All Episodes
Previous Next
June 24, 2025 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:30:56
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1193
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for Tuesday, the 24th of June, 2025.
I'm joined by Ferris and Dan, and all hell is breaking loose.
There are going to be lots of things we're going to cover in the first segment are just literally breaking news on Trump, Israel, and Iran.
And man, it's really funny.
Then we're going to talk about how AI is destroying the Labour Party.
And then we're going to talk about American women and how they can't find husbands and how they're starting to notice that they can't find husbands.
Anyway, without further ado, let's just crack on.
Yes, thank you very much.
I'm happy to say that my new show, Real Politic, has just come out.
The first episode was released yesterday, and new episodes will be released every Monday with maybe a short break in August.
Please have a look.
Let me know what you think.
Give your feedbacks, topics, suggestions.
I'd love to hear from you.
Before we go on though, can we just have a look at some of the reviews?
I can't help but notice that the reviews are glowing.
Like all of these, thank you, fantastic.
You know, the brilliant introduction.
You know, thank you for this.
This is going to be great.
So just saying, everyone seems to really like it.
The feedback we've got.
Very happy to see that.
Thank you, guys.
I appreciate it.
So we should have trusted the plan, I think.
I just want to say.
I just want to say, you can look at my Twitter feed.
I wasn't a panican.
I was a panican.
I know.
I was a panican.
Lots of people have been.
And I've watched everyone be like, right, something's happened.
I need to have a hot take.
And it's like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
When stuff is happening, you don't know.
Wait until the dust has settled.
Trust the plan.
The thing is, I genuinely don't know.
Is he reacting on gut?
And he listens at the base of pivoted.
Right.
It's either that or 4D chess.
And I genuinely can't tell the...
So, okay, I've got...
I'm sure he does hear that the bass isn't happy.
But the thing is, I don't think that Trump is some kind of regime change imperialist, right?
What I think Trump is, is kind of like a king of kings.
Sort of.
Kind of like a.
Yeah, exactly.
Like an ancient sort of Assyrian king of kings.
Like, there is a certain level of dignity he expects as being the president of the United States.
Because in his mind, this is the sort of overruler of everything.
He's not the absolute monarch of everything, but everyone is supposed to pay him fealty.
They're supposed to listen to him.
his position is important.
But what that also means is he's got this kind of...
Even when it's an enemy like Iran, he still understands and in particular, he understands that they are due a measure of respect.
Yes.
Because he's actually not just 100% on one side and 100% on the other, even though he has obligations, more obligations to one and not the other.
And so actually, Trump, I think, is trying to be kind of fair.
And the way that he plays the man as opposed to the game is always impressive.
So with North Korea, the tweets against Kim, Little Rocket Man, were clearly intended to make some lackey go in kneeling submissively and saying, dear leader, it's awful oath, has committed horrific blasphemies.
I'm sorry to report.
And then the guy goes out and gets shot for just reporting.
The great thing on that is the Little Rocket Man thing, it was belittling.
Because, I mean, Kim Jon is a small guy.
He's a little fat guy, and he's definitely going to have some insecurities.
So Trump deliberately belittles.
But then as soon as he sort of comes over, Trump's all smiles and sunshine.
Very much so.
Very much so.
And this is appealing to what Plato would have called the thymotic part of rape reign, which is what I've talked about quite a lot.
You've got the appetitive part, which is your appetites.
The rational part, which is your calculating reason.
And then you've got your spirited part, which is your sort of emotional sense where you will stand up for yourself if someone has insulted you.
And all of Middle Eastern politics, in fact, most of old world politics, revolves around this thimotic sense of dignity, honor, and respect.
Well, it looks like today is not Israel's day to get sunshine and hugs.
No, no, it isn't.
So before that, I wanted to sort of explain why I got it wrong, because I owe you that, at least.
We saw Bush campaigning on a restrained foreign policy and ending up in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We saw Obama saying no stupid wars and ended up in Syria and Libya and with the Sudanese civil war.
And Iran was the last one on the list.
Yes, it was.
So when the list of Wesley Clark, which we covered in yesterday's daily, so when I saw that, okay, he's bombing the nuclear program now, I thought, here we go.
It's happened again.
In 2018, Trump said, pull out of Syria.
