Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 2, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:36:51

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #776

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Right.
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 776 for today, Thursday, the 2nd of November 2023.
	I'm your host Connor, joined by Harry and Lewis.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Today we're discussing how was ARK?
	So I've been there for the last three days, I'll give you a rundown.
	How they're coming for the homeschoolers and the Killer Pods from Outer Space.
	You've been having fun with this one, haven't you?
	I've been, yes, it's been great.
	Right, it's going to be absolutely full of memes, I'm sure.
	Right, let's jump straight into it.
	I was at ARC for the last few days.
	It was interesting, as was the Twitter response.
	It was quite demure, actually.
	So, a lot of the press came early in May with National Conservative Conference.
	That really whipped The Guardian into a particular further when Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger did extreme things like stand up and say, maybe we should have some kids and maybe you should stay with them.
	ARK, for those who don't know, is the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship set up by Jordan Peterson, Philippa Stroud, and some other advisors, and they've been accused of being a counter-WEF.
	I don't think that's quite accurate, and I think that's more of an accusation being levelled by people that probably weren't invited.
	If anyone's seen the talks, I am going to show some clips, because I think ARK ultimately is not yet successful.
	In so far as its aim is to build a new narrative that is apart from blair white progressivism.
	It hasn't achieved that.
	What it has achieved instead is that the theatre production on the front end Not that productive.
	On the back end, the people that it's connecting, the people that it's making a kind of enmeshed social sphere of, ahead of when political circumstances fall in our favour, we'll be ready to sway the conversation then.
	And hopefully you'll understand what I mean as we go through.
	And just lobby questions at me if you have any.
	Speaking of how liberalism is no longer sufficient, you can subscribe to our website for as little as £5 a month and watch things like this, which is Josh's Contemplation Series.
	We've really been milking the liberalism debate for the last little while.
	Isn't there going to be a part three?
	There is going to be a part three, yes.
	This is going to go on for about six hours.
	The audience seems to really like it.
	I think it's been getting some good engagement.
	Yeah, it's definitely a rigorous discussion.
	I think there are still more questions that need to be addressed.
	So we'll be recording that and putting it out sometime after our Halloween special.
	So keep an eye on that as well.
	But yeah, so this is the Ark website.
	As you can see, right off the bat, we will be watching a clip.
	Okay, I'm already out.
	I didn't really know anything about Ark.
	I only just heard about Ark.
	Basically at the beginning of this week or in the weeks leading up to it.
	Same here.
	Because you were going to it.
	All of a sudden there was this massive forum going on that had people like Jordan Peterson and all the familiar faces.
	Jonathan Pagiao I've seen you posting about.
	I don't know if that's how you pronounce his name but.
	Pagiao I think it is.
	Pagiao.
	Alright well.
	He's the likeable version of Mark Ruffalo.
	Yeah.
	I already did but it's lost me.
	It's thrown a progressive MLK quote at me.
	Well they did have an MLK quote up on the wall.
	Um right so so this is why MLK was a true conservative.
	I know, I know, I know.
	I know we've already done the shill but watch my video that's on the website about MLK to learn how everything to do with that narrative is a lie that has been fed to conservatives and they have greedily gobbled it up so they can turn around and say see I'm not racist.
	I like one civil rights activist.
	You shouldn't.
	His speeches were written by communists.
	He was funded by communists.
	He wanted reparations and he wanted wealth redistribution.
	There was so much wrong about it.
	Sorry.
	That's alright.
	Don't worry about it.
	And this is part of my issue.
	There's a conflict of visions going on at the moment.
	Now, again, a bit of forgiveness because this is the first one.
	The Enterprise is pretty impressive to pull off.
	I mean, first of all, I'm glad they put it in London because it's a lot more accessible for us to go.
	And there's a bit more of a dissident sphere that fall in line with our ideas percolating around England right now, because I think that we were the spearhead of liberalism and are manifesting most of his excesses.
	If you don't believe me, take a trip around Swindon anytime.
	And they put a lot of effort in.
	They invited, I think, about 15,000 people by the end of it, 400 of which were fairly young, fairly prominent social media faces to get the word out.
	And I think the divide is palpable between the boomer class, who believe in the long arc of history that bends towards justice, quote, that we've got on screen right now, and the younger people that have inherited that paradigm, don't feel particularly connected to it, feel that it's what Ayaan Hirsi Ali said, borrowing from Dennis Prager, a cut flower culture of where In abstract, without a religious foundation, modernity about 20 odd years ago, in the 90s at least, looked really pretty but it's like it's in a vase and without the roots it withers and dies.
	And so either you replant the flower or you take the seeds, allow the thing before to die off and replant something new and allow it to grow from instead.
	And that's what the reactionary younger people were doing, whereas the containment mainly came from the prior paradigm and some of the people that they invited.
	Some of those people include Kevin McCarthy, who gave the second address.
	What was really ironic as well is that the new speaker, whose name I've totally forgotten, he gave the third address, so immediately after Kevin McCarthy was the brand new House Speaker.
	Mike Johnson.
	Mike Johnson, that's it, yes.
	Mike Johnson gave one down the line.
	It was his first ever address to anyone as US Speaker.
	How far did Kevin McCarthy get through before he had a senior moment and stopped and began dribbling on himself?
	No, you're thinking Mitch McConnell.
	Yeah, no, Kevin McCarthy just kept bringing up the fact that, hey, sometimes it turns out I am a really good speaker, right guys?
	Why won't he call me back?
	Why won't he take me back?
	It was very bitter ex-girlfriend stuff.
	And it was spearheaded, and we'll get on to some of the other speakers just to run through them later, spearheaded by Philippa Stroud.
	Now, Philippa Stroud, Dame Philippa Stroud.
	Apologies.
	She was Ladies and gentlemen, I have asked different ones of our advisory board why they're committed to being involved with ARC.
	to rebrand a little bit.
	And I'm going to play you a clip from her speech.
	It's only about a minute or so, just so we can get a tone.
	You're going to hate it, Harry, warning you, of what kicked off the conference and then where it went from there.
	Gentlemen, I have asked different ones of our advisory board why they committed to being involved with ARC.
	The overwhelming response I received was, this is a civilizational moment.
	There is a lot at stake.
	But also, that we can't just wait for someone else to act.
	We all need to take responsibility.
	We all need to play our part in rebuilding a better world.
	If we don't act, who will?
	But we are also extraordinarily hopeful.
	We are convinced that decline is not inevitable, that there is a compelling, hope-filled vision for the future.
	We possess the knowledge that truth does exist and can be found, that foundations can be rebuilt, that people are valuable, and that the long arc of history bends towards justice.
	Now, I saw you shake your head there.
	I'm just going to, I'm going to ask this question.
	Yes.
	How many current members of the conservative government are attending?
	Okay.
	So there was Michael Gove who was speaking, Badnok who was speaking.
	Okay.
	That's about it.
	Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger did events.
	Miriam Cates being the complete opposite to this.
	Because I am becoming increasingly frustrated with current members of the Conservative Party Going to these kinds of events and making speeches where they go, we need to do something.
	We need to save Western civilization.
	It's like you have the power to do it.
	You are the ones in charge of the government.
	So you actually do have that power, but you don't have the backbone to do it.
	You don't have the spine.
	You don't have the colonies to do anything about it.
	So it's really getting on my nerves.
	One of the main forces of frustration, and this is why I keep telling the audience, Kimmy Badenoch is not your great saviour.
	She did a panel, I sat through it.
	She was criticising DEI and ESG initiatives on the ground that they didn't achieve their purported aims.
	Not that the aims themselves were bad, but that they're one giant great big distraction.
	And then she said to combat intersectionality, because she referenced her debate with Kimberley Crenshaw, we need enlightenment values and liberalism.
	Direct quote.
	I need to return to 90s progressivism and not this degenerated progressivism that we're in now.
	Part of the problem is in the conflict of visions there were plenty of people who were going.
	It's not that our enemies are on the wrong destination, it's just the speed and trajectory of travel.
	I think the problem is actually you're driving the car off a cliff and I'd quite like to hit the brakes and back up a little bit.
	Well, yeah, you're right there because the destination that they're all aiming for is still the same progressive fantasy land utopia where everybody can be equal and we can all get on, hold hands across the world and sing Kumbaya together.
	We're driving off the edge of the cliff, that's the cliff, and it won't work.
	And their only question is, right, do we take the Range Rover or do we take the Porsche to get over there?
	It's just the method by which we travel over the edge of this cliff.
	I think, so you said at the start, was it, is this framed as like a sort of an anti-WEF type?
	That's how people have been framing it, and they've also said that it's basically the WEF with right-wing branding, which I don't agree with for numerous reasons.
	So both are technically wrong then?
	Yes.
	Didn't some members, I'm not going to name names, but didn't some members come out and say this is the answer against the WEF?
	Against, yes.
	So my problem with that already is why do you have people from the establishment there if they're still in bed with these NGOs?
	Has Michael Gove been to the WEF in the past?
	I'm pretty sure he has.
	Jimmy Carr.
	You know what?
	You're laughing.
	No, I am laughing because he actually drove me to the tube station once.
	Oh really?
	Jimmy Carter?
	Yeah.
	That's fair play.
	Can't leak internal conversations.
	But anyway, point being, there's a reason he's talking to people.
	The reason folks like Michael Gove are there is to provide legitimacy because the party is gatekept specifically by Michael Gove.
	We won't speculate as to Michael Goe's personal conduct or the reason that he continues to fail upward despite being terrible at his job, but it's pretty clear that he knows where the bodies are buried and that he holds power in the Conservative Party.
	So, he maintains a presence at events like this to try and dispel the momentum, but he can only dispel momentum from the front.
	And he is not well regarded by most of the attendees and he barely sticks around.
	He only just shows up.
	He does his speech and he buggers off.
	Does it by the time very inconsiderate.
	So he is not privy to the conversations that go on off stage.
	And again, I won't be leaking any of the conversation on stage, but part of the point of this is to connect people who have dissident ideas, right?
	Okay.
	Right.
