, one-year, two-year programs.
	Using it as a cudgel, and this relates to the latter issue you asked about, to tell local schools they don't get that money unless they're adopting what I certainly view as toxic racial and gender ideology based agendas.
	They use the money as a cudgel to do it.
	So I've said that that department spends about 80 billion dollars of taxpayer money.
	I'll shut it down.
	Tonight in New Hampshire, I'm laying out the anatomy exactly how we'll shut it down.
	And then return that money to the states to be able to put it in parents' pockets.
	Very specifically, you have to be a state that has a school choice program in order to receive that Department of Education shutdown dividend.
	I think that if you're in such a state, I would also believe that those states need to write their teachers' union, teachers' contracts, in a way that stops teachers from joining teachers' unions, which I think have been a destructive force on our public schools.
	If you're unionizing against the public, think about who you're unionizing against, the very kids you're supposed to represent.
	Now we have transparency, we have choice.
	If you teach in the classroom, put it online.
	And then there's an interesting fact in this country, where I think you guys will appreciate how bizarre this fact really is.
	There's not only like a failed positive correlation, there is a negative correlation, an inverse correlation, between how much money per student a public school spends and the actual outcomes that that school achieves for its students.
	So in my version of school choice, my preferred version, it would not just be that parents get to get these vouchers and educational savings accounts to send their kids to some other school.
	That's part of the story.
	It's the first step.
	But I think any parent who moves to a school that spends less per student, which we know based on the data, is actually almost equal to a better performing school as it relates to achievement.
	Should be able to take half the Delta with them.
	So, let's take Chicago or Pennsylvania spending $35,000, $40,000 per student.
	Fifteen miles away, you have a school spending $15,000 to $20,000 per student.
	I think they should be able to take half the difference, that $10,000 to $15,000, half that difference of the $20,000 to $10,000 they take with them.
	You run the math on normal investment returns.
	You're talking about a quarter million dollar plus graduation gift when that kid graduates from 12th grade.
	So, you tell me which is a better use of money.
	It's not even close.
	So that's really smart.
	That's a great idea.
	That's a great, great idea.
	Did you come up with that idea?
	Or is that synonym?
	It's actually another guy's an arbitrageur who's a friend, but who shares similar instincts.
	So, so that's really smart.
	So, I mean, first of all, love, um, school choice policy.
	Yes.
	The voucher system.
	Well, there was a, there was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher who said we should do it here.
	It's such a loss that we never did it here, and obviously it's something which is a live issue over there.
	So really appreciate it, school boys.
	But the second point you made, I mean, that is a really smart way of incentivising everybody, because if you want to dismantle something like the Education Department, you want to go after the teachers' unions, There's going to be a big organised opposition, so you need to incentivise everybody to want to buy into the change that you're making.
	And he hits both sides here.
	He says to the taxpayers, OK, well, we're going to substantially reduce your taxes by the cost of the Department of Education and half the delta on the school fees that we save on this.
	So the taxpayers are incentivized.
	But also, and this is the bit that the inner city caucus, basically the black community are going to buy into as soon as they understand the implications of what he's just said.
	Because basically the schools that spend the most are the inner city schools, the black predominated schools, and they're the ones who are overspending.
	And he wants to take half of the overspend and give it back to taxpayers.
	So they're happy.
	But he wants to take the other half and basically wrap it up and then hand it to the family at the other end if they choose a cheaper school.
	Which he says, if you invest that normally, that could be like a quarter of a million payout.
	So that is basically a large payout to black inner city kids So when they figure out what he's actually offering there, that's going to be massive for them.
	Now, I think there needs to be some thought as to how that is paid out because if you just give them the lump sum, you know, Nike stores and BMWs are going to fly in inner cities and a lot of them are going to just overdose themselves to death.
	So you can't do it like that.
	But you could possibly structure it in a way which is to say, you know, this paid out over the course of the next 30 years, but you get a criminal conviction and it just goes.
	And then that way, everyone could sort of buy into that because the taxpayer is better off and they're better off as long as they, you know, don't get a criminal record or whatever it is.
	And if you also reform the compound interest that's paid on American student loans, because they do it very differently here, you could have it trickle upwards into a grades-based scholarship system as well.
	Yeah, and that's the other way of doing it.
	Instead of just giving them a lump sum, it basically turns into a voucher for higher education or skills-based training or something like that.
	Yeah, or even like a low-interest start-up business loan, for example.
	Yeah, or even a home depositment.
	You could get very inventive with it.
	Yeah, there's so much you could do.
	But I like the idea of what we're going to do is we're going to tackle overspend on government by giving half of the difference back to the people that it was supposed to benefit so that they can use free market choices to deploy that money for them.
	So that is really smart.
	Absolutely love that policy because everybody wins on it, apart from the established interest in the Teachers Union and the Department of Education.
	If you can do that in one area, You can apply that thinking, you can apply that to a whole bunch of different areas.
	So absolutely, I mean, that was really smart.
	So he's hitting for me, obviously ending the war, which is important.
