Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 14, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:49

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #784

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 784 for today, Tuesday, the 14th of November 2023.
	I am your host Connor, joined by my colleagues Harry and Seleos.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Right boys, and today we're talking about the Conservative Party self-destructing, because it's that time of day again.
	Let's take a trip to the movies, because Black Girl Magic isn't doing so well at the box office it turns out, and how leftists hate the West, because it's a day ending in Why?
	No announcements to kick off, so... Other than that we've still got a discount going on, but we'll be mentioning that throughout the podcast anyway.
	Yeah, and there's a lads hour on Thursday as per usual.
	Other than that, jump straight into the stories.
	Well, Soheila Braverman's been sacked, so she's no longer the Home Secretary.
	She was one of the few Conservatives that had at least the rhetorical power to be against multiculturalism vs immigration.
	She didn't do anything about it, because They don't really do that over there, do they?
	I mean, you can at least say maybe she was impeded by the Home Office, maybe she wasn't as competent and deft to get round all of the institutional barriers put in her way, particularly by her other frontbenchers, but we can't really make excuses for it.
	The only thing that we can observe is the replacements are kind of worse.
	Well, Conservative Home Secretaries have, for years at this point, been saying, we need to stop this, we need to stop this, we need to stop this, without ever doing anything.
	Well, Theresa May actually took LED vans and drove them round the streets saying, migrants, if you're here illegally, go home.
	I mean, rather than actually just deporting them, you know, asking them nicely.
	If you broke into the country, would you mind leaving, maybe?
	Well, it's only the British way to ask politely, isn't it?
	If we did anything else, that would be ever so rude.
	Wasn't that... I forget the fella... Are you on about Jonathan Bowden's talking about Michael Gove when he was a member of the... Michael Jones said it would be un-British to do anything about it, didn't he?
	Yes, he said, I can't believe what's happening to this country with immigration.
	It's terrible, isn't it?
	But we can't do anything.
	Bowden, why can't we do anything, Michael?
	We're in charge, Michael.
	Well, it would be un-British to do anything about it.
	So if that's seditious behaviour?
	If that's the attitudes of our ruling elite, then we're doomed.
	Yeah, and so I think what we'll show here for the next little bit, particularly with the reintroduction of David Cameron into the cabinet, is that there is a factional split between the Conservative Party, it's going into the next election, it's going to spell electoral doom, and maybe there might be some positive developments for our wing of things when that does happen.
	Also the motivations behind why Swiller was replaced and David Cameron parachuted back in.
	Most of the other appointments aren't particularly interesting.
	Some people got shifted around.
	Therese Coffey got the sack.
	You know, the big fat incompetent one that seemed to have a job.
	Just have to narrow that down.
	Yeah, fair point.
	Well made.
	The only interesting one here that they don't really mention is that Tom Hunt Who is an Ipswich 2019 intake MP and one of the vanguard members of the New Conservative Party.
	He helps articulate their lower migration policy.
	He's a bit of a policy-worn courtist.
	He was kicked out as Parliamentary Private Secretary for supporting Soella behind closed doors.
	And they kept that eviction very quiet.
	So this whole thing was a usurpation for the establishment?
	Establishment victory, boys!
	Anyone seen to be criticising mass migration is gone.
	That's just been the move here.
	And the reason Suella was ousted, well at least the pretext for her ousting, because there were so many moves here that were made, it's pretty apparent to me that this must have been happening and in the works for a while, they just chose the date to execute it, was this article in the Times.
	Now they're claiming that she broke collective cabinet responsibility, which means that you can't, as a member of the cabinet, criticize the government that you're part of.
	I don't think that's the case here.
	So I think they're stretching that definition to provide manufactured consent to get rid of her from her job.
	But everything she said was pretty reasonable, and it was regard to the Cenotaph protests that happened over the weekend.
	In advance of it, she said, as we approach a particularly significant weekend in the life of our nation, one which calls for respect and commemoration, hate marches, a phrase I do not resile from, intend to use Armistice Day to parade through London in yet another show of strength.
	Strong language is what some people have been saying actually it's not a ceasefire protest it's a flex of cultural and ethnic dominance by a special interest group that don't like Britain.
	Right-wing and nationalist protesters who engage in aggression are rightly met with a stern response, yet pro-Palestinian mobs displaying almost identical behaviour are largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law.
	I have spoken to serving and former police officers who have noted this double standard.
	Football fans are even more vocal about the tough way they are policed as compared to politically connected minority groups who are favoured by the left.
	It may be that senior officers are more concerned with how much flak they're likely to get, whether this perceived unfairness alienates the majority or not.
	So, it's back to the same pretext that they gave for not policing the grooming gangs or not intervening with the Manchester Arena bomber, which is, please don't call us racist.
	We'll let the crazy people get away with anything just because they're brown and Muslim.
	Not excellent.
	So she was kicked out for that despite polling by the People's Polling Company showing that I think it was 92% of the Conservative Party and 48% of the British public wanted these protests to be outright banned.
	Not even go ahead.
	Not even have a double standards of policing.
	When you say the parties, do you mean the membership?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Definitely not the MPs.
	The MPs were coming out saying, well, you know, maybe we should allow freedom of speech for the people that fundamentally hate our country and have already said they don't want freedom of speech if their Islamist caliphate took over.
	Frankly, suicidal.
	And so this coincides with a bad week for Sowelo overall, because as of tomorrow, at time of recording, on Wednesday the 15th, Supreme Court ruling for the Rwanda plan is going to come in.
	You know that tenant of Rishi Sunak's five-point plan that said we're going to stop the boats and deport everyone illegal here to Rwanda in that weird exchange program that lets random Rwandans come over and use our health service?
	Well yeah, that's one of the reasons I've never had much faith in this plan in the first place, is that if you actually read the documentation, it says that yes, we'll also be taking in Rwandans for some reason.
	So yeah, it's basically a student exchange program.
	It's gonna get shot down by the Supreme Court, so they're not even gonna deport one person.
	But I imagine we'll probably still be taking in Rwandans for some reason.
	Probably, yeah.
	That'll probably stick.
	Yeah, that'll probably be passed through.
	Also, the reason for this is the ECHR, which Brabham wants to leave, and some of the Nukons want to leave, but Brabham and the Nukons have just been excluded, and Suneka said he doesn't want to leave the ECHR.
	And he said even if he does, he wants to sign up to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which defines a refugee as anyone unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin.
	So just don't want to.
	And you can stay in the hotel down the road in Swindon forever.
	Brilliant.
	And then inflation figures also release tomorrow on the same day from the ONS.
	So it's going to look really bad for the government.
	So they need a way to soft sell it.
	So this is a sort of dead cat strategy.
	And next Thursday, net migration figures come out.
	Those are going to look really bad.
	And so they don't want Suelle standing around saying, well, this government has failed the British public because the British public have voted in every single manifesto for the last decade to lower migration and we haven't done it.
	So Suelle has gone.
	Who's in our place?
	Well, James Cleverley was appointed the new Home Secretary, but he was Foreign Secretary.
	So Foreign Secretary was freed up.
	Oh, good.
	I mean, he's got a sterling track record with foreign relations, doesn't he?
	Yeah.
	I mean, he's been, since leading to the death of Gaddafi and the creation of open-air slave markets in Libya and the mass trafficking of Africans through Libya, through the Mediterranean, sorry, Stelios, and the rest of Europe, it seems like he's kept his thoughts to his head because his forehead's grown four times since we last saw him.
	But yeah, if anyone doesn't know, former Prime Minister David Cameron is now Foreign Secretary, despite not being an MP.
	Which means that he was immediately given a title of Lord on the day.
	Now, there is constitutional precedent for this.
	It did happen under Margaret Thatcher, because her Foreign Secretary, Peter Carrington, during the Falklands War, was also a Lord.
	It does mean that he's not going to be in every session of Parliament, obviously.
	It does mean that he's not going to be... he needs to be called up to the dispatch box by special appointment, rather than just quizzed by MPs.
	It does mean that you have an unelected Foreign Secretary appointed by an unelected Prime Minister, which, if you care about democracy, Up to you.
	I mean, that is democracy.
	Yeah, I'm not really fussed at that point.
	I don't mind these sort of appointments if this person had my interest at heart, but it does mean that by giving him a lordship and the cabinet appointment, it means that they are betraying any pretense that this establishment is for Brexit whatsoever.
	Because that's what you resigned over, right?
	Let me just ask you some questions.
	The House of Lords is different from the House of Commons?
	Yes.
	So he was appointed in the House of Lords?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So this seems much more of a constitutional system.
	Now, of course, it's more complex than that, but it's not exactly that there needs to be a vote for this.
	If you have a House of Lords, then the democratic vote does not apply in the same way.
	Yeah, but so the problem is the perception by the voting public will be, okay, Rishi Sunak was parachuted in after Liz Truss was deposed.
	He wasn't elected by the British public.
	He was only elected by MPs, not even party members, because party members rejected him.
	And now you've turfed out Swilla Braveman, who is popular generally among the British public.
	Very popular among the Conservative Party base, for a former Prime Minister who quit over the Brexit referendum because he was on the wrong side of it, who wasn't even an elected MP, who didn't get a peerage in the former Honours rollings, to just stick him in anyway despite public...
	For most people who don't pay attention, this is the first that they've seen or heard of David Cameron since he left after the Brexit vote.
	As far as I'm aware, even, the most notable thing that he's done in the time between now and then has released an article for the Times, I think it was.
	Oh, it's funny that, isn't it?
	Oh, yeah.
	Most conservative PM ever.
	Stelios, before we carry on, what was it you were going to add?
	No, let's continue.
	So, for those who are listening, this is an article that Karl covered before with Callum on the website, but David Cameron, last year, in July, explained how he, and funny enough, Theresa May, because Theresa May was party chairman in the early 2000s when they said that we'd become the nasty party, so we need to become, we need to rebrand ourselves as more progressive.