	People In order so that when the Michael Gove types and their power is untenable because they suffer a catastrophic defeat in say about a year and two days ago's time, then people are well positioned to go, well here's some new ideas for the Conservative Party.
	Maybe it's not a long arc of history that bends towards justice because you just bloody lost.
	Maybe we should do the exact thing that our voters keep voting for us to do.
	Maybe that's a revolutionary idea.
	Yeah, it would be great.
	Will they do it?
	Will they do it?
	I am not hopeful.
	No, a couple more honorary mentions.
	There was an ESG panel on day one, and I just pulled my tweet up here because I did a few photos and tweets, just a bit of coverage.
	So on here, this particular woman, she leads the 30% Club.
	Now, If you haven't heard of that... No, explain.
	So, the idea behind the 30% Club was to get 30% female board members on banks after the 2008 financial crash, right?
	I believe it's just for being female.
	Yes, her name is Helena Morrissey.
	Did they succeed in that goal?
	Oh, they overshot it.
	They got 40%.
	And record inflation has never felt so equal.
	Well, so she actually said that It wasn't an example of a diversity quota, it was just an expansive definition of meritocracy.
	Right, okay.
	This is the kind of double think that currently I'm taking a read through, and I know his name is Mudd in many circles on the right, understandably so, he is a terrible poster on Twitter, but the book so far is quite interesting, Richard Hanania's Origins of Woke, and he talks quite frequently about how the legislation of American quotas and probably UK quotas.
	Well, I mean, I've looked into the Equalities Act in the UK and it engages in the same doublespeak.
	They say you're not allowed to put in direct quotas so that you're able to explicitly restrict hiring to particular peoples of a particular race or sex or gender identity or anything because that would be discriminatory.
	Discriminatory.
	You can't do the explicit discrimination, but you can set targets.
	You can set these particular hiring practices.
	So it says in one breath, no, you can't set quotas because that would be discrimination, but you can do these other things, which are the exact same discrimination, but sounds a bit better for a PR level.
	And that sounds like the kind of discussion that's going on.
	You're referring to clauses 158 and 159, which is essentially, we will infer by any disparity that is disproportionate to the makeup of the population that discrimination has taken place, because on the fundamental axiom that everyone is universal and equal and has the same capacity for human dignity, whatever woolly look people's ideas are.
	Hang on, hang on.
	From there, we think that you will achieve equal outcomes if there is a level playing field, and if we don't achieve equal outcomes, therefore, there is discrimination that takes place, so we have to step in.
	Yeah, they say explicitly that in an even and even-handedly sorted hiring process, These would all even out to the sort of ratios that you would expect in the available hiring pool, in the available labor pool, of the people of particular races, sex, and gender identities, and all sorts.
	But then they say, no quotas.
	The problem is, okay, how are you supposed to make sure that you're hitting these?
	How are you supposed to know what the available demographics of the available labor pool are?
	Well, you need large compliance departments so that you're able to get all of this sorted, so you can have people being the bean counters, keeping track of all of it.
	And in the Equality Act guidelines that you can find on the UK's government website, it explicitly says you can set targets, but not quotas.
	What is the practical difference between these things?
	It is the double speak, double think, it infuriates me.
	And the other point that was frustrating as well, that on the same panel, Terence Keighley, who's a former BlackRock advisor, he's now gone somewhere.
	Very trustworthy man.
	Sorry, this is... I know, I know.
	You're not selling it!
	No, okay, right, okay, okay.
	We go through the depths, back up, alright?
	Okay, right, point is, this was on the same panel as Vivek Ramaswamy, who was sitting down decrying ESG's in a very eloquent way.
	Yes, he was doing his presidential pitch, whatever.
	And Winston Marshall's dad, Paul Marshall, he was on the GB News board again, recent event.
	Winston Marshall from...
	Hunter and Son.
	Yes.
	So his dad was decrying the fact that technological changes in business have meant that all the business executives are distanced from the consequences of closing their factories due to globalization.
	So they've got no response to the local communities and that has to change.
	Very good ethic.
	Then Terrence gets up on stage and says that, number one, Uber was a great example of creative destruction.
	Because it got rid of all of the local cab firms, consolidated it down for convenience.
	I mean, I think there's quite a few black cabbies.
	There's a big controversy with Uber and black cab drivers and things like that.
	I think in London there's something to do with licensing for black cab drivers and they don't want Uber encroaching on their territory because it's something that's known to be part of London culture.
	You have the black cabbies who know the entire city like the back of their hand.
	They also used to be able to undercut them on rates.
	Also, there were Uber riots in Paris.
	This is actually the first segment I did from joining this company because they put agent provocateurs in there.
	So they paid people to fake protests.
	And let's not forget who some of the most prolific hirers of illegal labor tend to be.
	I was about to say the exact same thing.
	Also, the new Uber drivers, all the diversity flooding into communities to then create all the reasons to drive these cabs.
	Cultural change might be a bit of a concern, but the most frustrating thing he said was he was against CSGs because they weren't hitting the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals fast enough or efficient enough.
	They're very wasteful, guys.
	What if I don't want to hit the Sustainable Development Goals that, for example, the UNAID said that children can consent to sex?
	What if I think that's a bad idea and don't want to do those?
	Well, the UN, being the most supremely democratic organisation that's ever existed, and you know they are because they say they are, they wouldn't say they were if they weren't, has values that I do not align with.
	Likewise.
	And I don't think that I should be forced to live my life by diktats of a load of self-appointed officials from foreign countries.
	Yeah, not great.
	If we can just go on to the next one, because my stream deck and my mouse is dead for some reason.
	Lovely.
	Thanks very much.
	So, I wanted to contrast all that.
	I wanted to contrast, for example, the former Prime Minister of Australia getting up and saying that he was really good friends with Blair and Bush, and he agreed with them on foreign policy, and Katharine Burble getting up and talking about multiculturalism, how it actually works, because I'm a Kiwi, and I'm also part Indian, and all these things.
	Democracy.
	The political system's so popular, you have to bomb people into it.
	Good point, well made.
	I just wanted to contrast it with the other side.
	So they did actually platform a few dissident voices.
	That's good.
	Including inviting Curtis Yarvin and Ed Dutton.
	Which you would not expect at many conferences.
	Yeah, I was, I think of all of the things you've said, the fact that Ed Dutton was there was the most surprising.
	Although I did see him post on his YouTube channel that I believe he, it was probably clickbait, but it looked like he was measuring people's skulls while he was there.
	I didn't see any of that.
	Did he break any calipers out when you said hello to him?
	No, no, no, he didn't, fortunately.
	So he just eyeballed you?
	There's none that put my ears, I'm sure.
	To draw on a friend of the show, Mary Harrington, who we've interviewed before, go watch that.
	If we can just click play here, because the progress narrative is explicitly challenged, and it was a big bucket of cold water poured over after the first day.
	So if we can just hit play on that, please.
	Mary, you've written a fair bit about your dissatisfaction with a kind of mindless conception of progress.
	We heard progress celebrated as a concept this morning, but you're concerned about misapprehended progress, I suppose, and also about technological progress, technology, and technology being conflated with progress.
	That's right.
	We can just pause that, please.
	Right.
	Can we skip, and I know this is really boomering the tech here, to 8.04.
	Thank you very much, Jack.
	You're a lifesaver.
	Just to get her answer consolidated.
	We've been living in that world for all of that time.
	To me, if you look at how it's going, I have some questions about how well it's contributing to human flourishing at this point.
	I heard some very enthusiastic words about progress this morning, and I would challenge everybody here To think, to try and think as concretely as possible about what we really mean when we say progress and what we really mean.
	Do we just mean more freedom underwritten by technology?
	Because I would put it to you based on the evidence from the 50 years of transhumanist revolution that it comes with as many downsides as costs and I think the challenge we face now She actually got a much better response.
	It was the sort of highlight for the audience.
	So that means that lots of the other tepid panels are being put forth to placate whoever else is gatekeeping the paradigm right now.
	So she actually got a much better response.
	It was the sort of highlight for the audience.
	So that means that lots of the other tepid panels are being put forth to placate whoever else is gatekeeping the paradigm right now.
	And I am aware that within the advisory board, there is some internal discourse around the trajectory of travel.
	I know that some people were very happy to invite dissidents, whereas some other secular, more materialistic, just-get-problem-solved liberals, who also had spots on here, We're trying to downplay things like the faith and family angle, for example, because they didn't want to offend people.
	But they were overruled, clearly, because otherwise this wouldn't have happened.
	So do you think it's a way to sort of bring these ideas that we know don't work, and we know are out of date, or we know that aren't working?
	to put them on first and then bring in people with, we believe to have the solutions on next to sort of dampen down the original.
	Is that, is that?
	That seems to be my reading on it, particularly because I think it's far more valuable to slowly shift the Overton window towards the paradigm that we would prefer, the post-liberal post-Blairite paradigm with the legitimacy of,
	of the prior paradigm still being in there to show how outmoded and out of touch and unpopular they are, just by the nature of audience applause, even its effective optics, than to be pissing permanently outside the tent and just accusing everyone there of being under the sway of the weft capture.
	I understand the tactic.
	It's a lot more effective.
	That's what it is.
	Sounds a little bit 4D chess to me.
	Yeah.
	But if a lack of applause contrasted with some other applause caused some Tory wets to start crying in private, then that's a pointless.
	That is a point.
	It was good.
	There were some very encouraging conversations had in private.
	And also, and I just thought I'd finish on two things.
	First of all, these were the reports that were being done, right?
	The demographic question.
	Oh, okay!
	So in here, and again... Do you mind if I...?
	Please do!
	It has a really interesting finding.
	On current immigration and birth rate statistics, the UK will be 54% first generation immigrant by 2083.
	Oh wow, it shows UK immigration ratio with Japan next to it as well.
	Yeah, it also goes into Israel's birth statistics and their border policy and basically said, can we just copy that please?
	Because the Israelis birth rates are going up, particularly among their religious minorities, and they are only allowing demographics to immigrate if they culturally assimilate.
	That's migration model old age dependency ratio.