And the Pentagon kind of said, no, we're not doing it.
And then they started lying to him about troop dispositions.
And then they started deceiving him and lying to him.
And so my view was that, okay, we're back to the old game.
And, nope, trust the plan, bros.
Trump is actually cut from a different cloth.
He is genuinely cut from a different cloth.
Yes.
And in that vein, let's have a look at this video when he was talking about Israel-Iran violating the ceasefire.
He also talks before the bit that we're not showing you is him utterly castigating the media.
Yes.
I mean, you know, he's always called them fake news, but he's really going at them here.
Yes.
He's very sick and tired of them.
Impressively so.
Yeah, it's really funny.
Proper angry rant.
It's hilarious.
But moving away from the angry rant, let's cover this.
Iran violated the peace agreement, the peacefight agreement.
Do you believe that Iran is still committed to you?
Yeah, I do.
They violated it, but Israel violated it too.
Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I've never seen before.
The biggest load that we've seen.
I'm not happy with Israel.
You know, when I say, okay, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them.
So I'm not happy with them.
I'm not happy with Iran either.
But I'm really unhappy if Israel's going out this morning because the one rocket that didn't land, that was shot, perhaps by mistake, that didn't land.
I'm not happy about that.
We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long And so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing.
You understand that?
The New York businessman can't restrain himself.
That's it.
I could have talked to you about political objectives.
Yeah, you give political objectives to the military force.
They don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
I think his is better.
Fair enough.
Credit work, credit.
It's not quite top.
Jefferson level of prose, but it gets the job done.
It really gets the job done.
It explains the whole situation perfectly succinctly.
Yeah.
So what I like about this is he's constantly offering them off-ramps.
Yes.
He's saying, look, you can get out of this without humiliating yourselves.
And he did this with Iran yesterday.
Yes.
And he's just done it with Israel.
It might have been by a mistake.
And the Israelis go, oh, yeah, sorry.
It was a miscommunication.
We'd set up these things and they'd done it, but we told them not to, but it was, you know, small mistake and Trump.
That's no problem, whatever.
You know, so he's constantly offering off-ramps, which is what honestly a good ruler does.
He's offering off-ramps and a severe level of intimidation.
Yes.
Because he was making horrific threats about the Iranians as to what would happen to them if they retaliated against the bombing of their nuclear.
I love this so much.
Sorry to jump on, right?
But this whole thing has been an incredible example of great man politics.
Yes, right.
Exactly.
It really is.
Sorry, go on, go on.
Yeah, no, no, that's totally fair.
And he sort of castigates the fake news for saying that it was only partly destroyed.
In fairness, it was probably only partly destroyed.
Okay, so let me jump in on this because this is just one of those things where it's clearly.
So when everyone was like, oh my God, America's just bombed Iran.
Everyone starts panicking on Twitter.
I didn't because I was like, right, okay, but he's done this before.
He did it with Suleiman.
He did it with Syria as well back in his first term.
When everything was coming to a head, he's just, bam, he's a bomb.
Shut up, right?
And okay, yeah.
He comes out and then immediately, the hyper narrative is the most powerful narrative you can go, oh, I've totally destroyed, completely ruined, nothing left of it.
And the question is, well, did he?
Because he's saying a lot of things, and Trump is known to slightly inflate.
A slightly theatrical man.
Yeah, a slightly theatrical man.
And then, of course, we saw the pictures.
Okay, it doesn't look totally destroyed.
And as you can see, there was no nuclear leakage or anything like this.
But what's the point of the hyper narrative, right?
So the part of it was the military did great.
And to be honest with you, it looked like it was a really well-executed maneuver by the US military.
So fair play.
The Iranians saw absolutely nothing.
Yeah, exactly.
And they completely, perfectly played it out.
So good for them.
But also what it does is gives the Iranians the opportunity to roll over and show the belly, right?
Yes.
And say, yeah, look, you've destroyed our nuclear program.
It's totally gone.
Yes.
If only we were as great as President Trump, you know what I mean?
Certainly no need to inspect it now, but it is gone.
No need to keep firing rockets at us because the nuclear program's over.
No need to send in inspectors.
You know what?
That's a good point.
So Trump has actually kind of done them a favor here.
He's actually done them in a favor.
In a way.