	David Cameron explained, we were all white men, so I did something about diversity.
	So he picked all women and all black and brown shortlists, which gave us candidates, ironically, like Priti Patel.
	I think they also changed the way where the local constituencies could choose their local candidates who would be standing, so they introduced shortlists there as well.
	Yeah, so it made them less accountable to the immediate communities they were serving, and also centralised power within the Prime Minister to have final veto power over who can be selected as an MP.
	So that means the party can gatekeep out any dissidents.
	So if you want to be a Conservative dissident, like some of the new Conservatives who I've They're very friendly to our ideas.
	You have to keep your head down until you win the election, and then until your party screws up, one, you're relegated to never being in cabinet because you'll never agree with collective responsibility, but two, you have to bide your time and criticize them contradictingly within the framework of, I support my government, but also they're destroying the country.
	By the way, I tweeted that out.
	Liz Truss followed me immediately.
	That's a condemnation of you, if I'm completely honest.
	What have you got going on in the background?
	I feel attacked!
	Thank you very much.
	Anyway, speaking of David Cameron's terrible scandals, if you'd like to subscribe to the website for as little as £5 a month, you can watch things like our book clubs, which you did with Callum on Douglas Murray's War of the West.
	And the reason I bring this up is not just to show the fact that we currently have a promotion going on that means for the first three months, It is a good bit.
	For the first three months, you get 33% off, use the code BIRTHDAY at checkout.
	But, if you read Douglas Murray's War on the West, there's a section in it where he catalogues the various crimes of former Clegg-Cameron era politicians, and he speaks about David Cameron's role in foreign policy, which makes it very interesting why he was drafted into the Foreign Secretary.
	So, I'll just read from Murray.
	Early in his time as Prime Minister in 2012, David Cameron met the Dalai Lama while the Buddhist leader was on a trip to London.
	The British ambassador to China was immediately called into a meeting and given a telling off.
	Chinese investment was put on hold, a trip to the United Kingdom by Chairman Wu Bangu was called off, and the CCP talked about how it hurt the Chinese people that there had been this meeting with the Dalai Lama.
	Cameron soon afterwards announced that he planned to never meet the Dalai Lama again.
	The British government then issued a formal apology to the Chinese authorities for the offence caused.
	Normal trade relations were eventually restored.
	But what struck me most about the affair was an account I was subsequently given at the first meeting between British and Chinese officials after this affair.
	I was told by a source who had been at the meeting that before the meeting had gotten underway, the CCP officials pushed a copy of the British apology across the table toward their British counterparts, who were then asked to stand up and read it aloud, which they duly did.
	Sitting down afterwards, the lead Chinese official reportedly smiled and said, we just wanted to know you meant it.
	David Cameron certainly learned his lesson and seemed to have discovered where the money and power now lay.
	A year after leaving office, it was announced that he was taking a leadership role in a new £1 billion investment fund, $1 billion rather, to set up and promote China's Belt and Road Initiative.
	A former British Prime Minister was now helping China develop its empire.
	So David Cameron was pushing the Belt and Road throughout the world on China's behalf after leaving office.
	I have the impression that this party wants to lose the next elections.
	You would think so.
	What I think is... Both parties seem to want to lose the election at this point.
	They're racing to the bottom.
	So what I think is happening is that you're seeing fractions in both parties between different factions.
	And in the Labour Party, you've got the progressive and Islamist factions that are trying to... Keir Starmer is trying to contain bad news.
	The Islamists just won't shut up over the Israel-Palestine thing.
	But Keir Starmer is clearly in the Blairite globalist camp.
	I mean, he's sitting with Blair on stage.
	He's saying that Davos is his preferred place to Westminster.
	In the Conservative Party, you have equally three factions.
	You have these marginal new cons who are immigration skeptics, social conservatives.
	You'll put, like, Lee Anderson in that camp.
	Suella Braveman actually came to their drinks event on the second night of conference.
	That's why Rory now has a selfie with her.
	It's very funny.
	So, the other two camps that exist are the ones that are vying for control of the frontbench.
	And those are the neocons and the globalists.
	The neocons are like Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, of where they're basically on board with most of the things that the globalists want, but they're also not very bright, and they're still in the end-of-history paradigm.
	And so they want the unipolar world.
	They still want the American hegemony to stay in place.
	That's why they're pushing very hard on things like Ukraine and Israel funding.
	Whereas the globalists are kind of resigned to the multipolar world idea that the UN and the WEF are doing.
	But they still want to mediate conflict, so they're more than happy to appease BRICS and China and hope that they can steward the UK and America from a managed decline into that kind of equitable, we all have renewable resources, we can all just trade peacefully and cultural distinctions don't mind kind of world.
	But the reason why I say that they seem to me to be a party that want to lose the next election is because by the change they made, if I may say so, they show that they don't care to function even as a pressure valve, which is a wrong way to action when you claim to Let's say, express some people in words, in rhetoric, and you don't do that in action, that's wrong.
	But it is one tactic that a lot of parties are using in order to gain votes.
	It also helps contain the opposition.
	Yes.
	So the fact that they're not doing it right now seems to me to show that they don't want to appeal to that audience.
	They want to alienate that audience.
	So I think they are the globalist types are counting on the bringing to fruition of their agenda anyway, even through the Labour Party.
	And also lots of these people know they're going to get cushy jobs afterwards.
	I mean, you've just heard about Cameron.
	Cameron was involved in the Lex Greensill scandal during the pandemic.
	Where he got one of his Australian venture capitalist friends a job as part of the COVID loan scheme and then some lord got Greensill a cabinet appointment as an advisor so Cameron was probably getting kickbacks from that.
	Soon that's going to bugger off back to Goldman Sachs and probably go to the States.
	He barely even wants the Prime Minister job anyway it's just a stamp on his CV at this point.
	So these people get golden parachutes I think the neocon faction, this is why they're so bitter.
	This is why you see Boris wanting to make a return because they feel that they've been backstabbed.
	And this is why you see the people that are leaning on the democratic consent side, which is like Suella Braverman, Miriam Cates, Danny Kruger going, what the hell are you doing?
	Why are you throwing us out of the club?
	Because they're the ones whose seats are on the line and they actually wanna keep their seats, hopefully some of them to do good.
	Some of them aren't very effective.
	Some of them do actually care.
	They're just stonewalled or not that bright, frankly.
	So there's also a token gesture.
	So you've almost predicated the idea that they want to contain the rhetoric, because they've appointed Esther McVeigh, Minister Without Portfolio.
	Now Esther McVeigh is married to Philip Davies.
	They helped present the GB News show together on the weekend.
	Philip Davies is the fella, for any of our audience members, who stood up and said to Jess Phillips, we need a minister to look into men's suicide, and Jess Phillips turned around and said, you'll get your minister when I get 50-50 representation in Parliament, and laughed at him.
	So Philip Davies is a well-meaning man.
	And Esther, Don't wish to insult her, but she's a bit Tim Nice But Dim.
	Like, she's got decent instincts, but then she allows personal relationships to get ahead of her.
	For example, being against lockdowns and vaccine passports, but backing Jeremy Hunt in the leadership candidacy because he said he'd give her a job.
	And also, she's not that astute in articulating her positions.
	But Rishi Sunak's appointed her the minister to oversee the removal of wokery from Whitehall.
	Now excuse me if I don't believe for a minute that she'll do anything.
	What it does do, though, is it means that she can't do her GB News show anymore with her husband.
	So that takes another player off the stage in the media sphere, which might be trying to criticise the Tory party from within the Tory camp.
	Jacob Rees-Mogg is, for all the frustrations with him in terms of actually being effective on policy, at least good on rhetoric to the Tories themselves.
	He is incisive at saying, well, to my ministerial colleagues, you're failing.
	On some issues, yes.
	Yes, not on the demographic issue.
	No.
	Certainly not.
	He's explicitly stated he doesn't care about demographics.
	Yeah, because he doesn't see what's happening down the street in Swindon or most London boroughs.
	Many such cases, unfortunately.
	So, of course, the no-confidence letters start flooding in.
	When I say flooding, there's been one.
	One.
	After David Cameron comes back, and this is from Andrea Jenkins, who's a bit of a firebrand, and it's a very amusing letter.
	Go read it in your own time.
	But it's inconsequential because I've spoken to someone within the party and this source has told me it's not that the sentiment isn't there to get rid of Rishi.
	It is that they are in such precarious political straits that they don't feel that they can get rid of Rishi and depose him with anyone else that's more amenable to lowering migration without triggering a general election.
	They're all going to lose.
	So they're in a bind, and I think this is why Rishi has caved to the implicit hierarchy within the Conservative Party, the sort of anti-Brexit party, because he's obviously... Hunt's been there for ages and he was part of the Cameron-Clegg coalition.
	Osborne's lead advisor, which you covered before, is now in the Treasury.
	He's a former BlackRock appointee.
	So before, these people were sort of circling the drain and being the behind-the-scenes puppeteers.
	And now with the appointment at Cameron, you've made the hierarchy that's gone against the will of the British people rather than implicit, explicit.
	And so there is discontent among the conservatives, but they're just not willing to act on it because either way they're going to lose.
	It's just at least they're trying to hope to put off the inevitable loss.
	So do they want to basically contain their loss and go to a more manageable loss?
	They want to play for time, I think.
	And they're also hoping that somehow Labour sabotages them themselves.
	So why are they alienating the vote of people, or let's say the group of people who are really vocal about what they want?
	Because the people that have...
	The power to write letters saying that they have no confidence in SUNAC are the ones that don't want to be alienated, but they have no power not to alienate.
	The frontbench, SUNAC, all of the special advisors and that that are ousting, people like Sweller Braverman, are the ones setting the agenda.