	It's first-gen migrants as percentage of population.
	Were there any conference discussions about that particular report?
	No, and this is part of the very strange problem in that there was not an actual panel discussion on migration despite producing an entire report on it.
	There were lots of... You would expect it would be a massive focus.
	Obviously family is part of demographics because you want to... I've already flipped through it.
	Thank you.
	You want to be able to encourage your own native population to have children and to put them into a sphere where they're comfortably able to afford it as well, but you can't really address that question without, in my opinion, talking about the mass demographic importing of foreigners into the country.
	You can't really have one discussion without the other if you want to solve the problems that it's causing.
	It was raised informally by a couple of attendees, notably friend of the show Miriam Cates, best MP in Parliament, who turned around and said, well, we do need to revitalise our domestic birth rates, otherwise we're going to have total system collapse, you're going to leave people bereft of meaning, we're not going to have any cultural continuity, and so we need tax breaks and to ensure mums can stay at home and all this sorts of stuff.
	But there was no formal discussion of immigration, which was majorly lacking.
	It was specifically at NatCon, though, And NatCon and ARC have some overlapping organizers.
	And the interesting thing that's going to happen with ARC is that NatCon is probably going to be next year.
	There won't be an ARC next year.
	It's going to be after the American and UK elections.
	And I think the reason for that is political soil will be very fertile for a new paradigm to be planted.
	Because when the Conservatives suffer a staggering defeat, they're going to be scrounging for answers.
	Who are they going to turn to?
	Well, you could do a lot worse than all of the smart people Jordan Peterson gets in one room, particularly with the popular politicians who all get rounds of applause versus the ones that led them to defeat.
	And the applause, and this is the final point I'd like to go on to, if we just go on to this last tweet here, the applause comes unanimously from religious-minded, metaphysical, true conservatives.
	Because Jonathan Pageau, on the third day, got up and asked, as part of audience interaction at the start of his speech, how many here of you ascribe to a faith?
	Now, this was a nearly full auditorium.
	I was about three or four rows in the back, and every hand bar about three went up.
	Now that's very different.
	So that means that there's not as much managerial, materialistic, atheistic mindset going to most of the attendees.
	There are still some among the speakers invited, but if the audience in the room is setting the tone for what the future conference will be, when they need to rebuild after a defeat, then it's going to be swaying in a much healthier way.
	And that way is actually spearheaded by Peterson, who, and I have to say, because I was Fortunate enough to attend the O2 talk.
	He sounds like his old self.
	I said to him, his message resonates a hell of a lot more when he's, you know, not tweeting in haikus and not nearly as angry when he's a lot more fatherly.
	And he took that tone with both his final speech at ARC and at the O2.
	So it's actually quite encouraging to see the messaging harmonize and be less objectionable.
	So I understand people's skepticism, but it is a bit of a cause for hope.
	I think, um, I don't know what you guys think, please feel free to push back on this, but, um, I think I'm trying to speak as someone who doesn't get invited to conferences like these, uh, and obviously speak to a lot of the audience at home who will never have the chance to go to these sorts of conferences.
	I think a lot of people, from what I've seen from, uh, just people not necessarily tweeting or, you know, anything, people want to see more solutions as opposed to just sitting around and talking.
	Yes.
	And I think a lot of people now are kind of sick and tired of the conferences and stuff.
	It's really great on Twitter when you see videos of finally someone speaking out about something.
	Yeah, sure.
	Finally.
	I understand that it seems that the rhetorical discussion has progressed somewhat, where actual officials in government are talking about things that Five years ago, they never would have dreamt of discussing, or they would have said that you sound like some kind of fascist UKIP MP talking about... But still, yeah, I'm with Lewis.
	I'm tired of the talk, and if people who are in power or have connections to power, who are able to influence things behind the scenes, are attending these kinds of events, I don't want to hear about what they're talking about doing, what they're thinking about doing.
	I want to see them do something.
	Yeah, that's literally how I feel.
	And I think to add, I think we know, if you want to know who really runs our country, it's really the civil service and its pressure groups.
	Those are the two main ones that really push for policy in this country, especially.
	So, I think the enemy really is there and it's just about addressing that and going for that.
	You know, there's plenty of pressure groups within this country that shape policy that I think influential speakers need to be calling out and saying we need to be going against these in order to have a say within policy and government.
	Let's be fair, a lot of these organisations as well, the NGOs, will be receiving probably a bit of government funding as well.
	A lot of them.
	So why start up?
	Why doesn't the government cut that funding?
	Exactly.
	And we need to have those really, not reactionary, I don't think that's the correct term, but the potent sort of topics of, okay, this NGO is being funded by this wing or X wing by the government.
	We need to say who it is.
	We need to show where it's coming from.
	And we need to all collectively say, this is wrong and we need to do something about it.
	And instead of, I mean, no offense, cause I do like Jordan Peterson.
	Some of his opinions have fallen flat recently, especially with what's going on in the Middle East and you know, other things, but that's just my view.
	But, um, It does seem a little bit like a Jordan Peterson Friends Club.
	I mean, that might be a bit too harsh and I might regret saying that, but I think we just need solutions.
	I think more people want solutions.
	Yeah, to echo what you're saying that it feels like a big club that people like myself and Lewis are not invited to.
	It's interesting that Ed Dutton was there.
	I wonder if they had him there, honestly.
	Just for novelty value, because I really like Ed and he's written some very interesting and very useful books, but he is a bit of a strange individual.
	And Curtis Yarvin recently seems to be getting invited to all of these for some reason.
	He's everywhere all at the same time.
	I can't say.
	You can take photos of a dark corner in somewhere and he'll be there lurking in the background.
	All I'll say is these kinds of things are very useful for once for people that definitely do want solutions, who are hyper aware that a very intelligent club of 130 IQ Anglos talking among themselves won't change very much, staffing the kinds of counter institutions that will give us those pressure groups to capitalise on a very fertile political time.
	If this turns into a pressure group, then fine.
	Absolutely fine.
	The problem is I'm seeing a lot of establishment heads in there, so I think I'm, excuse the phrase, pissing in the wind.
	If, you know, I think that it might turn into a full-on pressure group to sort out the government legislation.
	There are causes to be cynical, don't get me wrong, as I've presented with.
	I would encourage people not to poo-poo it as just an attempt to marginalise and capture the right.
	I mean, for example, the producer of The Sound of Freedom, that's now running as Mexican president, went on to talk about child trafficking and ending that globally.
	You're not going to get that at the WEF, because plenty of them are Jeffrey Epstein's clientele, I'm sure.
	Yes, at the moment we're in a very slow paradigm to change, and it's frustrating to, again, see Michael Gove speak.
	But it is Jimmy Carr looking around, keeping morale up.
	Let's see what happens in 2025 after the Tories have delivered probably an inevitable stonking defeat, and see if the long arc of history doesn't quite bend towards the injustice we've felt so far.
	Thank you.
	See, before... I'll mention this.
	Jack, while I'm talking, do you mind trying to get the... Oh wait, no, they are... It's back!
	Hey!
	Things are working again.
	It's so good it made Harry Italian.
	There... Hey!
	Yo, cookin' a pizza!
	I've completely forgot what I was going to say now.
	You were going to intro your segment.
	Well, I was going to follow on from what we were talking about there, but it's completely slipped my mind what I was going to say.
	So yeah, I will just move on to the next segment then, because everybody knows that homeschooling is a bit of a contentious topic if you are an insane crazy person.
	If you are an insane crazy person, otherwise known as somebody who politically and socially identifies themselves on the left, you look at a child being taught the values that the parent is happy with, That is more wholesome and that keeps families together.
	You see families interacting as a unit, as they should, and you think to yourself, this is awful, how do I change this?
	As the left always does, the left sees the family as the greatest threat to the strength of the state.
	Because the family unit being the most foundational societal unit in all of civilization is where strength can come from.
	If you have strong families, And you can't break them up, there's very little the state can do to penetrate into that.
	So homeschooling is something that the left has been particularly furious about recently.
	And recently it does seem that they are starting to man the battleships, metaphorically speaking, because they have started an all-out assault talking about all of the Downright terrible and awful things that goes on about homeschooling, and you know that this is happening because... And I will take... This is still not working.
	The mouse has stopped working.
	Thank you.
	Because as... Yes, if you go to that link, please, Jack, thank you.
	As Oron McIntyre was speaking about in his most recent show, which I watched a bit of, which is one of the things that inspired me to do this, John Oliver decided to do a big segment on his television show last week, Tonight, I think it's called, where he spoke about all of the terrible things to do with modern where he spoke about all of the terrible things to do with modern homeschooling and how it's perfectly fine that you
	And obviously, it's a family's right to pull their kids out of school if they're black and being taught whitewash history or if they're getting bullied because they're a 300 pound monster at the age of 14 and other kids are saying, hey, maybe you should lose some weight.
	He's saying, obviously, it's perfectly fine if you homeschool your kids if you're doing it for leftist reasons.
	But look at these insane Christians getting together and teaching their children Christian values and classical values and teaching them not sex, but maths.
	Can you believe it?
	They're teaching kids maths and English and they're ABCs and reading books that weren't written by sexual perverts.
	I don't know about you, but accidentally this is quite useful.
	Now of course they're going to use state power to crack down on homeschooling.
	That's what it seems like they're going to try to do because not only that, John Oliver is also highlighting, as we'll get onto, some of the lobby groups that are part of American politics that have lobbied to deregulate homeschooling.
	In a way that has been very beneficial for allowing more families to do it and allowing more families more freedom in what they're going to teach their children.
	Fortunately there are some lobby groups to counter on the state level like Them Before Us and Mums for Liberty but this is a flashpoint issue like so many recently that betrays the truth that the institutions are not neutral.
	Schooling, the police, the government will be filled with a value-normative direction of travel, and so if you leave it up to someone else, particularly someone who's been churned out by the university system, and if they're an English teacher particularly, couldn't get a job doing anything else because they're not particularly creative or smart, If you leave the education of your children up to them, their heads will not be filled with a neutral, holistic education.