	Education, which I think is really important.
	And fiscal responsibility.
	Yeah, fiscal responsibility as well as that stuff.
	He doesn't go after entitlements, but then you can't get elected if you tell the boomers you're going to take away their gifts.
	Yes.
	So he kind of has to do that.
	You have to do reform when you get in.
	Yeah, or maybe actually deliver the growth that he's going.
	But if he does deliver the growth that he's going, he's going to make a hell of a lot of enemies in the establishment.
	Right, let's end up on how he thinks that he's going to, well let's end up on the policy side, but how he thinks he's going to implement this.
	Because he recognizes that there is a huge legislative challenge to doing the things he's talking about.
	So he talks about what he can actually get away with in terms of executive power.
	So let's watch the next bit.
	The first set of things that I like to do are the things that you can just do by the stroke of a pen.
	Okay?
	I'd end race-based affirmative action.
	First thing, Lyndon Johnson created it.
	It's an order.
	We can easily cross that out.
	I pushed Trump's people on why they didn't do it.
	They said it was a political hill they didn't want to die on.
	I'm not afraid of that one.
	I'll issue an executive order saying we're done mandating the measurement of carbon emission measurements anywhere through the bureaucracy.
	That shows up through multiple federal agencies.
	That's part of how we unshackle the U.S.
	energy sector.
	I would streamline the permitting process for new drilling or fracking projects, something that holds back the U.S.
	energy sector again.
	I would also unveil, I should say, some of the corruption that the public deserves to see.
	Anytime a government bureaucrat over the last several years has pressured a private company To take an action that the government couldn't take directly.
	Censorship.
	Stopping the lending to spade sectors like fossil fuels.
	I'll issue an executive order that demands that we at least publish that information so that the public can see it.
	Roll that log over, see what crawls out.
	Transparency is the first step to fixing corruption.
	I'd also pardon anyone whose prosecution was because of a politically motivated reason.
	That is to say that if normal people would not have been charged for that same crime, But an individual was charged.
	We have to actually set that record straight.
	I mean, even Julian Assange, I think, fits that description.
	So I've identified that as a bipartisan issue or an issue that's beyond partisanship.
	Somebody that I would pardon.
	These are things that you can actually do on day one to set a cultural tone for the country.
	I'm not claiming that those are the most important things to get done.
	But what I am claiming is that there are things a president can do that are quick, deliver real positive change, and then the last two that I would set into motion without asking Congress for permission or forgiveness.
	If we can use our military to protect somebody else's border halfway around the world, I think we can and should use our military to secure our own border.
	That's something that the U.S.
	President can actually do, and we solve the fentanyl crisis in the process.
	A lot of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.
	don't like that idea.
	What I say is if I'm the U.S.
	President and can't work for the federal government for more than eight years, Then I'll also sign an executive order for the people who report in to me saying that none of those federal bureaucrats can work for the government for more than eight years either.
	Replace those civil service protections with term limits instead.
	I think that's how we ensure fresh lifeblood comes into government rather than an entitled, ossified, bureaucratic state.
	That's day one.
	So that's a huge amount of things that hit a lot of points for me.
	So, I mean, obviously securing the southern border of the military, that's an obvious one.
	Ending the political prisoners, so the Jan Six guys and Julian Assange, absolutely love that.
	Energy policy, which he talked about on some of the other one.
	Transparency for government actions.
	I mean, you just throw open the transparency and then the internet will do the rest.
	You know, the Reddit and Twitter, they will get on that.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Exactly.
	So that is absolutely brilliant.
	And I just love the last bit, which is an eight-year term limit for civil servants.
	Can you imagine how well the federal government would run if everybody in it, if it was just like a thing that you did during your career for eight years?
	Okay, I'm going to do my eight years of working with the government.
	And you'd have to pick your moment to go in because, you know, you could either go in at a fairly low level and work in the DMC or something.
	Um, you know, it gives you some level of security for that period, or you could go in at a more senior stage if you're looking to sort of run something.
	But if you've got that permanent circulation, rather than people that work for the federal government for their entire lives, and they just, as he says, ossified it, but it was just something you did for a portion of your career, and the rest of it was spent in the public sector, and you've got that constant circulation, I think that would be an absolutely wonderful thing.
	The only issue I foresee, and you'd need some sort of holdover period of where you don't just get a kind of parliamentary pass that allows you to go back in a number of times, back into federal government.
	It'll be a lifetime, eight years.
	But at some time your communication still needs to be monitored because then you can just go straight out of the federal government and go into a company that can then lobby the government and do it more deftly.
	So again, the devil is in the detail because there'd be a lot of detail, but as an idea of rather than having people who work in the private sector their entire life and people who worked in the public sector, if it was just more the culture that you did a stint As a public servant.
	Yes.
	I mean, it actually goes back to the original idea.
	I'm going to do my public service, you know, people who have, um, you know, and what I suspect you get is a load more people who have, who, who may be retired just a little bit early and you could incentivize them to do it by giving them some tax breaks around their pension, their private pension pot that they built up, you know, towards the end of your career or something, you go in and you do a bit of this public service and then you, but it would just be so much better to have people who are not lifetime long federal servants because they're not federal.