	And they're the ones that are happy to steward them into a loss for some reason.
	They seem to me like a group of people who don't want to information, or the information process doesn't flow well.
	Possibly, yeah, there's a lot of dim people in there, but there are also people that are conducting a strategic demolition.
	I mean, this is probably where you're falling on this, of where they're just deliberately trying to destroy the country.
	Potentially, because I think one of the things that you are banking on in your analysis, which I'm not so certain on anymore, is that they are going to face some kind of catastrophic loss at the next election.
	Because that was looking like it was the case for a little while, because As we know from recent polls, it's not that Conservative voters are switching to another party, it's that a lot of them are dropping out of the voting process altogether.
	Six in ten.
	Yeah, they don't care anymore.
	They're like, well if the Conservatives don't represent my interests, then no one can represent my interests.
	But this is also banking on the idea that Labour is going to build up enough momentum that people will either switch to them, or people who've dropped out of the process will come back specifically to vote for them.
	And there was a sign earlier on this year that they were taking, because Kirstein was being directly advised by Tony Blair, as we've seen, as have some of the actual Conservative members and some of the Conservative Cabinet members.
	They often have discussions with Tony Blair in not-so-secret behind-closed-doors meetings.
	Well, his institute is at a Conservative Party conference with a booth with routine events.
	It's an open secret that they're completely Blairite party.
	But they were taking on rhetoric, Labour were, that was trying to appeal to the Red Wall voters, where they were saying that we're going to reduce immigration, we're going to be sensible, we're not going to destroy the country.
	And then in recent months, they seem to have completely detonated any sort of momentum that that would have built up.
	They've slammed themselves into a wall by going, no, actually, we are still crazy communists, don't you worry about that.
	So Labour seems to be split between trying to appeal to a more commonsensical old Labour mindset of, we want to protect the country's interests, we want to protect your jobs, and we want to make sure that we're not importing the rest of the world into this country so that your Labour isn't being devalued.
	And then also going, but we also want to appeal to the completely insane woke middle class voters that we've built up since Jeremy Corbyn.
	And it seems that that's going to tank them.
	So at this point, I've not looked at the polls recently, but I don't know who's going to win because conservatives are showing everybody that they hate you.
	And Labour is also going, don't worry, we still hate you.
	So if anything, I'm expecting the Conservatives are expecting to just eek by, and they're putting people in place so that when they do just eek by, that it can carry on as business as usual for the next who knows how long.
	That's not a bad bet.
	This is something that Rory raised in the office, and that is that appointing Cameron as Foreign Secretary has a geopolitical angle.
	So not just with his appeasement of the Chinese, but also I think he got some kind of accolade by the Saudi royal family.
	And that means that at a time of conflict, as the Russia-Ukraine war decides to diminish, as the media like The Washington Post and Time Magazine in the last couple of weeks have ran hit pieces critical of Zelensky and saying that, we'll cover this later in the week, saying that Ukraine actually was involved in the bombing of Nord Stream.
	It looks less like the Ukraine war will fall on the side of the Ukrainians.
	We've also now got Israel-Palestine and the rise of the BRICS nations and so they're putting someone in the foreign office that can negotiate with these enemy nations to create peace within the emerging multipolar world.
	And so that might be their bet in a slim conservative majority to continue that particular bit of foreign policy.
	And the thing that might eke Labour over the line is Hamza Youssef's failures in Scotland, because Labour actually predicted to pick up quite a few SNP seats as the SNP of alienated Scottish voters.
	But what might make them lose votes in England is, one, 93 to 95% of British Muslims said they might not vote Labour over the fact that they won't call for a ceasefire in Gaza.
	Isn't the talk of a British Muslim party?
	There are rumblings that There's been local councillors that have established that kind of thing before, but it's not on a national level yet.
	And also, one of the more marginal issues that we can't go into because of YouTube, but Annalise Dodds resurrecting the conversion therapy ban bill, pushing hard on the gender issue.
	I think, though, focusing on rhetoric isn't the best thing to do.
	Because, you know, if, for instance, you have, as you said, a group saying that we won't vote for you if you don't make the following announcement, I don't think that's necessarily reliable.
	It's a way of trying to blackmail the Labour Party in order to get more stuff from them afterwards in exchange for political support.
	But I would add to what you said before.
	Sorry.
	I just...
	Brain fog?
	Yes, brain fog.
	Can you tell me what he said before?
	About what?
	The Labour Party?
	Yes.
	Okay, yeah, I remember.
	So basically... I thought you'd forgotten my name for a second there.
	It happens.
	Biden moment.
	So basically, why I think that this is really weird coming from them is that in the last, let's say, two decades, or especially the last decades, it's visible that the left has lost the native working class of each Western nation.
	And I mean about the left of each nation.
	So the fact that the leftists have not paid attention for the last, let's say, 10-20 years to the fact that the native working class wants things like their country.
	They're patriotic.
	So the fact that right now the Conservative Party Seems to me to go away from them.
	It's like giving a gift to the left and the Labour will appear as if saying, okay, let's express them again.
	Let's express the working class again.
	But they won't be able to catch them in the same way.
	This is why most conservative voters who hot button issue is immigration and Brexit just aren't voting.
	It's not like they're switching to Labour.
	So, but, but this in context, this aids the group that is ahead of the other in polls.
	Sure, but there aren't many voters that are making that jump back to Labour.
	That's the point.
	They're kind of ripe for capture by either a marginal party, which I don't think reform's going to win any seats all the way.
	I mean, wish them luck being a pressure group, but highly doubt it.
	Happy to be proven wrong.
	But what it does mean is that in the aftermath of their defeat, we've got these two factions being re-empowered.
	And I bring this up because yesterday, Nadine Dorries had her book launch, which was basically a giant hit piece about How Boris was removed from office.
	Boris was there, and he decided to say that Sunak is a stooge, that I was deposed, that it was a giant coup.
	From Cummings?
	From Dominic Cummings.
	From Dominic Cummings?
	Yeah, he said, I heard that Cummings had said that he started to plot to get rid of me in January 2020.
	The plot was always to get Rishi in.
	I couldn't see it at the time.
	It's like a Manchurian candidate.
	And Cummings responded, and I just wanted to read this little quote just because it's funny.
	And I kind of believe that Cummings is quite Machiavellian.
	I mean, he hated Carrie, so I think he's not necessarily wanted to get rid of Boris.
	He just didn't want to be around Carrie.
	Cummings responded to the allegations, saying to the Daily Mail, She's right, Nadine Dorries.
	There was a giant conspiracy, including MI6, the CIA, and most crucially, the KGB Special Operations Department.
	It's a tribute to Nadine that she's figured this out.
	The movement wishes her well.
	Also, a source to Michael Gove told the Daily Mail, Nadine is a very talented, best-selling fiction author.
	So they're just denying that.
	But it is kind of true that they did depose both Boris and Truss under flimsy circumstances, or...
	Also, not a big Boris fan.
	Just going to make that clarification.
	I mean, that's of no doubt to me, but I'm wondering how much Dominic Cummings has to do with it, because it seems that he was pretty effectively thrown out of the party midway through lockdowns, and I don't know how much direct involvement he's had in it since then.
	Maybe I'm missing something.
	He has been involved in the lockdown party inquiries, and he's basically thrown Boris' reputation under the bus, hasn't he?
	He did turn around and say, well, Boris wanted herd immunity and we didn't lock down fast enough.
	I was telling him to, here's all these WhatsApps of them being unprofessional.
	So within the Westminster bubble, these things matter to manufacture consent in order to oust Boris just because he's moving too slowly.
	more well I think he thinks that he's probably got another seat at the table rather than Carrie gatekeeping him out I think the jockeying for power was who's whispering in Boris's ear like his worm tongue the most Carrie or Cummings I think the most we should expect it but I think the most frustrating thing about all of these discussions is the Machiavellian plotting that goes on behind the scenes of all of these people vying for power not
	Not a single one of them is doing it for the sake of what's best for the British people.
	Well, you say that.
	Turns out that someone's doing it in front of the scenes.
	This is the alternative future that we could have.
	Nigel Farage is going in I Am A Celebrity for about 1.5 million quid, and people might think it's theatre, but everyone that's been astute on this has said this is obviously a PR move, following on from the suggestion that Rishi Sunak said, I can't really stop him from rejoining the party.
	Following showing up to Conservative Party conference and singing and dancing with the Home Secretary and former Home Secretary, and the fact that he's the most popular politician in the country, particularly for the constituency that have just been isolated by sacking Sueller.
	So the idea is that Nigel Farage could be in prime position, both with public goodwill and within the disaffected politicians within the Conservative Party, to take over the party.
	The only problem is the dark specter of Tony Blair looms over it all, because he's just ironically been touted as an Israeli peacekeeper in the Middle East.
	Tony Blair.
	Checks out.
	Middle East.
	So yeah, just some interesting assessments on the sorry state of the Conservative Party.
	They're currently committing political self-destruction.
	Canadian healthcare.
	Yes, Conservative Party suffering from political maid, but hopefully Nigel Farage can ride in and save that in the future.
	Alright.
	You want my Elgato?
	Yes, thank you very much.
	John.
	Oh.
	Hey.
	Blair was still hanging over us then as a specter watching me this one moment Northern man discovers computers alright now we've had the serious political discussion now Let's talk about pop culture.
	Let's take a trip to the movies, lads.
	Is there anything showing at the moment that you two would be interested in going to see?
	There's like a four-hour Scorsese movie that I could probably sleep through apparently.
	I want to watch the new Dune when it comes out.
	Fair.
	Both fair answers.
	I've got to say, I'm not really interested in what Scorsese puts out these days.