	It will be filled with the values of that resentful midwhip.
	So, take it into your own hands.
	And that's why the government is so obsessed with taking away the ability to homeschool.
	That's why the Biden administration said that parents should not be the primary stakeholder in their children's education, because they see education as a way to mold your children in their own image, which is the progressive manifesto.
	Well, the state sees your children as their property.
	Fundamentally, that's what they see.
	They see your child and they see, one, someone new to propagandize, two, future taxpayers, so they need to be completely on board with everything that we are doing so that we make sure that they don't Get involved in any political pressure groups against us or do anything against us.
	And if you want to know just how important families are, then you should check out this recent video when Shad came into the office and appeared on the podcast and did some premium videos with us, which sadly I wasn't in that day.
	I really wanted to meet Shad.
	He's a really wholesome guy.
	Yeah, he's a really lovely guy.
	I've been watching his videos for ages and I was off that day.
	Have you watched this, by the way?
	No, I haven't.
	Sorry, I caught it last night.
	It's one of the most wholesome things we have on the website.
	and as Carl deems it, dadism.
	Have you watched this, by the way?
	No, I haven't.
	So I caught it last night.
	It's one of the most wholesome things we have on the website.
	Chad got Carl to tear up.
	So it's well worth it.
	And not in a sad way, in a genuinely heartwarming way.
	That's really lovely.
	Also, they look like mirror universe versions of one another.
	They look like they've died and gone to heaven.
	We've got Anglo Karl and Aussie Karl, and they're interacting.
	Yeah, they're in heaven right now, overlooking a mountain range where a giant father and his giant daughter are looking towards the stars.
	It's quite pretty.
	So Oron was talking about this, as I said, and it made me think to myself, well, I'll take a look into this as well.
	And the John Oliver segment seems to have been inspired by the fact that Washington Post over the past, just on Tuesday, I think that is, posted this large article talking about homeschooling's rise from fringe to fastest growing form of education.
	I wonder what inspired that.
	Maybe it's the sewage pipe you connected to the schooling system.
	Yes, and you can see they've got a thing here.
	It's not working for some reason, but normally this is an animated little graph and it shows that it's gone up over 50%.
	I think it ends at about 54% of an increase in homeschooling.
	And they've got this graph which is much more useful which takes it there are no data for I think around 11 or however so many states that is because there are about 11 states in the U.S.
	that don't require you to report if you're homeschooling.
	You're just allowed to do it which seems pretty reasonable to me.
	Mostly the Republican states as well other than Oregon and Arizona.
	And Maine as well.
	I think that's a Democrat state.
	Yeah, because it's in New England.
	But the data that they were able to get from the states where you do have to report to the government, whether you're taking your kids out of school to homeschool them, show that basically every single one of them, the only one that doesn't have, you've got New Mexico at 1% increase.
	And what's that one?
	MD?
	Not Michigan.
	It's next to Delaware.
	That one is 6%.
	So there are some negligible ones, but everywhere is an increase, including places like California, Florida, New York has 103%, Washington D.C.
	has an 108% increase.
	It might be Maryland.
	Perhaps, perhaps.
	You can correct me in the comments if you're watching this on the channel or on YouTube or on the website.
	So please let me know in the comments below.
	But let's read what they say in some of this article.
	So they say homeschooling has become by a wide margin America's fastest growing form of education as families from upper Manhattan to eastern Kentucky embrace a largely unregulated... So in the very first paragraph they're making sure because the Washington Post know that it's a trigger word.
	It's a trigger word for the leftist sleeper agents.
	They hear the word unregulated and they think, oh my god, they're putting poison in the well!
	Yeah, yeah.
	But that's what they're doing in the article.
	They're poisoning the well because you hear unregulated and most people are going to go, this means that they're noncing children.
	This must mean that kids are being diddled because that's never happened in a public school.
	Don't look into the rates of that kind of thing going on in American public schools versus the Catholic Church, for instance, because it really does make what the Catholic Church was indicted for look basically meaningless, even though it was obviously terrible what was going on there, because This kind of thing goes on quite a lot in some public schools.
	It's pretty horrible when you look into it.
	But they say it's an unregulated practice once confined to the ideological fringe, even though prior to about the latter 19th century when America had a big push to implement public school systems, this was the norm.
	This is not some ideological fringe.
	This is not some unusual mode of human behavior.
	Homeschooling is how anybody in the past outside of the 20th century, and even in lots of countries to this day, anybody who wasn't in the upper echelons of society had to educate their children.
	Because you didn't have access to public schooling.
	You You didn't have access to massive pools of public money that was being put to the use of educating other people's children.
	Most of your money would have been going into maintaining an army and funding state activities.
	It wouldn't have been going into educating your children.
	So you had to do it yourself.
	So the fact that they're already trying to poison the world by saying it's unregulated and it's an ideological fringe, it's completely unnatural human behaviour.
	Can you imagine parents teaching their own children?
	God, why would I want to do that when I could be going on a cruise, says the boomer mindset.
	I was going to ask, do they make a clear definition of what fringe means?
	Because when I hear the word fringe, as someone on the right, I think as of battalion.
	That's the first thing I think of is fringe.
	Those sorts of ideas.
	They're trying to make you think it's bad, essentially.
	It's another byword for unregulated ideological fringe means you should be scared of it.
	It's the boogeyman!
	You need to watch out for it.
	So they don't provide a clear definition of what fringe actually means?
	No, they just throw it out there as a concern word.
	Thought I'd double check.
	Yeah, it's moralizing.
	It's very petty moralizing.
	The growth demonstrates homeschool's arrival as a mainstay of the American educational system.
	Ignore those hundreds of years that America existed as a colony, and then the states where it was just the normal thing you did.
	With its impact on society and public schools and above all on hundreds of thousands of children now learning outside a conventional academic setting only beginning to be felt.
	I just need to correct myself as well.
	It wasn't just that there was no state support for educating your children.
	You had to do it yourself.
	Oftentimes, these practices were kept within the communities, helped along by the parents and also administered by churches.
	That would be where a lot of people got their education from.
	You'd get a basic education from the church, so you'll see later on when people start to go, oh my god, a lot of them are Christians, is actually a pretty normal thing going back into the pretty recent past.
	Also, prior to industrial production, you had vocational training that you would learn from your parents.
	You'd have a family trade, you'd have a place of belonging, you'd have a community, you'd have A predetermined role that was deeply meaningful.
	It's only because of the industrial and information economies that we have been inducted into institutional schooling, gotten a general education, separated children from their parents and made them pliable to indoctrination.
	So this is a very alien way of human beings to find themselves in times, places, families and meaningful vocations.
	Yes, I'll carry on here then.
	So, obtaining accurate information about the homeschooling population in the United States is challenging in 11 states, including Texas, Michigan, Connecticut, and Illinois.
	Officials do not require notification when families decide to educate their children at home or monitor how those students are faring.
	Seven additional states have unreliable tallies of homeschooled kids, according to what posts say they found.
	So, these are the statistics, and this is some of the information that Oliver goes over in his segment.
	So this is where he got it from, which is why I made the connection between the two, especially given how close together.
	I wouldn't be surprised if the people researching for John Oliver's show already had contact with the Washington Post and were aiding them in this and there was some information being exchanged because it seems to be a very coordinated effort which is this article comes out a few days prior on the 29th we have articles like this being pushed in the Huffington Post when you put when you type in homeschooling into Google and look at news this is one of the first article articles that comes up and I'll go over that in a moment
	Um, this comes out and then John Oliver the day after this article comes out releases this.
	So it seems to be a push that is being coordinated.
	It's not particularly spontaneous because nothing is ever spontaneous in politics.
	Everything is always organized.
	They carry on.
	There's some interesting factoids that they put in here.
	In states with comparable enrollment figures, the number of homeschooled students increased 51% over the past six school years, far outpacing the 7% growth in private school enrollment.
	Public school enrollment drops 4% in those states over the same period.
	Decline partly attributed to homeschooling.
	Homeschooling surging popularity crosses every measurable line of politics, geography, and demographics.
	The number of homeschooled kids has increased 373% over the past six years in the small city of Anderson, South Carolina.
	It also increased 358% in a school district in the Bronx.
	So, it's not necessarily just down to white Christians taking their kids out of school because they don't want their kids to be taught how to perform anal sex when they're five years old.
	As much of that is a completely perfect and understandable reason to pull your kids out of school.
	It's people, I think, realizing the general deficiencies in public schooling systems in parts of America where you can send your kids to school, you don't know the education they're getting.
	They're probably getting a very poor education.
	They might be getting bullied because some kids don't fare very well in the social scenarios that school presents them.
	There are any number of very legitimate reasons to pull your kids out of school and I think that it shouldn't just be that you are a conservative, that you should be able to do these things.
	I think anybody, if you want and you have the resources, because I understand for a lot of people, When I have kids, I want to homeschool them, but I don't know if I'm going to be able to have the resources to do so and the time to do so, especially given the British economy.
	Who knows if I'll have the time?
	But if you have the resources and you have the ability to do so... Why not?
	Why not?
	I think it's a good thing to do for your family, especially if at the same time you can put your kids in sociable situations where they can engage with kids of their same age so that they're not falling behind socializing.
	This is part of the thing with institutional schooling of the kid with the lowest common denominator behavior and intelligence level will often set the tone for the class because the teacher is spending so much time doing behavioral management and they might not be particularly competent themselves.
	They'll probably be stretched thin.
	So the most disruptive and the least intelligent kid will dictate the rate of learning and also the social situations.
	I experienced it.
	I had the exact same dream.
	We all felt that.
	I was that kid.
	We could tell, yeah.
	Thank you very much.
	And that's also the other thing of, oh, well, how would they learn to socialize?
	Well, first of all, we were perfectly fine without being stuck around a bunch of strange kids, like a cohort of 30 to 100 kids.
	We formed well-developed human beings.
	You might have to put effort into your own community rather than expecting the state to form that community for you.
	Yeah, and you can value select for the kind of kids that your child makes friends with so you can make a much better formed person rather than...
	The kids raising each other.