And it does help that it seems that they snuck out a bunch of the 60% enriched uranium.
The problem that they have is that the level of Israeli intelligence penetration and American intelligence penetration of Iran is so high that even if they did sneak out that nuclear material, if they were to try to enrich it and process it into a bomb, they have zero assurance that they won't be detected.
They have zero secrecy and they can assume zero secrecy because right now everybody who's alive in Iran at a senior leadership level is a suspected spy.
Everyone who's alive.
Yeah, they keep going through people because the Israelis keep killing them.
Exactly.
Exactly.
So at the senior leadership level, if they were to decide to go ahead and try to enrich and to try to weaponize the enriched uranium, they're stuck.
And so what it looks like to me is that Trump has basically set the clock back like five or ten years.
Easily.
Right.
So, you know, so the Iranians are basically like, yeah, okay, look, they've ruined our leadership.
You know, everything's a mess.
We've had our facilities bombed.
They probably are damaged, at least.
Probably very severely damaged.
Probably severely damaged.
And so there's just nothing that they can actually do apart from just go, yeah, okay, well, I mean, we could fire conventional rockets back at Israel if they keep annoying us, but that's where it's gone.
And so Trump has essentially solved the problem for the Israelis.
He solved the problem for the Israelis and he gave the Iranians this off-ramp, which was a very humiliating, but pretty acceptable off-ramp.
He said that they've officially responded to our obliteration of their nuclear facilities with a very weak response.
So this whole thing is just so funny, right?
Because it's the warnings in advance.
Yes.
Right.
So as I understand it, who's it?
Like the Americans and the Iranians warned each other about strikes.
Pretty much.
Undertook the strikes.
So basically no one was killed.
Because I mean, the casualties for this, is there even 100 people have died in this?
Very low casualties, right?
In which one?
The American strike on Iran and the Iranian strike on America?
Oh, yes.
Between the Americans and the Israelis, there were no American casualties.
On the Iranian side, we don't know they were all underground.
Maybe they were buried in the rubble.
Maybe they weren't.
They probably were sliding.
They did two days' notice.
Yeah, but they did have notice and they evacuated a bunch of material, which means that they evacuated a bunch of people.
And the Israelis aren't taking many casualties.
They've got bomb shelters under everything.
So whenever the long goes off, you know, because it takes ages for the missiles to get this, it's going so hard.
Anyone in Israel's.
So this is just a collateral damage war, right?
Essentially.
I mean, the Iranians warned the Americans that this was happening.
The Americans evacuated everything of substance from the base that was getting bombed.
And so everybody put up their pads and got smacked.
And yep, it was a fair fight.
Shake hands now and we can move on.
Exactly.
So if we can get it.
It's really impressive.
Yeah, so go back to this one.
This I find really, really funny because basically, was it this one?
There's another one where Trump basically accepted that the Iranians had to do something back.
And he was like, yeah, go on then.
This one.
They've gotten this all out of their system.
That will hopefully be no further hate.
See, that's what I mean, right?
He actually understands the people he's dealing with in a way.
None of the liberals.
And he gave them the last reply.
He gave exactly dismissed it.
Because he knew that this sort of like themotic politics of the ancient world that are playing out in the Middle East, they can't just allow an insult to go unavenged, right?
And this is on every level of society, isn't it?
Exactly.
In every way.
Yes, yes.
Because they're an honor culture.
They're not a dignity.
A pride culture.
A pride culture, yeah.
and so Trump understands it, and he's look, most importantly, they've got it out of their system, and it's just like, there we go.
Feel better now, yeah, exactly.
They do feel better, but they do feel better.
They declared victory.
Exactly.
They declared victory.
They declared victory after having the standbond.
So the way that they did the strike, they said that they launched an equal number of missiles at the US as the US launched at them.
So they insisted that there is a parity, that there was an equality there.
We are there, really, militarily, but here we are.
And they let them get it out of their system.
Perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.
And we saw the very enthusiastic encouragement just now in the video.
Yeah, honestly, it's so funny.
It is Trump actually is just, like you say, playing the men.
Yes.
Right.
And this was, again, what most of ancient politics revolves around is what's the guy like?
Yes.
And Trump knows it.
So this is just so.
He's reading them as people and he is actually able to empathize with them.