	As far as I could tell from the trailers, that looked like another version of some kind of white man bad narrative because it's all about Native Ameri- well, American Indians and all that, isn't it?
	I'm just kind of upset that Zack Snyder's new movie has a non-binary protagonist.
	Why are you surprised?
	Because he used to be really good.
	He used to, but he was always like this.
	He was always like this, Connor.
	Sincerely though, there's absolutely nothing on that I'm interested in.
	The last film I saw was like Guardians 3 and that was fun.
	Ironically, if I'm going to go to the cinema to see anything at all, it might be the Five Nights at Freddy's film.
	Oh no, hang on a minute!
	Just for a bit of fun.
	That's not in the cinema anymore, is it?
	It was in the cinema and it was the most right-wing film of the last decade.
	Well, watch Carl's video on that and see your segments talking about that for that kind of argument, because it's an interesting argument.
	I'll certainly give you that, although I don't think the director is intended to do that at all.
	You're not convinced?
	No, I'm not convinced.
	Although, obviously, you can do a counter-reading of it, which is absolutely fair to do.
	I'm not going to trust her adaptation of Chronicles of Narnia.
	It's going to be coming out any time soon.
	But I'll tell you about what a lot of people chose not to see in the cinema in just a moment, because speaking of disasters, we need to talk about Big Mother, the regime that we live under at the moment, and this was an interview that you conducted with the author of Big Mother, where you did it for the website.
	What was this about then?
	Uh, his book is about the Oedipal Superstate.
	It's the idea that it's not Big Brother from 1984, it's actually a kind of devouring mother archetype enabled by technology and surveillance, and it talks about everything from- He stole this from me.
	Well, he talks about everything from demons- I spoke about this on the podcast back at the end of 2021.
	I don't think he stole it from you.
	I think he did.
	Well, I- I need royalties, damn it!
	But carry on.
	That's it.
	Oh, that's it.
	Well, check that out if you'd like to see some blatant and flagrant theft right before your very eyes.
	The description is fun.
	How the narrative of technological progress blinds us to the emergence of a demonic, oedipal surveillance state which is devouring human nature.
	Pretty accurate.
	That's the most common sentence.
	How can a surveillance state be demonically oedipal?
	Find out!
	Well, ask Connor, he wrote it.
	That's the most Connor sentence I've ever seen written on the screen.
	Does the state have a mother?
	That's amazing.
	Does the state have a mother we don't know about?
	I don't know, but if you're interested in watching that you can sign up to the website and at the moment we have the three-year anniversary sale going on.
	Discount if you sign up through Stripe and use code BIRTHDAY you can get 33% off of your first three months, so take advantage of that whilst you can.
	So, the film that everybody, everybody was dying to see and everybody was really lining up for, turned out nobody wanted to go see it because nobody had heard of it.
	I only heard about this because people started talking about what a massive failure it was, was The Marvels.
	Marvel's latest.
	I didn't know when it was coming out.
	I've got to say, I'm so glad that for a lot of people, the discourse surrounding Marvel slop has turned into every so often a film comes out completely bombs and then everybody moves on.
	And that's what I would like to do right now.
	I would like to bask in the glory of the fact that Marvel's era of complete and total film domination seems to be over.
	Sadly, they have left a lasting legacy.
	of terrible terrible ideas which have become very popular in mainstream films all these days including the idea of the cinematic universe which was an interesting idea that they developed and were very successful in for a time but then became very very tired most other attempts to make that in complete failures I think one of the most damaging things that they've done is the Joss Whedon-ization of film scripts.
	The idea that you're unable to have a single serious moment for more than maybe 30 seconds in a film that isn't interrupted by some kind of quip.
	You need something in there to make sure that the audience knows, I'm not supposed to be taking this too seriously.
	I'm just a silly little Billy watching a film at the cinema right now.
	I can't be made to feel sad, or emotional, or deep, or anything beyond mild amusement, and you need to have the filter over your eyes.
	The smear of modernity over your eyes is telling you, go back to sleep.
	The part of this as well is the unqualified deluge of writer's rooms that now crank these films out and that's proven by the fact that next year they've only got one film coming out because of the writer's strike and that's Deadpool 3.
	Which will be rubbish.
	Yeah, and people are going to go see it because of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine.
	But not only is the quality diminishing so people are less interested, not only have they reached superhero fatigue because there have been so many coming out both on streaming services.
	Yeah, they've got so many television shows these days and nobody watches them.
	And they're not interesting.
	As far as I can tell.
	But also, they can't even get the films out because they've become so embedded in the Hollywood infrastructure that when one of the building blocks gets pulled out then the films just stop being made.
	They're also tiring when it comes to screenplay.
	It's just the same stuff over and over again.
	I'm bored of it.
	I'm sad to say.
	I'm a 90s man when it comes to movies.
	I think it was the best decade.
	Movie wise, but then especially with the superhero movies, I think the cinema has dropped down quality significantly.
	Absolutely.
	There is this incentive to create cash cows and just follow the same thing, the same recipe over and over again.
	They're running out of characters, frankly.
	I mean, this is why they're trying to resurrect the X-Men, but they're not even recasting the X-Men.
	They're just bringing the old X-Men back.
	This is a point that I'm going to make, which is that whether or not you run out of characters, what matters is the quality of the writing and the quality of the production.
	And that's what made characters like Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, characters that people didn't really care all that much about.
	They were recognized as maybe C-listers.
	They would at least be.
	They would definitely be.
	No, they were C-listers.
	In the 60s, people were walking around with them dressed up on college campus.
	That was 40 years before, so that by the time we got to the mid-2000s, they were mainly known for some of the cartoons that came out in the mid-90s.
	Most people weren't as up on them as they were franchises like the X-Men, like Spider-Man, but these films came out and turned Iron Man and Robert Downey Jr. into the top Marvel superhero behind Spider-Man.
	That's what they did.
	They made these heroes fan favorites, and now because of the diminished quality of all of the screenwriters and the producers, they're completely unable to do that same trick with the people that they're introducing, especially when you consider that you are right that the characters that have been introduced in the past 10 years, including as we'll get to especially when you consider that you are right that the characters that have been Con.
	Kamala Khan.
	Nobody cares about them.
	The comic book it's based on has been cancelled and restarted, relaunched multiple times over because these characters aren't good.
	But all you really need is one great script and one great director to turn these into a fan favorite.
	They can't.
	They can't.
	They don't have that magic touch anymore, which is why they will almost certainly, like they're doing with Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, be bringing these people back into the fold, because that's what you do when you introduce time travel and you introduce multiverses into your story.
	What you're basically giving yourself is a skeleton key to make sure that you know... You're basically giving yourself dragon balls, so you can go, I'm going to summon the magic dragon to bring back this character whenever our sails are lagging.
	Robert Downey Jr.
	we've got a 50 million dollar check with your name on it if you can come and save our series and hopefully people don't fall for that and hopefully this whole thing dies but another thing Stelios and what you're talking about with the screen uh screenwriters I think it's um there's another part of the Joss Whedon-ization which is I have been subjected and I I love my missus she's a wonderful wonderful woman but she watches some absolute crap on television and she's watched shows like
	Doom Patrol, Umbrella Academy, all of these things.
	And something that I've noticed is the Joss Whedon effect has meant it so that every single character, and I've spoken to you about this in the past, speaks in the same voice.
	Nobody has a distinct voice.
	If you were to take away the performer and have them as AI lines, you wouldn't be able to tell who's talking because they all speak in the same quippy manner.
	And especially in Doom Patrol, they all feel the need to insert the F word in There is Samuel Jackson in many of these movies.
	Who is he playing?
	There is Samuel Jackson in many of these movies.
	Who is he playing agent?
	Nick Fury.
	Nick Fury, yeah.
	But I was saying also, it's not just the same voice.
	It's also the same quotes.
	So for instance, I was watching a movie with my brothers.
	I'm not going to say which one.
	And I was ranting to them about the screenplay.
	It's always the same.
	And they just put it on and it's Salma Hayek opens her eyes and says, it is time.
	Is it The Eternals or something like that?
	But at least it was Salma Hayek saying it, so you've got something to pay attention to, right?
	Yeah, but why do you think I stayed for the whole two hours to rant about it?
	That was the other Marvel flop as well, The Eternals.
	It's funny how both are directed by diverse women.
	I wonder if there's some kind of connection there.
	Well, they point out in this article, if we get back on track, I know we've taken quite a tangent there, but I think it's relevant.
	You've all been enriched by it.
	They point out, you know, the most recent Ant-Man, Complete Bomb, Black Widow, Bomb, Shang-Chi, Bomb, Eternals, Bomb.
	They've had, other than I think Guardians and Spider-Man, which have bankable name recognition.
	They've got brand recognition on those.
	Everything new that they've tried to introduce has been complete sh*t.
	Guardians of Spider-Man are actually quite good as well.
	They're quite enjoyable.
	Well, they were alright.
	They were certainly better than all of this rubbish.
	But they say, as well, swept up in a wave of political activism from vocal employees.
	Marvel turned its focus away from quality.
	They've been doing this for ages.
	So, Ant-Man's daughter became an anti-police social justice activist, because I want to be following the exploits of Ant-Man's ACAB daughter.
	She-Hulk.
	She-Hulk was a blatant political statement saying we hate men, by the way.
	It wasn't even that!
	It was also embarrassing.
	Middle-aged feminist writers complaining at their movie critics on the internet?
	Wasn't the main villain a parody of one of the guys that goes on EFAP?
	Probably, it sounded very similar in the way that they tried to turn 2016 Ghostbusters, or Femme Buster, let's just call it that.
	The main villain of that was some sweaty 4chan substitute.
	But the guy actually had like a Doom Somethings mask in the show, and I was like, who is this for?
	Unless you're really enmeshed in internet history, you won't get it.
	Yeah, he was the main villain of She-Hulk.