	A child cannot transmit values to other children other than probably the most malformed child who is mature beyond their years.
	So you want adults to raise children properly.
	I have seen reports from inner city American schools where the teachers will talk about their inability to be able to police the students because they'll have often Often they'll be very demographically, mono-demographic schools where you'll have massive blocks of black schools and hispanic schools and the teachers will go in there and just be unable to police the children.
	Children, most of them except for maybe one or two gifted students who really should be in a situation where they can actually learn rather than being distracted and bullied by everybody around them.
	Most of the kids won't be aiming for any kind of educational achievements.
	And then when the teachers try and put their foot down and try to say, listen, I'm going to set some order.
	This is what we're going to do.
	The public school system incentivizes principals, head teachers to turn around and say, no, you're not allowed to do that.
	That's discriminatory because that's their culture.
	For them to misbehave is their culture.
	So you're not allowed to do anything.
	So even if you are of a demographic minority, And you send your kid to school and they are smart, they're gifted, they can achieve something, they are likely to be pulled down by all of the students around them and the systems in place will not allow the teachers to do anything to support that child because they'll be too busy just trying to get through the day.
	behavioral management yeah it's terrible there's a big myth as well surrounding homeschool kids and public school kids um in terms of social interaction i think we see a lot of this idea that oh if you send your kids to like well if you homeschool your child they will be incompatible with the real world this is all these weird i call them conspiracy theories really yeah that they're these that the kids won't be able to socially interact
	they'll go to work environments and they won't be able to really interact with like their colleagues their peers but It's just a load of nonsense.
	There's prime examples.
	I mean, Brett Cooper is a prime example of someone who was homeschooled and has done extremely... Oh no, that's one person out of millions of children.
	And Clare Brimlow as well.
	I think there's so many good examples.
	I think the statistics bear out that most of the time homeschooled kids surpass publicly schooled children in the rate of academic achievement.
	Oftentimes they'll get an education, a better education, a lot More quickly, whenever these things have been looked into, but I'll continue with some of this.
	So this is an interesting one.
	Despite the claims that homeschooling boom is a result of failing public schools, the Post found no correlation between school district quality as measured by standardized test scores and homeschooling growth.
	In fact, high-scoring districts had some of the biggest spikes in homeschooling early in the pandemic, though by the fall of 2022, increases were similar regardless of school performance.
	So it doesn't matter if the place that you're in has really good schools, the chances are that homeschooling has increased in your area anyway, because sometimes it is just that you want to have a greater connection with your children.
	Even if the school's great, you may not necessarily agree with the standards that they're setting, with the values that they're transmitting, and you might not just like the idea that somebody else is raising your own children.
	for most of the day that your children are out of your own hands and in somebody else's influence because they like to pretend that children without the state's intervene are under the influence of evil conniving parents who only want the worst for them who want to transmit backwards and bigoted values to them
	and that children should be allowed to flourish and come to their own conclusions but that misunderstands the point and misrepresents it intentionally because the point is not that children will otherwise be able to come to their own conclusions it's they will be fed those conclusions by somebody who isn't you because children Don't really have the mental capacity or experience to be able to come to their own conclusions about the world, except for very surface-level understanding.
	That's where adult influence has to come in.
	So that's what they want to do.
	They want to go, no, it's our values, not yours, that we're giving to them.
	And it says, this rise has been celebrated by home education advocates, but the rise has also led to critics of weak regulation It is sound alarms!
	Home school kids don't have to submit to any form of testing for academic progress, except when, once again, you look into them, you find that they're doing much better academically than public school kids.
	In most states, and even states that require assessments, often offer loopholes according to the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, which urges great oversight.
	Many of America's new homeschooled children have entered a world where no government official will ever check in on what or how well they're being taught.
	And that is partly the point, isn't it really?
	I don't trust the government.
	I don't like the government.
	I think the government hates me and hates my values.
	So why should I let the government intrude on my personal life and teach my children to hate me?
	Well it classified a lot of dissenting parents who were showing up to school board meetings protesting said sexually explicit materials as domestic terrorists so why would I trust that you had best interests at heart?
	It's true.
	There you go.
	That moralizing tone continues on into the John Oliver segment that he did, where the points that were brought up, which was, he said, as I mentioned, that, oh, homeschooling communities much broader than right-wing parents afraid of hypothetical third-grade lube demonstrations.
	Okay, if it's only hypothetical, why did everybody freak out when Ron DeSantis and others decided to ban it?
	Why can we name the books?
	Yeah, why can we name the books, and why have I seen so many photos of the books in school libraries?
	That's a good question.
	He estimated, well, he found one estimate that had about 2 million children homeschooled in the US for reasons from self, social or health issues to fears of school safety to black families, capitalized black families, avoiding whitewashed curricula.
	So there you go.
	It's perfectly fine as long as it's for leftist values.
	They're not being taught leftism quite as efficiently as we would like.
	So it's fine for them to homeschool if they're going to be taught to be better progressives.
	If they're not going to be taught to be progressives, then it's evil and bigoted and reactionary.
	He says, many parents do not have the time or resources to develop their own at-home curricula.
	Oliver focused on three major publishers of homeschooling textbooks and materials, all Christian companies who purport to help learning through a biblical filter.
	And he said it's absolutely the parents' right to educate their children with any religion if they so choose.
	You know he doesn't believe that.
	That is an absolute lie.
	No leftist believes that.
	But the quality of some of these books can be troubling, and he pointed to one history book that claimed the early 20th century witnessed a cultural breakdown that threatened to destroy the very roots of Western civilization.
	I'm going to leave that one there.
	It literally did when you kill millions of men.
	It's almost like there was an enormous war that killed millions of people.
	But that obviously plays no part in the formation of culture.
	Another work by the company Ace celebrated the Confederate General Robert E. Lee as a devoted Christian who practiced his Christianity in all of his dealings with others.
	Whether you think he was fighting on the right side of the Civil War or not, that's just true.
	And several biology textbooks purported evidence that dinosaurs and mankind existed at the same time.
	So you see what's gone on there, is you've had two opinions that leftists disagree with, conflated with one actually wrong textbook that's giving potentially false information.
	James Dellingpole will be heartbroken that this is being taught.
	So what they're doing there is they're saying here's the obvious nonsense to finish it off with but also here's things that are just opinions that you disagree with and also facts that you disagree with because you're an insane leftist because of course you are because you're watching John Oliver unironically.
	How was this in compliance with the law he said because he also pointed that um He managed to find one random example, which I don't even know is true, of a woman homeschooling her children who wanted to find Nazi-approved textbooks.
	And he uses that to paint a blanket brush over all potentially conservative homeschoolers and say, see, they just want to read Mein Kampf to their children.
	It's like, yeah, bad.
	Can we also talk about the bombing books in schools?
	No, you're just going to deny that?
	All right, then you're not on a saxophone.
	No, I'll keep denying it until you outlaw it, at which point I'm going to say that you're a homophobe.
	How was this in compliance with the law?
	The main answer, said Oliver, was the powerful homeschooling lobby led by the Homeschooling Legal Defense Association, the HSLDA, Oliver conceded, grew out of an environment in the 1970s and 80s where homeschooling was over-regulated.
	Once again, you know he doesn't believe that there is such a thing as over-regulation, and in some places banned.
	For over four decades, it has grown into a powerful, hardline lobbying group with a conservative Christian bent.
	Ooh. - Ooh, scary. - You get all the scare words out there because leftists reading this Guardian article and leftists watching this are supposed to then know that they're supposed to call their local senator, their local politician, and say, we need to reduce the influence of this particular lobbying group.
	Ignore the fact that most lobbying groups are not in the interests of the people, if you want to describe it that way.
	Most lobbying groups tend to be in the services of the establishment.
	And most of these people don't care about those.
	They only want to get rid of the lobbying groups that lobby for greater influence of parents over their own children.
	And I think the situation that's going on in America at the moment with homeschooling is great.
	I think it's fantastic.
	They've had a rise in it.
	I think it's fantastic that parents have a lot of freedom over how they want to raise their children.
	But that's what this coordinated effort is trying to change.
	And the last thing I wanted to highlight was this article that I referenced earlier, which is an extended and then everybody clapped article.
	It's from the perspective of a woman who says, I'm the creator of a girl empowerment business.
	Alright, I'm already not listening.
	Opinion discarded.
	We created curriculum kits that use stories of notable women in history to teach girls about their worth and potential.
	She lists the women?
	I think Harriet Tubman is one of the ones that's listed in there.
	Okay.
	I'm the writer and researcher and being my business partner and one of my favorite guy feminists, a cuck, a cuckold, is the creative and marketing guru.
	Worthless opinions all around.
	Don't listen to this woman.
	I don't want any curriculum generated by this particular person, but I'll carry on.
	She says she's gone to over 20 homeschool conferences.
	Her company has lots of supportive and excited customers.
	However, there's a faction that prickles at our presence whenever we're at one of these.
	Bee and I try to brush it off, but even the smallest splinter, when not addressed, can cause an infection.
	So people who disagree with my progressive feminism are a literal infection that needs to be cut out, is the implication that I'm getting.
	A mum enters our booths at the Exhibitor Hall in Missouri.
	Okay, my daughter loves Harriet Tubman.
	Tell me what you got, she says.
	I explain our product, how we use historical women to teach girls about their worth and potential.
	The mother says, but is it woke?
	I mean, I don't want to teach my daughter about woke.
	I look around at our curriculum kits.
	They're all women who fought for equality.
	And I think to myself, hell yes, it's woke!
	The irony is lost on this potential customer.
	What do you mean, woke?
	I ask.
	She opens her mouth.
	Half words and phrases stumble and tumble around.
	A few talking points from news sources fall out.
	Finally, she sighs.
	I don't know.
	Just tell me again what you write.
	And everybody clapped.
	Everybody gave a rousing applause, I was handed a Medal of Honor by the President himself, and the entire article.
	Which is quite long, to be honest, and these have all stopped working again, so you'll have to trust me on that one.
	The article's quite long.
	It's just one after the other, this.