	I mean, they're federal masters.
	I mean, the, the, the, the state system exists to perpetuate itself in its own interest.
	And also the sort of 20 year old know, nothing spads who are hired by CCHQ in, in the UK who are just there as, and they're grouped up through the party with the party's ideology.
	So yes.
	Challenge.
	So I love the idea of making that, um, just a part of your career rather than, rather than your entire career.
	We ought to address the Trump issue as well because he makes an observation which is basically true.
	Let's listen.
	So my view is that he was a successful president measured by reviving the economy.
	A successful president period.
	Why do I say that?
	Reviving the economy, growing the American economy.
	I think that recognizing and speaking to and partially addressing concerns that had been historically unaddressed by both major political parties.
	We did not enter a major war.
	We were on the brink of major conflict with North Korea, on the precipice and other parts of the world.
	ISIS was a thing.
	It is, you know, it exists, but it's by and large not the same threat that it was after his presidency as it was when he took over.
	These are major complements, right?
	I think the immigration crisis, I think, is far worse today.
	Precisely because Biden's in office and not Trump.
	So, I believe he was a successful president.
	That's view number one.
	View number two, he has an effect on about 30% of this country that I think becomes psychiatrically ill when he is the U.S.
	president.
	I think it's just fact, right?
	Agreeing with things that they otherwise wouldn't have agreed with because... I think that 30% number applies on our pot too.
	One in four!
	Well, I think it's just the reality is people lose their ability to process information.
	People lose the ability to think independently.
	It's like a demonic possession that happens in this country.
	I'm about as best I can talk about 30% of the country.
	And I think that's not good for the country.
	And we can debate who's to blame for that or whatever, but I'm just stating it in observation that I feel pretty strongly about.
	And so I think most of Trump's policies were good.
	Do I have some policy disagreements with him?
	Of course I do.
	It would be weird.
	Yeah.
	There is a part of me that says we just need Trump and it will upset the left and that's one of the features, not a bug.
	But...
	It's not impossible that that country ends up in a civil war if it carries on the way it's going.
	I think it's going to anyway.
	It was getting ugly, I mean it really was.
	It still is.
	Yeah, it still is.
	They're still prosecuting him now.
	I think you're never going to circumvent the fact that it's going to be ugly.
	My prediction is, and I don't wish to rain on our parade because I think Vivek would be overall my favourite candidate as I followed him, but I also preface this with I know that he's not going to win.
	He's not.
	It's not his year, right?
	Yes.
	It would be his year to be VP, and he hasn't said that he would accept that yet.
	But, obviously, because otherwise his donors would drop out if he didn't think he was winning.
	But if he gets on the debate stage, he pushes these issues, he bows out, Ron DeSantis has burned all his credibility with both the base and Trump, that man, unless Trump fucks it and goes for Carrie Lake, but I reckon she'll go for Arizona Senate, that man will be Trump's VP.
	So you've pinched my conclusion.
	Oh, well, you're welcome.
	Sorry, mate.
	That is exactly what I was...
	No, you said it well, but that's the thing.
	I think he is much more of a unified...
	He's clearly very smart and he brings a lot to the understanding of how to actually solve this thing.
	But I think probably my biggest criticism of Trump, the criticisms I made at the beginning, probably come down a lot to naivety.
	That he went in expecting, he expected the President to give an order and it to be carried out.
	Yeah, he had the boom of belief in establishment neutrality.
	And maybe he's been disabused of that notion.
	Maybe a second Trump term, he wouldn't make all of the mistakes that he made in the first term.
	And if he had somebody like him as VP, and the reason I like him as VP is because he would be able to give that level of detail and market-based insights to the solution to a lot of these problems would be fantastic.
	And he would then have four years to see how the machine worked.
	And then if he became the candidate afterwards, then he could be really powerful.
	Continuity candidate, exactly.
	Yeah.
	So, yes.
	So, Vivek for VP.
	There we go.
	We've now got like 10 minutes to go.
	Oh, we'll be fine.
	We'll crash course for it.
	It's just talking about a bunch of commie gobbledygook anyway.
	So, net zero is no longer enough.
	We have to go for absolute zero, apparently.
	Let's explore how the experts are ratcheting us towards total energy immiseration and eternal poverty.
	If you want to talk about our political friends and enemies, you can subscribe to the website for as little as £5 a month to get all of our premium content.
	And watch Josh's Contemplation series, his very eclectic series on psychology and politics, where he and Harry discuss the friend-enemy distinction.
	I picked this.
	That's a good one.
	In this, they talk about the depoliticising force of liberalism.
	How it's constantly miring you in debate, and under the surface there is this bubbling beast of an existential threat of revolutionary terror.
	What they haven't hit on here, and which I will hit on in the future, is something that's masked within this environmental debate, and that is technology as one of those forces.
	You can try and defend your culture and your traditions, but technology has a ratcheting, universalizing, liquidating effect.