	I'm not joking.
	Oh my god, I didn't know that.
	But anyway, this is all snowballed and it's meant that this film, which nobody cared about and had terrible, terrible pre-release hype going into it because of the writer's strikes and a number of other things, and also it was a sequel to Captain Marvel.
	Who cares?
	Who cares?
	They had terrible projections running up to it.
	The pre-release tracking had suggested it would gross $75 million to $80 million in its opening weekend, which for Marvel films, what they've come to expect, it's terrible.
	It's terrible.
	But they actually only earned about $47 million, which is a really terrible opening weekend when you consider that the budget of the film was a massively inflated $270 million, and that's marketing.
	Plus marketing, so double that.
	They've said maybe around $540 to $550 million was the break-even point.
	That is brutal.
	Yeah, so that's really bad.
	It's the lowest opening for an MCU film ever.
	Ever.
	Even the Hulk.
	That nobody watched and nobody remembers even exists.
	That's right, the one with Edward Norton is technically canon, I think.
	Yes, they referenced it in the first Avengers movie.
	Yeah, and they said that part of the reason is that they gave lots of money, almost $300 million, to an inexperienced director, Naya DaCosta was the director of the Marvels.
	You probably don't recognize that name because what I know her mostly for is the remake of Candyman.
	Oh, that's the one that Proper Horror Show hates with a passion.
	Yes.
	Well, it's because a film, the 90s version is actually really good.
	The original 90s film, Candyman, is excellent.
	The 2021 remake is, as you would imagine, white people bad.
	Right.
	Wasn't Jordan Peele involved with it?
	Of course he was.
	He was the executive producer.
	So I've seen one interview with this woman with IGN pop up on my Twitter feed, and she said, what video games inspired you to be a writer?
	And she did say The Last of Us 2.
	That game's three years old!
	So is she mentally?
	All makes sense.
	And people are trying to blame it on other things.
	People like I've already mentioned, people are saying, well, the writer's strike, the writer's strike meant that nobody could promote this.
	The sudden rush of star-laden publicity, according to this Guardian article, including Brie Larson, everyone's favorite, appearing on The Tonight Show.
	Iman Vellani popping up at a special LA screening and a smattering of social media posts didn't seem to boost audience interest.
	So they tried to promote it and it didn't work.
	Well, because they had a very, very limited amount of time to promote it in, but also, nobody would have cared anyway.
	But it's Marvel.
	For sheer name recognition, five years ago, everyone would be going and seeing him on.
	Also, the same problem probably affected some other films earlier this year, like Barbie.
	And that still made lots of money.
	That made lots of money.
	So it turns out that if you make a film that people are interested in watching, even for suspect reasons like yourself.
	What do you mean?
	Well, because he's literally you.
	Yeah, Ken's great.
	Then people will go and see it.
	But not if you're making films that nobody wants to watch because everybody has long since lost faith in your ability to make anything remotely watchable.
	Forbes went with the anti-woke backlash.
	Saying that, and they've got some interesting details in here, it debuted to middling reviews.
	It had 62% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
	And that's on the critic side of Rotten Tomatoes.
	So even the critics are like, we can't save this one, guys.
	Yeah, those guys defended cuties and they're not.
	Yeah, we can't save this one.
	Do you know how it scored on IMDb?
	I don't, no.
	That's not the critic aggregate, though.
	Yeah, because very frequently, that's what pisses me off with IMDb.
	A lot of the time you have a good, an okay-ish movie that comes out and everyone just says, okay, yeah, nine stars.
	Greatest movie ever.
	Among the 50 greatest movies of all time.
	Yeah like Shawshank Redemption.
	Well it's because it's a public forum where it's open to all of the user reviews and the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes for this is 84% and they say that's suggesting the film hadn't been subject to the same review bombing campaign that Captain Marvel faced.
	No in fact I think it probably received the opposite because It made so little money.
	What does that say about the audience?
	It means that the audience that went to see it are the diehards who are guaranteed to like it, and then maybe some fandom menace guys who wanted to watch it for a review on YouTube.
	Well the anti-woke backlash is basically, I don't care anymore, you're not getting my money.
	We're not even screaming about it, we're just bored of you.
	And this also includes my favorite quote of all time.
	This is an amazing quote, so let me read this to you.
	Film consultant David A. Gross told the New York Times that female-powered entertainment is enjoying extraordinary success right now, but audiences are not embracing these stories.
	So it's failing?
	That's an incredible quote.
	That's fantastic.
	What they're saying, there's the divide.
	We in our fancy production offices really want to shove this down your throat, but people aren't eating it.
	People aren't taking it.
	Do you remember in Comics Corner Part 2 when I read out that quote from the Marvel exec back in 2014 when they did their diverse relaunch, including creating Marla Kahn, Ms.
	Marvel, as a self-insert for writer Summer Amanat?
	He said that our audience are loud and clear, they don't want diverse characters anymore.
	It's almost like you could have predicted that these are going to be really unprofitable about 10 years ago.
	Nobody could have known.
	Nobody could have known.
	It's purely because of people like us reporting after it's already bombed.
	We're the only reason it bombed, obviously.
	There's a retroactive causation effect.
	Exactly.
	You know, time is always in flux, never in balance.
	Who knows what forces are truly controlling us right now?
	Shu had an excellent point, which was that obviously it was women's duty.
	to go and watch this film so women as is typical of them shirking their responsibilities didn't go and see this film so you've let the side down ladies shoes disappointed i'm disappointed as well or maybe it's the it includes lines like use black girl magic Maybe it's that these films are really terrible now.
	Maybe that's why people didn't go to see it.
	If your superpowers sound like a sex toy brand, it's probably not the most marketable.
	Ah, for God's sake!
	But how could Marvel bounce back if I still really want to... I need...
	I quite enjoy the cinema experience.
	You go, you get the theatre, you get the curtains, there's a big attention that builds up to it.
	Kicked in the back by a small child throwing popcorn.
	Yeah, it's exciting, right?
	So, what could bring Marvel back?
	Not that I want it to be brought back, but what could bring it back?
	Well, as I said at the beginning, multiverse and time travel means that, hey, you know that guy who was the massive draw for us?
	Sorry faces at the ready, boys.
	is.
	Yep.
	Because Tom...
	Think of all the Funko Pops.
	Because Tom Hiddleston, who plays Loki, was talking about, well, you know, death is up for grabs.
	And he's absolutely right, because...
	He died?
	Yeah.
	He died in Endgame.
	No, no, in the one before.
	Infinity War.
	Infinity War.
	And they brought him back to life using time travel shenanigans.
	So, they've already shown that they can do it.
	Why not do it with a guy who's probably the only person who's going to make them any money at this point, except maybe if they brought back Captain America?
	And because people...
	It turns out people didn't care enough about Thor.
	Yeah, but if you give him to Taika Waititi and make him a walking joke, then of course that happens.
	Yeah, that makes sense.
	But also, we've got... Young Avengers!
	Are you excited for this?
	Whatever this is?
	Okay, so that's Wanda's gay kids.
	I'm not exaggerating.
	Oh yeah!
	Oh God, they are, aren't they?
	Yeah, one of them is actually... I think he's Wiccan or something?
	His entire character trait is he likes men.
	I don't know who the kid on the end... Is that the young kid from Captain America and Falcon?
	Don't ask me, I don't care.
	And then, why is Vision... White Vision there like their creepy uncle?
	They're all underage.
	This is very strange, but it's gonna happen, guys!
	And no one should care, and no one should go and watch.
	They apparently teased it in the post-credits sequence, and they've already confirmed that, like, the main three Young Avengers are Girlboss.
	Which doesn't surprise me because Nina DaCosta, I saw one interview that NerdRotic included in his review of this dumpster fire and she said that she wanted to make a two-hour version with this film of that 30-second scene from Avengers Endgame where all the women line up because they've got badge telepathy or something.
	That's everything the audiences have ever wanted.
	So don't go and watch this.
	So Marvel is officially stale.
	It's officially dried up.
	The well is dry.
	There's nothing to go back for unless they can, you know, just entice Robert Downey Jr.
	with tens and tens of millions of dollars.
	So what else can we go see at the Cinema Boys?
	What else can we go see?
	Well, I did see this being advertised, which I've spoken about briefly before.
	Very strange film, this one.
	So what's this?
	This is a film called Poor Things.
	This is the other kind of slop.
	This is art slop.
	This is fancy French slop.
	Actually, sorry, Stelios, I'm really sorry about this.
	The director of this is Greek, so I blame you.
	Wait, is it Lanthimos?
	He's the same guy who did The Lobster.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's that guy.
	Let me give you a quick description of the plot of this film, which is Emma Stone.
	Sorry, I love how the word lobster for you has very specific connotations.
	You've been programmed.
	So Emma Stone plays Bella Baxter, who has been cloistered away from the world at the behest of her guardian, Dr. Godwin Baxter, played by Willem Dafoe, whom she refers to as God.
	You see, Bella isn't just a young woman.
	The doctor has reanimated the corpse of a pregnant woman who died by suicide, and the brain inside Bella's head is that of the woman's unborn fetus.
	Very strange premise, but okay, let's see where they go with it.
	That's something could be explored in an interesting way.
	Accidentally pro-life.
	Where do you think that they are going to... What is this unborn fetus in a grown woman's body?
	What's the first thing that she's going to want to do when she goes out to explore the world?
	Don't make me say it, I already know what happens.
	Well, I'll tell you anyway.
	Because she has been locked away, she has no conception of what the world expects from her.
	She likes to eat, learn, and have lots of sex.
	And she doesn't understand why the world would look down on a woman enjoying these things.
	Remember, this is supposedly the brain of an unborn fetus, and it doesn't expressly say how long she's been cloistered away, so how old this unborn fetus' brain technically is, but also been completely hidden away from the world, probably still mentally a child, no matter how old they say that she is, technically.