	It's just saying, I encountered a backwards conservative person, and then I owned them by asking them what they actually meant by woke, because none of them really know what woke is.
	So this is a smug, insufferable idiot who thinks they're better and smarter than you, trying to humiliate you by reinforcing leftist understandings of those on the right as being backwards.
	and bigoted and uninformed about people.
	And that's what this whole thing is.
	They want to pull back homeschooling so that women like this can be in charge of your child's education.
	You don't want it.
	And they're coming for the homeschoolers.
	They will be trying to create more and more coordinated attacks on people homeschooling their own children.
	So you need to be aware of it.
	And you need to probably, if you're in America especially, be joining these lobbying groups so that you're able to have a degree of influence and push back against this.
	Bravo. - Hello.
	Okay, right, so whilst I was scrolling through Twitter, as one does, trying to figure out what story we should talk about for today's segment, I came across this image.
	If we'd like to just blow up the image on the screen, that's okay.
	So take a look, take a little look at this, gents.
	This is a woman smiling with a glass of something inside of a pod.
	And I thought, hmm, interesting.
	I wonder what this is.
	So I did a bit of digging and this is called a Sarko Pod.
	Right.
	I'm going to guess it's the brand new living arrangements that the WEF has in store for us.
	Probably.
	It sounds like it.
	I think living is the wrong word.
	Living is the wrong word!
	This is called a Sarko Pod which is planned to be launched in Switzerland and like I mentioned in my post, admittedly I hadn't heard of one of these until I saw this image and I was compelled to find out what it was.
	The Sarko pod is otherwise known as a suicide pod and it's a mechanical device a subject can use after a mental fitness test.
	You receive an access code that only lasts 24 hours and according to sources you can choose whether you want either a dark or transparent view and you can request where you would like to put the pod If you request a particular location.
	I'm sorry this is so dark and disappointing for a segment but don't worry there have been memes that have spawned from this.
	I can imagine that this particular woman has been memed somewhat sadly but I think it's the deal with the fact that it Dark and horrifying to look at somebody happily smiling and waving while they're in the suicide pod.
	Presumably a family member or friend who's accompanied them to this, which is a horrifying thought in and of itself.
	Now, is this one of the ones where I think I've looked, not for any particular reason, not for the reason that you might think, I've looked into some of these in the past and I think that they remove the CO2 from the air around you and it causes you to suffocate.
	It's like Deadpool, where they put him in the chamber and suffocate him over and over.
	I mean, it doesn't seem like the most pleasant way to go, to be perfectly honest.
	It sounds like the liquidation pods in Mass Effect 2 from the collector ship.
	That's it.
	Once the subject presses the button from within the capsule, nitrogen gas is emitted, thus the subject loses consciousness and inevitably passes.
	Now, I want to just stress, this is going to be quite a sensitive subject.
	However, I do welcome some light-heartedness around this.
	Absolutely.
	So I went through the comments because posting this actually sparked... Can we go to the next link please, Jack?
	I think that's what we're going for.
	So, they actually made a rainbow-themed suicide pod.
	This is from their website that I've taken, and the link is there, and we'll look into it a bit more.
	This isn't one of the memes?
	Nope, this is genuine.
	If you want to die with pride, yeah, death is a voyage of sorts.
	Sarko makes it an event to remember.
	Now, I've seen some statistics that might suggest that 42% of a certain community might have use for this.
	I was going to make that joke but thought that was low-hanging fruit.
	I can't get on board with a high-five, I'm so sorry.
	I felt bad leaving him hanging.
	If I just go on to the next one with this.
	It's alright, tech isn't working.
	Someone referenced Futurama with the suicide booth.
	This was a joke in Futurama?
	Yes it was.
	Obviously they're not on every street corner at this point.
	Now the reason why I'm showing the light-heartedness bit first is because we're going to be delving into the darker part of it so I'm sort of dampening as we go.
	It might sound a little bit too much but There's a point to this.
	This is our chance to bite the pillow before.
	Before we properly go into it.
	The next one, someone mentioned Soylent Green.
	I remember that, yes.
	So for those who don't know, it's a 1973 movie set in a catastrophic... I can't even say the word.
	Help me out here.
	Astrophysed?
	Yes, polluted and overpopulated future society in which suicide is not only legal but encouraged and facilitated by the state, which is set in New York.
	It's because they recycle people into the food supply.
	Yeah, and it's really dark and really horrific.
	Remember when Gavin Newsom proposed a net zero way of disposing of bodies that you would be composted by the state?
	Yes.
	So we're kind of seeing a similar horrific thing.
	Yeah.
	Great tone.
	Anyways, next one after that, someone just put personal gas chamber.
	Fantastic.
	In a clown world.
	Because that's literally what it is.
	Awful.
	Yeah, just get in your car with a hosepipe like a real man.
	Next one.
	Joke, YouTube.
	So, June Slater actually said, this is death by a Morphy Richards steam iron.
	And I didn't know what it was until I looked it up.
	It's like a human air fryer.
	Yeah, it's just awful.
	It's absolutely awful.
	So I didn't know it until I Google imaged it.
	So yeah, it's pretty accurate.
	But if we go on to the next one, here is the man who invented these pods.
	His name is Filip Nietzsche, and he's the founder and director of Exit International, which is an international non-profit organization advocating the legalization of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide.
	In 96, Filip became the first doctor in the world to administer a legal, lethal, voluntary injection under the short-lived right of the Eternally Ill Act of 95.
	And then four of his terminally ill patients used this law to end their suffering before the law was overturned in 1997.
	The overturning was possible because of a loophole of the Australian Constitution, which allows the federal government to make laws for countries' territories.
	The Euthanasia Act made it illegal for the Northern Territory government to make laws on euthanasia.
	Once again, very Very lovely topic, of course, but we need to get through it.
	Can I just point out that personal gas chambers invented by a man whose name sounds like the pseudonym for Friedrich Nietzsche.
	I mean, the mid-century German optics on this aren't great, are they?
	There's so much that I have a problem with in terms of this.
	One, he regards himself as a humanist.
	Now, I don't like it when people say that they're humanists, yet they invent such dark and horrific things such as this.
	It reminds me of NGOs like the World Economic Forum or climate alarmists who go on about particular narratives involving around climate change that say, you know, reduce carbon footprint, meaning you, but they call themselves humanists.
	I have a big problem with that.
	Well, can I just address this because I've spoken in the past about Canadian healthcare and the MAID program that they have here.
	As part of that I was introduced to a number of counter-arguments that people were talking about regarding the ability of people to choose to earn their lives in a more dignified way if they are suffering from some kind of debilitating terminal illness.
	And I completely understand that.
	And there is an argument to be made over personal autonomy.
	But I do have some problems with it.
	One, in places like Canada, and obviously this appears, this part is in Switzerland, correct?
	So the Swiss government, as far as I'm aware, is much less overbearingly authoritarian when compared with how the Canadian government is administering these because the Canadian government and the Canadian healthcare system had a number of controversies about very poorly managed patients who were receiving terrible care being actively pushed into it by doctors basically to save money because it was being looked at as a money-saving operation.
	We have all of these very expensive patients that we need to take care of Well, we can actually save money by giving them the option to kill themselves.
	So that's one of the big problems is that lots of top-down authoritarian governments will use this as an opportunity to shave a bit of the top of the population off so they can save themselves some quick money, which is a terrible thing.
	Also, I'm very, very skeptical of the idea of the government just having a you-die-now button at any point.
	A lot of power.
	Yeah.
	A lot of power.
	Especially when they legislate it all themselves as part of the medical industry.
	Also on a more personal level, I believe that a lot of people these days are suffering.
	We see record rates of depression, anxiety, neurosis within populations.
	And I think oftentimes people, especially these days, seek the easiest way to solve a problem.
	If you're suffering through a depressive episode, if you're suffering through some form of anxiety about the world around you, understandably so, the easiest option would look to many people to end it.
	And by instead of people can try it themselves and oftentimes people will fail to do it and they can't find painless ways of doing it.
	If the government offers you a painless and easy access way of doing it, it's going to be far more likely that you are going to go ahead with it.
	And as many people have said more eloquently than I, suicide is a long, is a permanent solution to a short term problem.
	You can get through depressive periods, you can get through times of strife within your own life, but if you give people the easy option to end it, no consequences when it comes to pain or anything like that, you are going to get people who could work through their issues choosing to do this instead, and they are going to be prematurely cutting off their own life very unnecessarily, and I think that is a major danger with this that we need to be aware of.
	There's also a broader point that I don't want to take up too much time on, but it's the idea that if you are against late-term abortion, for example, if you're against the atomization of everyone and living only for fleeting pleasures like the pod-dwelling metaverse bug person that the WEF want us all to be, How do you argue against that if you don't have a concept of human dignity rooted in the innate sanctity of human life?
	Exactly.
	And that is the position that this undermines.
	Whether or not you think that someone is suffering so greatly that they should have the ability to choose when they leave the world, that is the most individual, liberal, self-offering subject decision.
	You can't choose when you enter the world, but to guarantee when you go out of it with Maybe slightly less consideration for the family members around you that would like you to stay even if you are in immense pain.
	That makes it a very individualistic decision.
	And so it's hard to argue for the innate sense of human dignity that has underwritten many of our laws that protect whatever concept of rights the English-speaking world has had without that belief that you can't justify otherwise.
	Yeah.
	Well I wanted to find out why he decided to make such a thing.
	So I found... Can I just say as well that there is something horribly symbolic about... I've seen reports that they're starting to look at artificial wombs that can be used.
	So you develop in the pod, you're born in the pod, you live in the pod, and then you get to die in the pod.
	There's something horribly dark about that.
	Which is why Which is why I want to just quickly, before we move on, go back to why it's important to not laugh at the subject, but laugh at the ridiculousness of where we are going.
	Because it is clown world, it is madness.
	The idea of a pod that you can just press a button and gas fills in and that's it.
	And that's why it's important to, yeah, approach these sort of subjects with some sensitivity, but at the same time, Mocking Clown World is extremely important.
	Not to name any names, but I have known many people.