	And that allows the existential threat to your civilization to be smuggled in.
	So, for example, if you're developing medicines and someone else over there is developing an accidental bioweapon in an unspecified lab in Wuhan, you wouldn't realize it's going to come wipe you out under the guise of it's just going to be safe and secure.
	We're just developing cures, ladies and gentlemen.
	More on that later.
	Technology is demonic, and I will not elaborate further at this time.
	Anyway, so let's go on to a company called UK Fires.
	Now, they work with the UK government.
	They're a non-profit.
	And they have experts from Imperial College, University of Nottingham, Oxford, Cambridge, Bath.
	And they work with the Department for Energy and Climate.
	This is just part of the bloody gravy train of government money for people who wouldn't otherwise have a job.
	We're just going to funnel government money to them through the back door.
	Yeah, the permanent NGO bureaucracy, yeah.
	And so they've got this new report, and it's actually not new, sorry, but there is an update on it.
	There was a report published in 2019, I think, I think it was November, right before the pandemic here, called Absolute Zero.
	So we have the report here.
	The report's author is a prominent IPCC report contributor, so this is the kind of ideology going into the mainstream science.
	So this is absolute zero, as in not net zero, but this is absolute zero carbon emissions?
	Yes.
	That's insane.
	Yeah, I know.
	The concept of absolute zero comes from the third law of thermodynamics, which is, you know, the logical conclusion of entropy gets you to a quantum state of absolute zero.
	But the point is, everybody agrees it's fundamentally unachievable.
	So they've named themselves after something which is fundamentally unachievable.
	With human activity.
	Yes.
	It's almost like they've taken that into account.
	Ah, yes.
	So there's a quote here.
	If we only use electricity delivering all the transport, heat, and goods we use in the UK, we would require three times more electricity than we use today.
	If we expand renewables as fast as we can, we could deliver about 60% of this requirement with zero emissions in 2050.
	Therefore, in 2050, we must plan to use about 40% less energy than we use today, and all of it must be electric.
	It doesn't work like that.
	Sorry, that's how it works.
	Do you want to see some of their policy positions in this really lovely little diagram here?
	If you're looking, yeah, I know your face is screwing up.
	For all of your listeners, their ideas that by 2030, all remaining airports must close, all shipping declines to zero.
	What?
	Not joking.
	Fossil fuels are completely phased out.
	That point alone is advocating mass starvation in Africa, because at the moment they basically get grain shipped from Russia down into Africa.
	So that's advocating for mass starvation in the developing world.
	This one on the right is the IPCC report.
	And the government.
	And also their underlying assumption that electrification requires this.
	No, go and watch their Tesla put out a battery day where they got deep into the science of this stuff.
	It doesn't work like that because there are efficiencies that are gained through a function of it.
	So even their fundamental assumption is wrong.
	Oh yeah.
	They also say that all plastic, steel and cement needs to end.
	And you can't eat beef and lamb anymore.
	Okay, well, these people are insane.
	And these people are getting government money.
	Yeah.
	Oh, not just government money.
	Wait for it.
	Okay, um, so they say here, no one actor can bring about absolute zero.
	Delivering it is a journey depending on cooperative action by individuals, businesses, and governments acting on good information.
	Sounds awfully fascist.
	Absolute zero requires societal change.
	This will provide opportunities for growth in business, education and research, governance and industrial strategy.
	To achieve zero emissions, we must only pursue the right opportunities and restrain activities which are no longer compatible with a zero-emission society.
	Expert-led totalitarianism.
	Not behavioural nudge, behavioural shove.
	Yeah.
	So if we go through the actual PDF... How do you even build the bloody wind turbines without concrete?
	Carbon fibre.
	Great question.
	We will not address this.
	Moving on!
	So apparently, absolute zero means two things.
	First, that no carbon can be produced by any industry or household.
	Get that one through your noggin.
	Second, averaged across the economy, energy consumption must fall to about 30% of its current level.
	So it must be all electric, 30-40% energy reduction.
	You can't produce any carbon whatsoever.
	Don't know how breathing's gonna work.
	Maybe it isn't.
	In writing this report, we have therefore assumed that the target of zero emissions is absolute.
	There are no negative emissions options or meaningful carbon offsets.
	Absolute zero means zero emissions.
	So you're not allowed to carbon offset either.
	How's breathing gonna work?
	Like, sorry, what?
	You cannot have an electrification system without infrastructure investment.
	The bloody pylons require concrete to be bolted into the ground.
	You won't be able to get the steel in the first place.
	None of this makes any sense.
	No, but yeah, the expert's telling us, so we have to do it.
	And also, the UK is responsible for all emissions caused by its purchasing, including imported goods, international flights and shipping.
	So, not just emissions within our zone, but the entire global supply chain.
	Every single stakeholder has to be involved.
	I wonder how many of the people who wrote this report eat avocados, for example.
	All of them.
	They're advocating an entirely vegan-based diet.
	They also typed this.
	I didn't write it in pen and ink.