	After all, what's better than an orgasm?
	Why wouldn't you want to talk to random strangers about how often they have sex?
	Sure, behind closed doors, people love engaging in these things, but we can't talk about it.
	Why?
	Well, polite society has deemed it so.
	Bella has lived a life free of shame, and she's all the happier for it.
	Now, Obviously, on its own terms, that's a very disturbing and perverted kind of plot to put out there.
	But I realised something because of some reading I've been doing recently, which is that this is a literal representation
	of the Freudian idea of childhood sexuality that in the West people are unhappy because they repress their sexual urges which is something that's given to them by a repressive society from childhood so he says that you're able to be children are inherently sexual and it's parents and authority figures and repressive society that gives them this repression tells them to not to act on those urges which makes them unhappy and if we have the permissive society
	Then people will be much more happy.
	And this is basically, you can't obviously do this in a cuties way where you actually have young girls act this out.
	So they've basically tried to represent that and had Eva Stone play a child in a woman's body to make it less weird for audiences to look at.
	This is how you get the logic of the Kentler experiment, which says that we need to put children who are in foster care and the care of pedophiles to stop fascism, because all violence is a consequence of repression.
	Well, and that was a result of Freudian psychoanalysis, which was spread through the Frankfurt School.
	The Frankfurt School were employed specifically by the CIA, I believe, in the denazification process of Germany.
	Which is what led Germany to behave in such a way that led to the Kentler experiments.
	When I'm king, making art like this will come with a prison sentence and possibly worse.
	So that's... No.
	Strike that one off the records.
	We're not going to go and watch Poor Things.
	Well, I suppose we can... You don't have to go to the cinema.
	You can stay at home.
	Netflix does plenty.
	What's Netflix doing?
	Denzel Washington is Hamil... Oh, bugger off.
	Okay.
	You know, I quite like Denzel, but he's not Hannibal.
	Hannibal, as we can see, has a few distinctive features that Denzel does not share.
	So that's a no.
	Okay, well, everything's being remade these days.
	So what remakes being made?
	Well, we've got Oh, I'm really mad about this.
	What?
	It's a classic!
	I too have been subject to it by ex-girlfriends.
	No, I watched it purely of my own volition.
	It's a great film.
	Interesting.
	It's very good.
	They've just butchered it.
	And what else have we got?
	We've got historical epics like Zendaya.
	This is only a rumour.
	But it's probably going to be true.
	Zendaya being cast as Cleopatra.
	The relentless midification of everything.
	So, guys, you know, I don't think we should go to the cinema after all.
	I think I'm just going to stay home and read a book instead.
	And with that, what's Stelios got to show us?
	Are you going to suppress us further, mate?
	No, I was about to, but the powers that be prevented it.
	What does that mean?
	What's John done to you, Stelios?
	Nothing.
	So I want to talk to you a bit about how the left hates the West.
	Shock.
	It's a shock, yeah.
	So basically, one of the major issues is, I think, ideological thinking.
	Now, ideology can be understood in many ways.
	One way is you can say basically that Your ideology is a system of ideas, and you're trying to put all these ideas together, and you can make sense of the world and what you're experiencing.
	And this is basically something that is fairly okay.
	There's nothing pejorative about it.
	But there's another issue when ideology becomes sort of like an algorithm in people's brains, or in people's minds, and it prevents them from actually examining issues on their own.
	So for instance, you know the famous saying that says that whenever facts clash with theory, so worse for the facts.
	That's ideology in a bad sense, in a nutshell. - It's a closed system of world interpretation that leads you to operate in erroneous ways, and then there's no self-correcting mechanism. - Exactly.
	There may be self-correcting in the sense like the Marxists did, for instance, when they were saying that the communist utopia will arrive in the next, let's say, two, three years.
	When it didn't, what they were saying was Something like, the historical moment wasn't ripe for evolution.
	So there is a kind of mechanism for self-correction, but it doesn't apply for the main tenets of that ideology.
	Yeah, well, cope isn't self-correction.
	Yeah, but if you look at the structure of thought that people who are coping are doing, that's essentially it.
	There are some axioms that they take for granted and they will never question, At least most of the SJWs never do this.
	And they may be able to work their way around it just in order to save these assumptions from any kind of empirical disconfirmation.
	So, I want to show you this tweet here.
	It says, this isn't so much anti-Semitism as anti-Western civilization Marxism.
	Their argument, so to speak, is Western civilization, including Israel, is white and white is bad.
	So, you see here this either or issue.
	You're either on the white or right side of history.
	Marxism is kind of redundant in that sentence because Islamism and Marxism... I mean, Marx did say he would use the Muslims as a vanguard class against the Christians.
	However, they're not necessarily compatible and inter-reliant and all of the nations in the right quadrant are Islamists.
	Well, this is actually really insightful because There is basically no group that is allegedly protected by leftists that is compatible with other groups that are, again, allegedly protected by... I was going to say Netflix.
	Same, same.
	Well, I think the one driving force of the coalition groups of the left, of wokeism if you want to call it that, is that they are all united against Western civilization and Western culture.
	That's the only thing, even the ones that are that are made up of Westerners, like the LGBT movement, for instance, are fundamentally espousing an anti-Western ideology.
	That's why they group them all together, even though individually these groups would not get along well together.
	Well, yeah, how are we grouped with France?
	I'm really offended.
	So I think that this is very telling because it shows that basically these people, to a very large extent, the overwhelming majority are thinking very ideologically.
	I mean, that's no surprise.
	But what this shows, to a very large extent, is that they don't approach issues for on their own grounds.
	Okay.
	So for instance, let's say we have all the, we have side A and side B.
	Okay.
	And there are 10, 20, 30 contentious issues.
	I think that the normal way is to examine each issue and focus what on what we believe on each issue.
	And then you can judge who is correct about it.
	But this is not how ideologues operate.
	They are thinking in a top-down manner, in the following sense.
	Who believes this?
	The people I like, therefore I'll believe that.
	And how many times have you heard leftists who can't give you arguments against your points, But they are telling you something like, well, do you know who agrees with you?
	Or do you know what kind of people embrace this kind of belief?
	Nazis think that.
	That's the same way the Nazis think, because they associate all kinds of... Once again, tying into the previous segment, this was something that was very much connected by psychoanalytic theory and Frankfurt, which was that
	any sort of repressive society they saw because of the fact that repression leads to psychosis and psychosis leads to you doing very nasty things they see that any sort of repressive society which they classify western as i don't know how they square the circle when they look at the other societies that they're representing there but they see all western societies repressive if you repress people they get psychotic and if they get psychotic they genocide I think I have an answer.
	And the question is, whenever we talk about repression, the question is, who is repressed and why?
	And who thinks they are repressed?
	Because there are lots of people who think they're repressed in Western societies, and they're actually not.
	So the main question is, who thinks they are repressed?
	And I think that essentially, We have a lot of people who are in the current left who don't have any positive vision.
	They think they know what they're up against, but if you ask them what they want, they cannot really tell you.
	They can give you answers.
	I'm sure you can think of Answers that they will give, but all of them are incredibly abstract.
	So for instance, they will say things like, yeah, we want liberty, we want equality, we want social justice.
	But if you actually ask them, very few people are able to say exactly what this form will take.
	They may tell you equality of outcome, things like that.
	But all of that is usually abstract.
	So it's more like they are against something rather than being pro something else.
	And the question is whether the claim that they are completely oppressed by Western societies is basically just smoke screen for them actually saying, we need more political power.
	This is how we're going to achieve it.
	By mobilizing people under the banner of whatever ideal we are using.
	You look like you said something to add there.
	Well, I don't want to take up time on your segment, but I don't think it's power for power's sake.
	I think a lot of the time power is instrumental because what they're driving at, whether they know it or not, is the abolition of all constraints.
	In the same way that any form of structure, even advice, is an incursion that reminds them of their consciences when they're doing something bad.
	And so they want to abolish all cultural norms, all institutions, and achieve equality as the precondition for universality, so that everyone can be free and equal to do whatever the hell they want.
	And that's just chaos.
	Okay, so there's a good question here, and I don't have an answer.
	I think it's a good question to pose.
	Do they want, do they hate advice because they want more power?
	No, I think they hate advice because it reminds them of their own insecurities, and so they want to abolish all standards so they don't feel as bad anymore.
	But insecurities don't imply a feeling of powerlessness, in which case you could say that they really want power.
	They cannot accept the fact that they are limited, and they want the whole world to engage in a sort of dramatic act where everyone confirms them that they are essentially God's gift to human nature.
	Sure, but I think the power there is the means, but the coercion and the accruing of resources is the means to the ends of total affirmation, so I don't feel it's terrible anymore.
	Okay.
	To be honest, I don't think that there is much of a contradiction there.
	I think we could definitely say that they could want both.
	But I'm more of a, you could say, of the political realist school.
	I think that basically more power is the goal.
	It's not any kind of liberation or something.
	They want liberation for themselves.
	So it's like, We're going to talk about liberation for all, but in practice it's liberation for me, but not for thee.
	Well, yeah, that's what I was going to add to this, which is I think that when you say, what do they want?
	Once again, these larger groups are made up of much smaller divided groups.
	If you were to ask a member of each of these individual groups, they would all give a different answer because realistically it's all about their group gaining more power so that they can have More control over their own selves and more control over those around them so that they can not be impeded in what it is that they want.
	So once again, a lot of these right now are organized together because they're anti-white, anti-whiteness, whatever you want to call it.
	And the irony for me is looking at this sign here is that the governments of all of those in the coalition are typically the ones facilitating anti-whiteness within their own nations and have been acting in an anti-white manner for a long time at this point.