	I grew up in the emo era, shall we say.
	Oh yeah, likewise.
	Yeah, I can tell looking at your hair.
	Thank you.
	I grew up in the emo era, and as a result, know a lot of girls who have, in the past, hurt themselves in ways that were terrible, and that if some of them had had the opportunity to have the state say, hey, well, you don't like living?
	We'll just end it for you right here and now.
	Yeah, for sure.
	They would have probably done so.
	Yeah.
	And now they are living much better lives.
	They were able to get over the issues that they were going through.
	And they're not, I don't know if anybody could say that any of us are flourishing, but they're in much better places and they're living much more fulfilling lives than they were at that time, which they would not have been able to do had the government just said, well, you want to end it, here you go.
	The sad inverse of that is after lockdown, 250,000 children have diagnosed mental health conditions but aren't getting treatment for that.
	So this will be given as a fostering.
	Yeah, exactly.
	This is only in Sweden and Canada and other places right now.
	It's not in the UK as far as I'm aware.
	Switzerland.
	Which I think...
	Switzerland, yes.
	I think they've had this law allowed for assisted euthanasia since the 40s, I believe.
	So the debate has been strong for a long, long time.
	But I wanted to figure out why he decided to make it.
	And he wrote an article for Huffington Post, of course, which we can go to the next slide if that's okay.
	I think it was um we've done a recent book club that's not out yet I think it was Nora Vinson went to Switzerland to use one of these.
	She I'm reading her book actually at the minute.
	We've done a book club.
	It's not out yet, but it will be out soon.
	Fantastic.
	Yeah, we should definitely, once that comes out, I'm going to definitely watch that.
	And he, it's, this article, I started reading it and I just couldn't really finish it.
	It's a 3D principle.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry.
	This is why you have to mock these sorts of things because it's just so ludicrous and out there.
	I like that death has been reduced to something that we have to, in very much the way I'm currently reading through Jacques Alul's Technological Society, in the technique manner that he talks about there has been reduced to something that we just need to improve on a pure efficiency scale.
	We can 3D print these and then you can be dead by the end of the day.
	No question of sanctity.
	Yes.
	It says, here's why I invented a death machine that lets people take their own lives.
	And it says, talk about dying with dignity has grown to a calamitous pitch in recent years.
	Quote, right to die groups vie for supremacy, trying to show who can make the dying experience the least degrading.
	Who can replace the utter macabreness of the necessity of death with something more palatable.
	Already sounds a bit much, personally.
	So, some 20 years ago, I became the first physician in the world to administer a legal lethal voluntary injection to four of my terminally ill patients.
	At the time, I approached death with confidence and even arrogance of someone in the middle of his life.
	I was about to turn 50.
	At a psychological level, death was still something that happened to other people.
	As my work in this field has matured, my vision has shifted from supporting the idea of dignified death of the terminally ill and medical model to supporting the concept of a good death for any rational adult who has life experience.
	At Exit International, the non-profit organization I founded after the aforementioned overturning of the world's first voluntary euthanasia law, we interpret that to mean anyone over 50 years of age.
	I found myself at the pointy end of the right to die debate and this is the part where I was like, okay, Getting information about how to die with dignity should the need arise is like an insurance policy.
	The just-in-case safety net that could be there if health and quality of life turned bad someday.
	Once you live, you're just suffering from misinformation.
	Well, there you go.
	The fact that it's reduced to some kind of insurance policy to me is very crass and to me it's very undignified and why is the conversation shifting towards that as opposed to the sacridity of life and the meaning of life as opposed to yeah it's just an insurance policy?
	To me that seems crass and it just seems awful and which is why I said at the start of the post that I, with every fibre of my body, I'm totally against this.
	But that's just my view.
	So what is the SarkoPod and how does it work?
	That's the one.
	So this is their official website.
	It says, the Sarko is a 3D printable machine that provides death by hypoxia, an environment with low levels of oxygen, and it can be transported wherever one chooses.
	Facing the awe of the Rockies or overlooking the crashing waves of the Pacific Ocean where you die is certainly an important factor.
	So they're really trying to pitch it.
	Just walk into McDonald's to order a chicken McNugget.
	Three sarco pods.
	Where would you like your location to be?
	I'm going to bring my suicide pod with me wherever I go, just in case I feel like ending it.
	Nice scenery at the end is hardly a new thought.
	And this is on his article.
	It says, the film Soylent Green.
	What?
	Showed the benefit of the peace and pretty pictures and a soothing soundtrack can bring when drifting away from the world.
	Are you sure this isn't a parody site?
	Nope.
	It is on the Huffington Post.
	I've double checked it.
	It sounds like a parody.
	It's definitely not.
	They are positively citing a dystopian future film.
	Yes.
	And it says, the thought that groundbreaking film left on the shelf, though, was the possibility of feeling not just dignity at the end, but of feeling euphoric.
	And why not?
	Because it's about cannibalism.
	This is going to be a controversial take.
	I think that the dystopian future fiction genre has done more damage than good because it may have given a lot of people warnings about what was going to happen in the future.
	I think it gave more people who were in more positions of influence inspiration on what they needed to do in the future.
	Obviously, what I just said at the end, he said, the thoughts that groundbreaking film, sorry, the thoughts that that groundbreaking film left on the shelf, though, was the possibility of feeling not just dignity at the end, but of feeling euphoric and why not.
	Hypoxia can offer just that.
	Ask someone who has lived through a rapid plane depressurization.
	That drunk disorientation can leave you a little unsure of why you should strap on that dangling oxygen mask.
	In my Air Force days, I was asked to write a letter to a friend whilst they lowered the oxygen level in my training chamber.
	I wrote rubbish, but it seemed like happy euphoric rubbish when I was re-reading it at ground oxygen levels.
	This is my point, he's framed it to romanticise this dystopian novel and this is why it should be mocked, this entire thing, because it's so ludicrous and so out there that it's almost unbelievable that you would take your whole framework from a dystopian novel or a dystopian film.
	The thing is though, within current logic it's not that ludicrous, it's the extension.
	If you define human life not as in having innate sanctity but in an instrument That's terrifying.
	I think the quality of your life is dependent on how much pleasure you can experience and how much pain you can avoid.
	Yes.
	And actually the best thing you can do is not just make dying a choice, but a pleasurable experience in and of itself.
	It can be scenic and it can be euphoric and it can be drug induced.
	So it fits in with the current paradigm of being the atomized individual who's just consuming and cooming all the time.
	And if we could just go up just a little bit here to the idea.
	Read this.
	The concept of a capsule that could produce a rapid decrease in oxygen level whilst maintaining a low CO2 level.
	The conditions for a peaceful, even euphoric death was the brief behind the Sarko.
	So even this cannot get away from ESG, CO2, climate nonsense.
	Which probably has had that in mind from the start, let's be honest.
	I don't want to cut you off there, but I think that this is more regarding the practical use of it where it says, because it specifies in the brackets there, the conditions for a peaceful, even euphoric death.
	So I think it's specifying that you need the low CO2 level to make sure that your body doesn't potentially, I don't know, go into shock or something.
	I'm not a scientist.
	I wouldn't be shocked if this has an ESG page where it talks about the net zero goals of Sarco, but I think that that's not the best example of it.
	No.
	Okay.
	I was wrong there, so apologies.
	But if we'd like to go to the next slide.
	I wanted to read some of the arguments and that we could have a brief discussion before ending the segment.
	So when I posted that, someone said, why are people so against other people having control of their lives and deaths?
	Why do people think they have the right to dictate to others that they can't make this final choice?
	And my reply underneath was many reasons.
	One that springs to mind is because we will end up like Canada with their maid practice, which is deplorable.
	Now, obviously we know about maid and Canada's Like I said, absolutely deplorable, they call it healthcare scheme, where people as low as the age of 18 that have just psychological issues or mental issues, instead of helping these people, they just say, well, have you thought about offering yourself and hand leaflets over to these people, which I think is wrong.
	I don't think that's the right way to go about things at all, and I'm completely against it.
	But that's one of many.
	Call me cynical, but the last three years, I have changed my view on so many things regarding the government and how it handles life and death.
	And even with the death penalty, my view has changed completely because of the last three years.
	Why would you trust the government to enact something so sinister to its people when you can't even trust them?
	to deliver on something you even voted for or even asked for.
	So that's my big argument, without going down the religious route, because I am a Christian, but I try not to use those arguments because some people aren't just going to listen to that.
	So that's one of them.
	I don't know what you guys think of that.
	I would disentangle the death penalty just from this because it's conditional on innocence as to whether or not your wife- Of course, I think that's a separate thing.
	Yeah, I understand the procedural point.
	In terms of whether or not this is transplantable over to the UK, the House of Lords have already had this debate.
	They've been pushing for assisted dying for some time.
	It hasn't made it into the latest King's Speech, but they'll try again.
	And you know the reason, it will be to protect the NHS.
	That's sad.
	So sad.
	Yeah, you've got to keep bringing in migrants and never pay for it at the point of use.
	But actually, the domestic population is such a stress, particularly the elderly have been paying for it at a miserably reduced rate of inflation for their entire lives.
	Well, you're too much of a burden now, Grandma.
	Off you pop in the pod.
	Yeah, it's just terrible.
	I've made my arguments, so.
	Yeah, fair enough.
	Next one.
	That's OK.
	My good friend Charlie says, I'm not totally against this.
	If someone is suffering severely with a terminal illness, then this might be a nice way to put an end to their pain.
	I'm personally against it because I'm cynical and I have other reasons for it.
	But the main one is cynicism.
	I just don't trust any regulator or any government body to enact something so sensitive as this.
	I believe life is extremely precious, even to its last days, as horrible as it sounds.
	Next one, if that's alright.
	If a person is suffering severely from mental, physical or psychological issues, I can see the benefit of this.
	Assisted suicide is needed for so many people who choose it.
	It's a choice that a person should have the right to make.
	It's our body, so we have the right to choose how we die, especially if we are suffering.
	It's actually very humane.
	Would you want to grow old whilst in intense misery and pain or end it easily and painlessly?