	So, yeah.
	Thanks guys.
	But it's not about hypocrisy, it's just about hierarchy.
	So this is page 13.
	Delivering absolute zero in 30 years with today's technologies is possible.
	Our energy supply will be 40% less than it is today, solely in the form of electricity, but apart from flight and shipping, all other energy applications can be electrified.
	Yeah.
	With what materials?
	Therefore, our commitment to absolute zero emissions in 2050 requires a restraint in our use of energy to around 60% of disease levels.
	Notice that.
	We went from 30 to 40 to 60 within the same report.
	Yes.
	We're going to get down to 100 eventually.
	Back in caves, lads.
	There we go.
	Let's go to page six for its policy recommendations.
	I'm going to read some of these out to you.
	Demands an end to all fertilizer use in cattle and sheep farming.
	So Sri Lanka.
	Eating lamb and beef will be incompatible with Absolute Zero.
	An end to cement and steel production.
	Even without action on climate change, the amount of scrapped steel available globally for recycling will treble by 2050.
	In order to meet the requirements of Absolute Zero, this valuable resource can be the only feedstock, as there is currently no alternative technology for producing steel from iron ore without emissions.
	So all steel must be recycled by 2050.
	Even if we're going to massively electrolyte everything.
	Yep.
	The electrification of every industry, recycling of plastics, there's no mention of bioplastics or plastic ocean removal, so don't know how they're going to do that, all flying commercial shipping to be banned, and the end of central heating.
	And they literally cite in here, wear warmer clothes in winter.
	Why didn't I think of that?
	This whole time I've just been shivering and paying loads of heating bills, never thought to put my socks on.
	I know you're stunned.
	Yep.
	The only way that this could possibly work is with a massive reduction in population.
	You're saying the quiet part out loud, I would suggest, Dan.
	But there you go.
	The House of Lords did a debate on this, actually.
	Oh, God, no.
	So, this was 2020.
	It ended with, we all agree on the motion.
	There wasn't really a motion put forward, other than that we all agree on net zero, and we're just talking about the possibility of absolute zero.
	It was tabled by Labour Lord Brown of Ladyton.
	Ironic name.
	My aim is to spark a broad debate that includes those with such expertise, but embraces all stakeholders.
	Typical WEF language.
	The authors of absolute zero, a recent report by UK fires, Literally setting the whole country on fire.
	A consortium of UK academic experts have done us all a great service by authoritatively and painstakingly exposing the degree to which we are being misled by a techno-optimistic approach to the climate change challenge.
	Don't innovate your way out of it, just be impoverished to the point where you're cold, starving, and maybe some of you die off enough that you stop emitting carbon.
	I think it's quite like carbon, it helps plants grow, we should emit more.
	Yeah, that would be good.
	Or even just like, carbon capture will work eventually, and then you can turn it into a useful building material.
	We've already got carbon capture, it's called agriculture.
	In days gone past, you'd have like a plant here, then a plant over there.
	Now we have developed agriculture with masses of plants, and what it does is it captures vast amounts of carbon.
	Yeah.
	And nobody ever talks about that side of it, but we are absorbing huge amounts of carbon through the agricultural system.
	But it would also create, if you could capture it, consolidate it, and repurpose it for other means, you'd just turn it into grain.
	Or graphene, like things like that.
	You can have flexible building materials, touch screen phones, or cut those bloody wind turbines you keep talking about, which don't work.
	So we are capturing carbon anyway, Even though carbon is good, because carbon helps plants grow, and actually there would be no problem if carbon was double the level it is now.
	I mean, you can talk about pollutants and plastic pollutants.
	That's something the entire right can get on board with.
	Microplastics in the ocean.
	They don't mention any of that.
	It's just about the planet being on fire.
	He then goes on to lie and he says the report doesn't ask us to give up commercial air travel when it literally does its quote.
	But Lord Witty of Labour is more honest.
	The interventions by government have to be fairly draconian.
	That's a direct quote, by the way.
	Price increases brought about through taxation are never popular, but if we're to change behaviour, we'll have to grasp that nettle.
	Right, so that's just mask-off moment.
	So it's just a miseration.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But how misleading is it that we can innovate our way out of environmental issues?
	Misleading, apparently.
	Well, this is why I decided to cover this now.
	There's been an update, they've done a blog report, because the government haven't taken it up yet, and this was in late March, is Absolute Zero pessimistic about UK energy supplies.
	So, he says, they argue, the proportion of the UK's energy, being carbon neutral, is growing in accordance with, as you can see, video viewers here, their little graph prediction back in 2019.
	And so technology isn't progressing at a fast enough rate to achieve absolute zero.
	So, we've got to take drastic measures.
	Figure 2 demonstrates all other scenarios depend on negative emissions technologies such as carbon capture and storage to deal with between 40 and 80 MTCO2e per year of residual emissions.
	In absolute zero we reflected the reality to date no technologies were operating in the UK and therefore forecasts that by 2050 we should continue to anticipate they should not exist.
	Bit of a leap in logic.