	Also Jews are like selectively put in the white category because aren't they don't they believe their own their own distinct ethnicity and then they're conveniently labeled white by leftists who want to destroy That's a very large and complicated topic.
	Yeah, but I'm saying, like, the internal contradictions have been put into black boxes.
	I think, internally, many Jews, especially Israelis, do not consider themselves white.
	They consider themselves to be a very specific demographic and a very specific group with their own group interests.
	But, among the broader intersectional lens the left looks in, all they see when they see Israel is a Western outpost in the Middle East.
	That's all they see.
	So I think we could tie into, we could introduce something else into the mix, which I think ties with what you said to an extent.
	When, there's a question, when you want power, what do you want to do with it?
	And you could say that traditionally speaking, when we are talking about moral precepts, there's the idea that you may have power.
	Are you going to use it for good or bad?
	So the kind of liberation from any kind of constraints that you're talking about seems to me here to be really relevant when it comes to liberation from moral constraints.
	That's what I think many of these people want psychologically.
	Why?
	Because morality, you could say, forms a kind of voice that tells people what they should do.
	And some people don't like it.
	Why?
	Because they want to use power in ways that are inconsistent with the, let's say, moral precepts we're talking about.
	Anyway, so I think that when we have lots of people, and I will say this primarily about people in Western societies, native people who hate their own societies, that's incredibly problematic.
	Okay, when we have a lot of people who are ecophobic, there's a question whether we are doomed.
	And...
	To find out more about this question, you can check out our website for Symposium 41, Can Western Societies Survive?
	The symposium I did with Benedict Beckhold and David Thunder with respect to several problems afflicting Western societies.
	We have a Contemplations coming out soon as well where Beau, Josh, Carl, and I debate whether or not civilization is going to collapse.
	So definitely give that a watch.
	And since we're on our website, We recently celebrated our third birthday, and we have this fantastic opportunity.
	We can use code BIRTHDAY for 33% off for the first three months.
	That's a lovely thing.
	A lovely offer.
	Okay, so there was an article here in UnHerd by Samuel Rubinstein.
	Talking about the Gen Z has an Israel problem, and I want to share with you some statistics from here.
	It says, for years, young people have tended to be much more pro-Palestine and anti-Israel than their elders.
	According to a poll conducted a few months before Hamas' attack, American millennials are the first generation in history to sympathize with the Palestinian more than the Israelis.
	In Britain, 18 to 34-year-olds are also far more supportive of Palestinians, 23%, than the Israelis, only 7%, almost the precise inverse of the 55 to 75 years old.
	almost the precise inverse of the 55 to 75 years old.
	This being so, at universities across the countries, you will find students and academics calling for an intifada and tearing down posters of the kidnapped Israelis.
	Anyway. - Okay.
	And here we say, the noisiest activists most attract our attention, but the whirlpool also sucks in those rubberneckers who just want to know what mantra they have to intone today.
	Silence being violence is never an option.
	On all sorts of issues, you have to have a view.
	Here, intersectionality provides a solution.
	Instead of going through the laborious effort of selecting your stance on each issue a la carte, you can opt instead for the set menu.
	Climate justice is racial justice, is LGBTQ justice, is reproductive justice, is Palestinian justice.
	But intersectionality breeds conformity.
	If you descend on any one of these issues, you risk suggesting to your peers that you descend on the others, making you out as a bad person.
	Now, I think that's a really interesting point to raise because For me, it is true.
	It does describe how lots of people think, especially in the leftist camp.
	They are saying, basically, we have menu A and menu B. Just who do you want to be associated with?
	So that's what you should believe.
	And I think that it's a bad thing to think this way, because when we're talking about all sorts of topics, the first thing we need to do is to examine each topic on its own.
	Not just by herd mentality and tribalism.
	Who thinks this?
	I like them, so I will think that.
	Who doesn't?
	I don't like them.
	I don't believe that.
	I agree that most people aren't thinking in that manner.
	I will say that for a lot of people, especially those who place themselves on the intersectional left, I think a lot of them are either not willing or not capable of disaggregating all of these differences, because it's either a function of the brainwashing that many of them have received since birth, or the emotional neuroticism that a lot of them suffer from.
	If you point out these contradictions, it causes them definitely an emotional, almost a physical distress to have to consider that their entire worldview is based upon a mountain of contradictions.
	I think a lot of people's worldviews are based on massive contradictions that they'll never have to square in their own lifetimes.
	That's why I think a lot of people aren't capable of disaggregating these problems because they have based so much of their identity and so much of their personal pride in being able to say, I'm an intersectional social justice advocate, is probably how they would describe themselves, or I'm an activist.
	They don't want...
	To separate these ideas.
	Sorry, but I was going to say, yeah, they've got a lot of sunk costs.
	Also, these people aren't that cognitively sharp, so if you hand a midwit a kind of coherent programming that gives them a direct path to power, but also the present political paradigm is very vulnerable to its charges.
	It also sounds smart to them.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They're cognitive misers, so they're just going to adopt it and hopefully enrich themselves and make themselves feel better.
	I think it's more an issue of character than an issue of intelligence.
	But of course there is, let's say, there can be overlaps, but I think that to a very large extent, this has been for decades, a failing of a cultural sort, especially when it comes to education.
	And you could say parenting on this, you know, way more than I do, because there's a kind of progressive parenting or progressive education, I should say, within quotation marks.
	I don't think it is.
	Which basically focuses a lot on emotions, and the whole idea is on letting people express their emotions, whatever these emotions are.
	Well, it's trying to separate parenting from any kind of authoritarian force because parenting and proper education is inherently something authoritarian, basically, because you are an authority over those who are lower than you on the hierarchy.
	Your children are people that basically, Thomas Sowell has a great quote about this, which is that every new generation is essentially a generation of barbarians that you have to educate into being civilized people.
	So if you recognize that, You're going to behave in ways that we have been taught from birth by our own parents oftentimes who were also brought up in this culture, but that's repressive and therefore that's evil.
	The worst thing that you can do in our culture is to be repressive even if that in the long term is going to be beneficial for the manners of behavior and thought that your children end up adopting.
	Personally, I wouldn't use the word authoritarian, but I do think that you have a point when you're saying that it has to do a lot with authority.
	Yeah, of course.
	It is imperative to foster the idea of discipline.
	And one of the manifestations of discipline in, let's say, a mature person has to do with controlling their emotions and showing self-control and examining something.
	What we're looking at right now, right here, is a generation of young people who are habituated into not doing that.
	And not only habituated into not doing that, but habituated into thinking that trying to do that is a form of internalized tyranny.
	We have all this nonsense coming from, you know, the structuralism, post-structuralism, all this kind of, you know, postmodern ways of viewing things that basically says reason is a bad thing.
	So any kind of exercise of discipline in our thinking is basically seen as a form of internalizing tyranny.
	So the idea is to throw away the tyrant, destroy the tyrant, destroy reason, let toxic sentimentality win you over.
	Well one of the interesting things about that, as we know from that, was the museum that did the Smithsonian poster on the elements of whiteness, is the scientific method and reason is considered to be one of the defining elements of whiteness.
	I would actually say that it's a defining characteristic of It is a defining characteristic of Western thinking.
	The Greeks developed it, and the Anglos in particular, especially during the era of the British Empire and the Victorians, were very dedicated to reason and empiricism.
	And they see that as one of the great tyrannical repressive forces of history, is the idea that if you let the white man exercise his reason, then you're going to get Genocide, you're going to get Apartheid, you're going to get Colonialism.
	And so, the idea is teach white kids not to be like that, to be more like the beautiful, noble, savage who's in touch with his emotions and in touch with nature, even though that's completely ahistorical.
	This has to do with emotional manipulation, because people who don't exercise reason in their thinking, and they usually appeal to emotion, they're more prone to emotional manipulation.
	So people who are really skilled at manipulating people emotionally have vested interests in putting forward their rhetoric.
	Absolutely.
	That's Christopher Rufo's phrase of a cluster B civilization, where the hierarchies that you have are kind of modeled on a maladaptive parenting style because a tyranny is a hierarchy with authority that's inattentive to the people under its duty of care and when you have a tyrannical parent what you have is a very strict authoritative parent that doesn't pay attention to the emotional needs of the child instead it brushes them off so what happens is when those children grow up
	they will either reject authority or seek absolute authority because that's been the model that they have but they won't be able to process their own emotions so they'll have tantrums like a two-year-old at every single protest and so that's why you're seeing in in various ways also because of the inefficacy of the state to deal with this about 40 percent of gen z in an onward survey have said we want a centralized military dictatorship essentially Not for base reasons, but for cringe reasons.
	Very disappointing.
	We want Cringe Franco!
	We need Cringe Franco!
	So, one of the ways in which irrationality manifests is in double standards.
	So, I want to show you here some tweets.
	When that involves flags and monuments.
	And basically, I want to ask you, how many times have you heard people from Western countries saying, well, the flag is just a piece of fabric.
	You shouldn't care about it.
	It's just a piece of fabric.
	How many times have you heard this?
	Well, they only say that because it's our flags they're talking about.
	Their own flags are the most sacred objects to ever exist.
	So I don't know who is here and I have no idea.
	But there are Palestinian flags over, say, British monuments.
	It's a war memorial on Armistice Day.
	Yep.
	And it's about, it says, erected to commemorate the glorious heroes of the machine gun corps who fell in the Great War.
	And we have people who were trying to say, well, what's the fuss about?
	And they had pictures like that and say people climb on statues in London and other cities constantly.
	Always have been.
	This was about 15 years ago.
	This typical retard sophistry, as I would describe it, where you go, well, this thing looks a bit like this other thing, so they're the exact same thing.
	This dog has four legs, is fluffy, and it has a tail.
	This cat has four legs, is fluffy, and has a tail, so they're the exact same thing.