	I don't know what you guys think.
	With mental and psychological, I just want to say there is always another way.
	There is always another way.
	And we should be reframing the discourse as life is precious.
	That's, that's how I want to do it.
	And that's, that's coming from a humane way instead of saying, here's a button and it's the way out.
	And I think that's how we should be looking at things is life is precious.
	Let's contain that and let's try and make it as comfortable as possible.
	Hey Lotus Eaters, what sort of art would you like for the office?
	Let me know, I'm actually genuinely curious.
	People can argue against me with that.
	I'm always welcome to it.
	I don't think I can say any more to that.
	That's probably the best way to cap that one off.
	Onto the video comments, I suppose.
	Hey, Lotus Eaters.
	What sort of art would you like for The Office?
	Let me know.
	I'm actually genuinely curious.
	This is now finished.
	Very impressive.
	That's nice.
	One of the good talks at Art was by a Japanese artist who survived 9-11.
	and he does that-- what's it called?
	It's like Kitsune Mugi or something where, you know, when you break a bowl and you repair it with bits of gold to make it so that the cracks are actually part of the beauty philosophy of repairing rather than just disposable things.
	I like that sort of stuff.
	It's quaint.
	Can we do the next one?
	Sorry, Jack.
	Now that Carl's reviewed Barbie, I was curious, has he seen the Shaft movie that came out recently?
	Because it's all about Shaft having to unlonghouse his women-raised son, who's basically really feminized and bureaucratic.
	I remember the media being really conflicted because they liked that it was about Bantu's, But it also is saying that feminized men are all gay and useless and that toxic masculinity is the only way to get things done.
	The son only gets the girl boss character when he starts cussing and killing people.
	It is one of the most gloriously anti-Longhouse movies of the decade.
	Just a warning, I don't want to be the party pooper here, don't entrench too much of what you say in very online discourse, because people do listen to this podcast, they will listen to the video comments, and some people just will not know what you're talking about when you use certain phrases, so just a heads up in the future.
	No, I know what he's talking about, though.
	My dad really enjoyed that Shaft film.
	My dad really likes all the Shafts.
	Never heard of it.
	Have you not?
	No, I've never heard of it.
	You've not even heard the theme tune from the original one in the 1970s?
	No.
	You've got so much to learn.
	Okay.
	On we go.
	So one thing that I like about Australia that I didn't used to like about this country is its attitude towards things specifically about people who criticize this country.
	We also have a particularly tight immigration policy here so we are not flooded with immigrants who are illegal.
	This right-wing conservative attitude is the type of thing I wish the UK had.
	We don't take kindly to criticism especially when it's stupid and nonsensical.
	Oh gosh.
	Right, don't destroy people's property.
	That was a laugh purely out of shock.
	Yeah, that was out of shock.
	We do not endorse.
	Anyway, on to the written comments on the website.
	We've only got a minute left, but should we just extend?
	We can run over a slight bit, yeah, it's fine.
	Athelstan, suicide shifts the pain from the shoulders of the sufferer onto the shoulders of the loved ones they leave behind.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Very poetic way of putting it.
	And Cain and Claire says, love to see Lewis back on the show, looking forward to the next lads hour.
	Thank you.
	on the first segment, Furious Dan, ARC's mainstream speakers mean the organisers want the air of legitimacy.
	Whether that's strategic, earnest, or some combination of both remains to be seen.
	Overall, I trust Dr. Peterson and I want to see where this goes.
	Not everyone was too happy with compromise, but it seems to be necessary in the current paradigm.
	John the Conqueror, interesting that WEF globalist sock puppets who contributed to locking us in our houses for years, vaccine mandates, and more generally the downfall of Britain like Gove are invited to speak.
	Doesn't fill me with hope.
	Hopefully, Connor can changed my mind.
	I hope the frosty reception of Gove is indicative of the direction of travel, but there you go.
	I have to agree that Jordan's sounding more like his old self again.
	Seeing him on the tour in Belfast was a great event, and seeing just how many that follow him and side with him with those of similar values, well-dressed and put together filling the Belfast arena, is quite the eye-opener compared to how most here act in public.
	I will say, putting that many people in a giant stadium with quite lax security measures, you couldn't get a more polite crowd, really.
	So at least that's something.
	Good.
	Just one or two more.
	Screwtape Lasers.
	Jordan Peterson balanced the force by releasing his batshit crazy post-modernist drinking song yesterday.
	I have no idea.
	I saw that pop up on my YouTube recommended and I thought, dare I click?
	The last song he released was the anti-Trudeau one, which sounded like, honestly, a Pink Floyd ripoff.
	If it sounds like another Plank Floyd ripoff, I'm interested.
	I have no idea what's being referenced.
	Do you not know that he has songs?
	No, I didn't.
	I must have missed it.
	Interestingly, on the subject of music, I've rediscovered my old SoundCloud, which has loads of demos I did back eight to six years ago, and I'm thinking of re-recording them and possibly trying to get some collabs with vocalists so that I can release them, because I actually want to do some music.
	I've not been in a band for over a year now, and I need I've gone through a bit of a down period recently and I need to get back into being productive and playing guitar and actually producing things and being creative because otherwise I'm going to go crazy.
	That's one of the great criticisms of the Zoomer generation is too few do things, they just consume things.
	Well, over lockdown, I think I was one of the few people that I know who actually did things.
	Over lockdown, I bought a load of guitar courses.
	I already knew how to play guitar, obviously, but I wanted to get better.
	I took a lot of time.
	I took four hours every day to sit down, practice music theory, practice all of my technique.
	And I got way better at guitar and ended up writing an eight track demo of EP, well, EP demo songs, which don't have any vocals on them and I've not released online.
	But I managed to actually do something over lockdowns where most people that I know got fat and watched a lot of Netflix.
	And I got fat too, but I also did things. - Can we go for yours? - Oh yeah, sure.
	Oh yeah, sure.
	RW says, I currently homeschool both my children in the UK.
	I can understand the need to maintain a degree of educational standards as long as they keep their nose out of the values element.
	The progress my kids have made is so much quicker than when they were in school, and we were pleasantly surprised at how many well-organized social groups exist even in the UK, so that part has not been an issue.
	When I have kids, that's what I've been worried about, whether I'd be able to get into homeschooling groups and the socializing aspects of it, but I need to look more into it.
	Hopefully it'll be something I consider soon.
	Some councils like Bedford have recognized the huge value in homeschooling can add and made a decent effort to providing funding and support.
	I wish more counties did this rather than crack down.
	I agree.
	Yeah, I agree as well.
	Matt Thompson, the left mainstream and the fringes and then marginalize the mainstream and have the audacity to call normality fringe.
	It's all they've ever been doing.
	They are a societal, they are the force of societal entropy and destruction.
	They're not to be trusted.
	Basically, unregulated in this context simply means not educated by the state, which is a leftist's worst nightmare.
	Not having incompetent and apathetic state employees acting as your mother while your actual mother taps out of all of her oppressive gender roles and mentally, emotionally abandons her child.
	Yes, very well put.
	Alexander Date, Michael Malice has said on his podcast multiple times that he is always extremely impressed in his interactions with homeschool kids because they're always far better able to interact with adults than government school kids.
	The, your kid won't know how to fit in line is a complete lie.
	I've also heard very similar reports on that sort of thing.
	Once again, it's just about as long as you have a social group that your child is able to interact with, then in all likelihood, being in a social group that will be much more positive for the child than the load of strangers who are all going to be competing very negatively and very harshly with one another in a public school, where there'll be bullying and all other sorts of negative forces going on, will probably do a lot better for your kids socializing where there'll be bullying and all other sorts of negative forces going on, will We'll probably do a lot better for your kids socializing than going to school.
	Cause I know, you know, I did fine in school.
	I was one of the kids who kept to himself.
	I know that probably sounds surprising to people, but I did mostly keep to myself and stayed out of trouble for the most part.
	But I saw some people who were really damaged by it, who got, who were already socially awkward and came out the other side way worse than when they went in.
	Drake Heath, my favourite part about that feminism homeschooling article, besides how white-pilling it is to hear how right-wing homeschooling conferences are, is how at the end she's about to give up but a man who's making money off it tells her she has to keep doing it regardless.
	Feminism in a nutshell.
	Yes, good point.
	You wanna do a couple from the last one just before we wrap up?
	It is very apt for a society intent on destroying itself to actually industrialize the destruction of oneself on the individual level too.
	I agree.
	Would it not be better to fill the pod with laughing gas helium?
	That could be an amusing way to go.
	Laughing at your own high-pitched laugh to death.
	That's Pete Clownwold.
	Pete Clownwold.
	That's the Joker.
	The Joker wrote that one.
	Yeah.
	The Sarko pod is filled with green Joker.
	The Sarko pod is horrifying, but so is watching the American medical system claw hundreds of thousands of dollars out of loved ones' half-dead body during the insane storm that constitutes most end-of-life care programs.
	Dying with dignity is a right, but drifting off on a cloud of nitrous oxide is dehumanizing.
	Mechanical pod is not dignity.
	Let's do... That looks like the pod from The Matrix.
	No foreboding at all.
	That's by Drake Heath.
	Derek Power says death is a cheap option and the one-time governments ever act frugally.
	I think we're probably going to have to wrap up there because in about what 15-20 minutes we've got lads hour.
	Yes.
	I don't think we have the link for that but it's on what's the topic again?
	We are talking about male role models in pop culture.
	Right okay fantastic.
	And how Ryan Gosling is literally me.
	Yeah, my special spot.
	In every scenario.
	Absolutely.
	So join us in about 20-odd minutes if you're a Goal Tier subscriber.
	If not, you've still got time to sign up.
	Well, a subscriber, you don't have to be Goal Tier.
	Oh, is it not?
	No.
	Oh, okay.
	For any subscribers, Goal Tier Zoom calls.
	But Goal Tier is the best one, so... Yeah, you should get Goal Tier anyway.
	Yeah, fantastic.
	Go leave us a comment and say hello.
	Anyway, until then, we're back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.
	Take care and goodbye.

▲