	Next 30 years, there's going to be absolutely no innovations in carbon capture technology, despite loads of money being funded, funneled into the innovation space.
	And like I say, it's just bloody agriculture anyway.
	Yep.
	But if these people want less carbon, just embrace nuclear, but they refuse to do that.
	Oh yeah, they also complain that the nuclear power is taking too long to be built, even though I actually... That's because of the regulatory structure it takes.
	The Chinese can build a nuclear plant in six years and it takes us like Sixteen minimum?
	Yeah, well, we're actually relying on the Chinese to buy our nuclear power plants.
	So here's the nuclear power.
	So they could admit, but we can't.
	Yeah.
	But the Chinese have a 22% stake in Hinkley, a 33% stake in Sizewell.
	They can just turn out nuclear plants when they want, and we can't.
	Yeah.
	And they're also building a £500 million nuclear thing on our soil.
	So that's not good.
	Which is taking bloody years because of the regulatory hold-ups on Yeah, and I did my best attempt to convince the government with the nuclear financing bill to change that, and they seem to have adopted that plan.
	They didn't listen to my other predictions on Ukraine that year before it happened, but hey-ho, I guess I'm just a conspiracy theorist.
	So because of this, they're thinking, right, there's going to be no new nuclear power, there's going to be no carbon capture, things aren't going to change in that time, and so there's figure five on here.
	It omits new nuclear, as you can see here, as being a possibility involved in the UK's energy sector, and just focuses on renewables.
	Here, see?
	And so it's saying that if we're going to try and do renewables, this is basically impossible to ever build our way out of.
	So then they say, when we hear people tell us we should just be more optimistic, what we think they're really saying is we don't want to think about a future in which we don't have all the energy we want.
	But the whole excitement of the UK Flyers programme has been to recognise that such a shortfall is close to certain a reality.
	And, as a result, a whole different range of innovations in technology, business systems, governance and lifestyle are going to emerge as the enablers of real zero-emissions living.
	So total system revolution, because the prior problems that we engendered into the system are gumming up the works, and we've based all of our ideas on faulty premises that are probably never going to come to pass.
	So you have to live in the pod and eat the bugs.
	Yes, that is exactly what it is.
	Yeah, and the press is already nudging us there, I just noticed this this week.
	So there's been an expert, Sir Bob Watson, former head of the UN climate body, and he told the BBC's Today programme, I think most people live in fear that if we give up on the 1.5 Celsius limit for the net zero policy, which I do not believe we will achieve, in fact I'm very pessimistic about even achieving 2 Celsius, if we allow the target to become looser and looser, higher and higher, governments will do even less in the future.
	So we have to Ban the hammer down now to make it even worse.
	BBC also released this article.
	Eating less meat is like taking 8 million cars off the road.
	This was a report from Oxford University's Professor Scarborough, part of the Livestock, Environment and People, LEAP project, who surveyed 55,000 people and found that big meat-eaters' diets, that's about a burger a day, averaged 10.24 kilograms of planet-warming greenhouse gases.
	An independent review for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that's DEFRA, called for a 30% reduction in meat consumption by 2032.
	So DEFRA are now agreeing with this.
	So they're trying to phase out beef and lamb.
	It's just all on farmers, in this particular case.
	And on nutrition.
	They're gonna make us, like, protein-starved and servile.
	Eat the bloody seed oils.
	Yeah, and so I'll come to the last piece that was published the other day in New Yorker by, I believe this was Bill McKibben.
	Yeah, Bill McKibben says we need to move to a humbler world, and that's one without human activity.
	Genuinely.
	Alex Epstein's written about this in Fossil Futures, compiled all his anti-human takes.
	And he cites John Maynard Keynes in the first sentence.
	You need to do brocanomics on that man, by the way, that would be fantastic.
	He just says that basically we need total degrowth.
	So there's an argument to be made that there are certain things within the market purview that shouldn't be there, you know, like buying babies and buying people and things like that.
	So you need morality to constrain that.
	But are you saying, no, we should sabotage the energy sector and the food sector to just have less people?
	Just coming out and mask off saying it.
	And they're always going after the families, aren't they?
	None of this is about, okay, well, we're going to take away the pension entitlements and all of that stuff.
	We're never going to go after Medicare and Medicaid.
	It's all about, you know, we're going to go after the 30-somethings trying to have kids.
	Yeah, because they want you to be, as Yuval Noah Harari said many times, the useless eaters hooked up to Robert Nozick Experience machines, which are fully renewable powered, getting your slop fed to you and thinking it's steak like Cypher and The Matrix.
	Yes, his basic view is that we have far too many people and we're just going to mollify them with video games and drugs.
	Yeah, we're going to sedate you, battery farm you, and the ones that don't make it, oh well.
	Yeah, it's like the Matrix.
	Yeah, so keep an eye out for the semantic shift on absolute zero because it's only going to be a matter of time until our governments adopt it.
	Boom!
	On to the video comment.
	Yes.
	Yay, California news is back!