	Well, you can tell it was 15 years ago because there's white people in London.
	Shocking behaviour.
	Anyway, so here is where we say that context matters and they seem to me to be not involved into making any sort of political statement.
	Well, it's not even just a political statement.
	They're not involved in the direct ideological denigration of the thing that they're sitting on.
	I think fundamentally they can't separate things qualitatively.
	They can only look at the general outline of something and get the impression from that.
	They can't look at the actual details.
	And here we have another war memorial.
	Well, this is in... And I think that the issue is, first of all, that this shouldn't happen.
	And what I want to say is that it is frightening to see how many people in Western societies think that this is okay.
	In the same way that they think that, let's say, Disrespecting the flag of a Western country is no big issue.
	It's also in Rochdale, where the grooming gangs were.
	So extra level of insult.
	And let us see this in Australia.
	I found it just shows it.
	All of our war memorials all across the Anglosphere.
	And let us look at this person here.
	Oh, not snatching the UN flag off, of course.
	I mean, that is just... Oh, there we go!
	Well, that's base.
	This is just anti-flag.
	You know, being anti-flag.
	There is a particular flag they're not touching, but they've put up there themselves.
	Yep.
	Anyway, so... That's it.
	I think that this shouldn't happen, and it's frightening to think how many people within Western societies are okay with it.
	Okay.
	On to the video comments, then, I suppose.
	Don?
	Hey!
	So, this is cool and based, but I do kind of think that those bows with the stuff, it feels a bit like cheating to me.
	Yeah.
	Oh, Dems fightin' words.
	Just kidding.
	It's not too surprising that an Englishman would have a preference for a traditional stick-and-string longbow over the modern compound, which happens to be an American innovation.
	Compound bows and the sights, stabilizers, and release aids we use allow us to loose arrows faster, farther, and more accurately than a traditional recurve or longbow.
	So I wouldn't necessarily call it cheating, it's just a different discipline within the overall sport of archery.
	The expectations are higher with a compound, and you can stink up a course just as easily with a compound than a traditional bow, and you end up getting teased significantly more by the traditional archers when you do it.
	Yeah, Faustian techniques.
	It's Replacing the human's ability to draw the bow honorably for himself.
	Not every improvement in technological efficiency is an automatic bad thing.
	I have had plenty of fun playing around with compound bows in the past, and it's really good fun.
	So you keep at it, Andrew.
	It at least looks like Crysis, so that's cool.
	Anyway, next one.
	I was able to do some price comparisons to find probably the cheapest ammunition for my M1 Grand in all of Canada at about A dollar and three cents a round.
	And so I figured I would show you one month of gold tier in ammunition for my M1 Grant.
	So this is what I shot with my brothers in 20 minutes this afternoon.
	It's not unwise to stock up on this stuff, I think.
	Considering the collapse of the petrodollar will bring very hungry people to your door.
	No matter what though, it looks cool.
	Looks fun.
	Go on Craig, sell us something.
	Okay, so let's recap.
	I decided to climb the highest mountain in New Hampshire.
	In wet weather.
	And it's so unbelievably foggy I can't see 10 feet in front of me.
	Actual Skyrim landscape.
	I'm smart!
	I have a PhD.
	I want to play that clip at you anytime that we argue about liberalism.
	laughing Also, sorry for the audio listeners for the ear destruction you just got from secondhand wind.
	That was fine.
	Although if you're wearing headphones, maybe less so.
	R.I.P.
	Anyway, so a few comments on the website.
	Geordie Swordsman, Folk Wisdom does not hold that it was hosting Have I Got News For You that won Boris... It says it does hold.
	Oh, it does hold.
	That won Boris the Mayoral Contest.
	There might be something to Farage in the Jungle.
	I've heard that one about Boris before.
	That's why Matt Hancock went on there to try and rehabilitate his political career.
	The problem is... Did you see that he was also on an SAS show recently?
	Yeah, SAS who dares wins.
	The problem is Matt Hancock is fundamentally unlikable and locked us in our home for two years, whereas Farage is actually a nice bloke.
	He's alright, he's personable.
	Well, you've met him, haven't you?
	Yeah, he's a decent guy.
	Omar, an unelected bureaucrat, pointed to a position they don't deserve by other bureaucrats we didn't vote for either.
	We never left the EU.
	Well, we're still paying the UN, so that also counts.
	The French stooge.
	The problem conservatives have is that they're supposed to defend the interests of the UK and the British people, but they're instead defending the interests of the Western oligarchy.
	Those interests often go against what is best for the UK and the British.
	Only self-destruction can result from this.
	Why are you moving it?
	I can't read it.
	Let's not have battles over the mouse.
	I don't know why.
	Nick Taylor, is it possible the Conservatives realize things are going to go so wrong in the next four years that they want to be in opposition?
	Or is it just real politic, just corruption for globalists nowadays?
	I don't really think That the front benches are that fussed about winning the next election.
	Because they think that the continuity of their policies will continue.
	But there's a reason everything's destined for 2030, right?
	Well, both parties have had Blairite coups over the past year or two.
	So, realistically, they're all part of the same club.
	They're all mates with one another.
	They're all probably slapping each other's backs and who knows what else behind closed doors.
	So, you are right, I think, that they don't really care who gets in as long as it's one of the two main parties.
	Yeah, and there's also the fact that any time you hear about Sweller or the Culture Wars, they just say, it's just a giant distraction, we need to get on with our regular priorities.
	Push the concerns of the plebs aside that have to live with the consequences and go on with stewarding the long arc of history towards progress.
	Thanks very much.
	Matt, the left have abandoned the working class because the working class has never given them their wanted revolution.
	Now they're importing a new constituency to punish the working class while appealing to their coalition of the margins for the revolution.
	Also, this will be the first time in years I'm going to watch I'm a Celebrity.
	I don't even think they actually want a revolution.
	I think that they're just deluded in thinking that within the parameters of materialistic managerialism, all conflicts can be disaggregated.
	I think they have affected a revolution, it's just one that looks different to the ones that we see in places like China and Russia.
	I don't think that they want a large-scale Muslim uprising by the migrants.
	I don't think they want a fight in the streets.
	It's sometimes useful for them to allow crime to go on at a local level to scare people, but they don't want to be overthrown.
	They want a permanent client class that they can manoeuvre into the right position to prevent any of their enemies from gaining any sort of political organisation.
	Spot on.
	Okay, I'll do one last one from my section.
	Lord Nerevar, any Tory politician says something popular, correct, obvious.
	Tory party.
	Stop them.
	End them.
	Kill them.
	I mean, surely this has to be on purpose.
	Yes.
	It's called containment.
	Alright, I will go over one or two of my comments while I've got chance.
	So Biggie Bigfoot, good lad, says, Do you think we have turned a corner with woke Hollywood?
	Can we finally look forward to less woke movies now that the studios know it's not profitable?
	We've all been hoping this for a while and it's never really turned out to be the case.
	So they might carry on as they are until the whole thing does end up crashing and burning.
	More than likely, I think Marvel might take a turn, at least in terms of bringing back legacy characters that they killed off a few years ago.
	But if we end up with the same writing staff and the same producers, things won't change.
	I think they'll hope to bank on name recognition alone for a little bit.
	Find other mediums of entertainment, particularly books, particularly us.
	But also, novelty is kind of a modern invention, and maybe cycle off your addiction to novelty.
	This is what makes The Soy Boy so detestable.
	They've constantly got to consume the next product, so they have the attention span of a goldfish.
	Maybe just collect the hard copies of the films that you like, keep them safe from subversion, and then don't expect anything new and fun to come out for a little while.
	Furious Dan says, as a former Marvel superfan, I'm disappointed in their state today.
	I hope they take a break, reorient, and maybe go for a quality over quantity approach.
	Iron Man's budget was half that of the Marvel's.
	Where is all that money going?
	Where is it going with Joker?
	Well, if you look at it, if you if you tend to look at the quality of the CGI they produce nowadays, I can be assured it's not going to the CGI artists.
	Crusader.
	Wait, the Barbie movie.
	Barbie Woman is doing a Chronicles of Narnia adaptation, an explicitly Christian allegorical work.
	Oh, boy.
	Can't wait to see how badly that one fails.
	I wonder if she'll accidentally make it pro right wing again.
	I think she will, because it wasn't Lady Bird accidentally pro right wing.
	I mean, she might do it by accident.
	Greta, but Greta, but Gerwig might be a secretive person.
	But let's go on to a few of Stelios' comments while we've still got a minute.
	Okay, Maria Manzi.
	Stelios, spot on.
	The sad truth is, as you say, the left outside of the useful idiots are basically evil and know that they will always be the whip hen.
	Furious Dan.
	Ideology is to a worldview what obsessive compulsive disorder is to a habit.
	When you are blind to the world around you, instead of simplifying it only enough to navigate its complexities, you're in the grip of a terrible master.
	I like that frame.
	And rejecting reality.
	Yeah.
	That's a good little axiom.
	Sorry, rather than holding a useful tool.
	And last one from Lord Nerva.
	The left love the West.
	The West is diversity quotas, trans rights, mass immigration, and globalism.
	What they actually hate is England and America.
	Those are what they mean to destroy using the West as a vehicle.
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, it depends on how you define it.
	I think if you're defining it as a value structure and value system with a kind of history, this doesn't follow.
	But I definitely see the point of saying that right now, a lot of Western societies do this.
	It's what I said near the beginning of your segment, where the governments of the West are pushing this hateful ideology onto us and forcing it in with legal structures and other things.
	But there's a distinction between governments and civilizations and cultures.
	Of course.
	I think he's talking about the present moment.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	No, he has a point.
	Right.
	I suppose we'll wrap up then.
	Thanks very much for watching, everyone.
	Thanks, boys.
	We'll be back again tomorrow from one o'clock UK time.

▲