	Oh, during a town hall about San Francisco's drug and crime issues, citizens were upset at Mayor London Breed's sudden change of heart to crack down on crime.
	So is it a surprise that the people who voted you in to be pro-crime are upset?
	One person shown here threw a brick, bringing the event to a premature close.
	And of course, let's just say this person looks a little trans to me, and it's good to know that the police will protect the mayor and not the citizens.
	And by the way, the shorts say I fought a bear once, in case you were curious.
	Yeah, that's definitely trans.
	I mean, he's got Michelle Obama traps.
	Blimey.
	Okay, yeah.
	Well, yeah, don't throw bricks, people.
	But it does remind me a little bit of, you know, the Penguin in Batman Returns when they start playing the, I played this stinking city like a heart from hell thing that makes his mayoral campaign.
	I can't remember that one.
	Oh, everyone shows up and throws, like, eggs and tomatoes and lettuce at him.
	Right.
	Yeah, it's great.
	Anyway, Batman reference for the day, I suppose.
	Onto the comments.
	Johnny, first ever comment as I'm finally watching the podcast live, signing up two months ago.
	Good man, stick around.
	Not enough hours in the day.
	First, Bro Economics are now working through the excellent Hangouts.
	Keep up the good work, guys.
	Good man, Johnny.
	Thank you very much.
	I might recommend Evil Origins of Feminism.
	Everyone seems to like that one, because part two, coming soon!
	William, that intro was brilliant, if a little confusing.
	Well, I'm a Barbie girl in a Barbie world.
	Andrew Narog, wonderful to have you back, Connor.
	Said no one else.
	It was a treat seeing you on Timcast as well.
	First time I've watched a full Timcast segment in a long time.
	Would be great to have Seamus on Lotus Eaters.
	Stay tuned.
	He might be coming to the UK, so the Irish Catholic Exchange Program may be coming to full fruition.
	Yeah, Seamus, actually, Seamus, Hannah-Claire, all of the production team and that, they took me out for dinner at, no, not dinner, breakfast at a, what, Waffle House?
	Is that it?
	Yeah, Waffle House.
	at like half 12 in the morning and we didn't get into a fight that was good we were served by a man with face tattoos who'd shown up after being called in for a shift while drinking at home alone and then one of the members of the table asked if they sell the mugs that Raffle House branded and he just shrugged and went oh no man just steal it I don't need this job and walked away impeccable service They don't serve food there, it's inedible, but great time.
	Tim Cars people, lovely.
	Anyway, on to the Barbie stuff.
	Big Ed, establish the Kendom.
	Yes, big Ken energy here, ladies and gentlemen.
	Lord Nerevar, this isn't actually the first time Hollywood has been based in recent history.
	Didn't Marvel do it with the Falcon and Winter Soldier?
	I don't think so.
	No, because they had Isaiah Bradley say Captain America was racist.
	And then they had Falcon lecture some senator saying you need to do better and there's a police brutality bit.
	Though US Agent was the more likable one.
	So you might be referring to that.
	They did that with loads of people.
	Like again, Patrick Bateman was meant to be the villain and he's, I mean, he's not a great guy.
	Tom's comment's interesting.
	Go on.
	I went to see Barbie with some girls from work and they went away with a female empowerment message while I was left thinking the patriarchy is based as fuck.
	Well, most women I know saw it and went, that was rubbish.
	And they're not even, they're normies.
	Most women I know.
	Yeah.
	So that's surprising, but maybe they just genuinely had their brains off.
	But this is, this is something that I have noticed.
	If, if you aren't plugged in to the online discourse and know the means that they're referring to, you either just won't get it or you'll get the wrong message.
	But if you, if you do, and you think about it a little bit, this film is the greatest self-owned in all of Hollywood history.
	Well, that's Frank's point.
	He says this movie is not a bunch of feminist hogwashers.
	It actually manifests the solar energy of Ken.
	Yes.
	Ken's greatest flaw was actually seeking the approval of the wrong woman.
	Which, let's be fair lads, when we're young, we've always done that.
	Because we've fallen afoul of the wrong side of the hot crazy matrix.
	And Ken did that.
	And now I've done that.
	I've done that loads of times.
	Many such cases.
	Anyway, Zentran.
	The movie considered the oppressive patriarchy as just monogamous relationships.
	This was made in California.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Also, monogamous relationships where the women like it.
	Okay?
	Sophie Liv.
	I actually explained the part of the Barbie movie to Baystape and John Crowe yesterday.
	They initially didn't believe me, it was so bad.
	No, it's brilliant!
	I loved it for all the wrong reasons!
	Like, don't go out and pay to see it, but as soon as it comes out, have your bros over for a Barbie movie night, and then just compliment each other on each other's pull-ups.
	The male solidarity in that was great.
	Baystape.
	Peter Dinklage didn't pull the ladder up after him, he pulled up the steppy stalk.
	Shall I describe it to you, or would you like me to find you a box?
	One last one on this.
	Someone online, if Barbie realistically portrayed how little girls play with the dolls, at least half the Barbies would be missing limbs and faces and it would be a horror movie.
	This is actually incorporated into the plot.
	This is weird Barbie.
	She is permanently doing the splits and she's drawn on.
	And it's Kate McKinnon, the lesbian writer of the film, who wrote herself into it to be the wisest sage of all.
	She's the most subversive one.
	Anyway, on to your shilling for Vivek.
	Alexander Drake says, I actually quite like what I've been hearing of Vivek.
	He won't go anywhere.
	Everyone is still married to Trump as things stand now.
	Vivek would be the only one I'd actually vote for.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm going to be...
	I would be perfectly happy with a Trump or a DeSantis or a Vivek or an RFK win.
	I just don't want basically Biden...
	I wouldn't be happy with DeSantis at this point.
	I wouldn't.
	I don't trust him, I don't trust the people around him.
	Mind you, I just don't know what DeSantis thinks, because he talks in soundbites.
	I think that he is not independently wealthy and a little bit awkward, and so he's willing to bend over to whoever is whispering in his ear like Wormtongue at the time.
	Yeah, I just haven't decided on DeSantis yet.
	I think Trump can be at least swayed.
	I think Trump is a Schmittian friend.
	Like I said, my biggest problem with Trump is that they will just Complete mask-off, FBI march into the counting stations and take over the vote and count it and say, oh, Biden won 88 million.
	Is that worse than the covert subversion destruction of the republic right now?
	I suppose it would be open, but... I prefer an open banana republic than a fake one.
	Yes, that is true.
	Yeah, I'll give you that.
	Sophie Liv says, I hope Vivek and Trump will have at least one debate against each other.
	That would be fine.
	Yeah, they're not really going after each other, which sort of lends credence to the whole VP thing.
	Trump won't shut up the debates either.
	He said that.
	Yeah.
	Interesting about Vivek, how much of the young vote is attracting, which has always been difficult for the conservative movement.
	Yeah, I mean, there's another angle there, which is I'm just increasingly turning away from the boomers as a political solution to anything because they think in TV terms and they think in soundbites.
	The wrong paradigm.
	And you just notice in real life that there's this sort of weird inversion that's happened in the last couple of years where boomers are like children and you have to protect them from uncomfortable truths and hide what's going on in the world.
	When I've done GB News against the Boomer before, they just get really offended and they can't comprehend that I'm stepping outside their heuristic of what makes good life.
	It's like, what, you don't just want the freedom to be anything?
	It's like, no, actually, I wouldn't pick a wife that wouldn't want to stay home.
	It just doesn't compute.
	It's like speaking in code to them.
	I'm back on that tomorrow, by the way, if you want to see me destroy more Boomers.
	Yeah, I mean, that would be brilliant.
	But more than that, they just don't get the world anymore.
	They can't see it.
	Because for the Boomer, the TV is a primary sense organ and it has been co-opted.
	That's a good phrase, actually.
	Yeah, yeah.
	This is why Vivek's winning over the younger vote.
	He's engaging with the alternative media, which is the successful way to do it.
	So my point there is, like for dogs, the nose is a primary sense organ.
	If the eyes and the nose disagree, they go with the nose.
	And again, with the boomers, if what they see in real life disagrees with what they see on TV, They picked a TV, so thus it's a primary sensor organ for them.
	That's a fantastic coin, that one.
	Do you want to do a couple from your last segment?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Lord Narovar, BRB, revving my car as much as possible to offset Nick's zero tactics.
	Well, if tactics get any higher, I think you'll burn a tyre and eat your steak.
	Yeah, don't do what Nelson Mandela said.
	Omar Awad, absolute zero must have been written by AI because it's impossible to be literate and maintain that level of disconnectivity to what the words you're actually saying actually mean.
	No, no, they're just encoding it.
	They're hiding the ball.
	That's it.
	They're just lying to you.
	There's so many contradictions, you need different people to write each paragraph without having read what went before.
	No food, material industry, trade or travel.
	Don't worry, we'll power our nothing with renewable energy.
	Um, California refugee with the net zero environmental culture.
	So I've got a little backlog of tidbits on it coming to a video comment near you soon.
	Very welcome.
	But one interesting thing is that focusing on carbon is like having smallpox and trying to solve it by just covering up the pox themselves with soothing balms and makeup instead of using medication.
	Yeah.
	Pretty much.
	Sophie Liff, just finally.
	Well, I know what my dinner is going to be tonight, Connor.
	I'm going to find me the biggest steak I can possibly find, and it's going to be cooked rare, so I can see all the blood flowing while I eat it.
	Based.
	Same here.
	Big Kennedy.
	Right.
	Fantastic.
	Yes.
	Lovely to be back, Dan.
	Good to have you back.
	Yeah, I'm off loan from the Yankees now, but I'll probably go back and visit at some point, and always love being on with you, mate.
	Don't get stuck over there.
	Come back to us every time.
	We'll see.
	Anyway, enjoy Barbie, ladies and gentlemen.
	Until next time, we're back tomorrow at one o'clock.
	Bye!

▲