Yes.
As opposed to somebody like Obama who went to Cairo and said, all of you Egyptians just want to become liberal democrats.
And all of the Middle East just wants to become liberal democracy.
And what did we get instead?
We got the fucking Muslim Brotherhood.
So there's a weird thing with liberal international politics, which is sort of rules-based probability calculations where they're like, oh, you know, there's like a 70% chance they'll do this or a 20% chance they'll do that.
It's like, okay, but Trump is going to make it so they do what he wants by just pressing his ego on them.
More or less.
And simultaneously being completely unable to figure out what Trump's going to do next.
I meant to interview with Putin and he said, who would you rather have as president?
And he said, Biden straight away.
Because Biden, I can predict.
Yes.
Good luck trying to predict this guy.
Absolutely.
And also, like, Trump is really effective at using this.
I mean, you can see how he's threaded the needle here.
It's like Iran are like declaring absolute victory after killing zero Americans.
It's like, okay.
You lost your nuclear program.
The Americans now have to fix a runway.
It's not quite the same thing.
This is, honestly, is really well handled.
No, no, no.
Respect.
Respect.
I was really worried that we were going to have the same Bush-Obama playbook where they say one thing and in the end they get dragged into another.
It happened to Trump with Syria.
And actually, no, he's playing the man.
He's playing the game.
He understands these people.
He understands the rules.
And he's one.
Plus, as well as on the international stage, he's completely boxed in the neocons because the neocons have spent the last four days saying whatever Trump says is the right thing to do.
You even had Bolton come out and say, no, no, no, please go with regime change.
And you had Mark Levin losing his damn mind, whatever little is left of it, saying, no, how dare he not pursue full regime change?
So they went and they tried to say, we're MAGA now.
And then Trump did not deny, but now we're MAGA.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And now they're sort of left completely homeless and irrelevant.
So he's managed to, in a way, appease everybody, get what he wanted, and avoid a total war.
But also now, the people on the back foot are actually the Israelis.
Now the Israelis are on the back foot.
Because everyone's like, oh, well, Israel drives America's foreign policy.
And it's like, well, everyone thought that it did.
But now Trump's like, Israel, don't you dare.
It did drive the foreign policy for 25 years.
I agree.
All of these Middle Eastern wars.
It was driven by Israel first.
Of course.
And now all of a sudden it's not true.
And if Trump wanted to say, switch off the air defense in Israel, the FAAD operators won't keep working.
The jets that are flying all over the region shooting down drones won't keep working.
The Aegis cruisers will not shoot down any missiles.
The Israelis would have absolutely nothing.
Because the RO-3 system can't handle the Iranian barrages on its own.
It needs that additional support from France, Britain, the United States that's actually doing the proper missile defense in addition to the Israeli systems.
And also, speaking then of the men, this means that Netanyahu has to face down Trump.
And Trump is used to getting his way.
He's just, I mean, he literally just called them effing idiots who don't know what they're doing.
Exactly.
And he's not happy with the Israelis.
So now Netanyahu has to, he's probably on a call with him right now, being like, oh, yes, Mr. President.
Like, yeah, if I were you.
I don't want to be at the Nehru today.
Exactly.
I mean, I never want to be at the Nehole.
No, yeah, of course, especially not now.
If I were him, I would just be like, yeah, okay, good point.
Maybe we'll knock it off for a bit.
But what can the Israelis do?
Because they said, you know, they're going through a bomb.
These are the sites.
You know, we've got to stop them now.
So Trump was like, okay, fine, I'll bomb them out in there.
Because the issue is never the issue.
The issue is always resolution, right?
The idea was it was an escalatory ladder.
Exactly.
Regime change.
But now Netanyahu has to be like, yeah, okay, you did exactly everything that we wanted done.
And you've pleased everyone on every side.
And they've got to kind of just eat it.
They've got to eat it.
And they've got to stick to pounding Gaza, which is, you know, not very nice, but at least it's not worth it.
Back to the basics.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Back to what they can actually do.
So we've ended up, you know, in this weird situation where the Iranians pretty much told the Americans what they were bombing.
The Americans told the Iranians what they were bombing.
Everybody got really what they wanted.
It's so weird how the Iranians and the Americans are getting on so well.
It is hilarious.
The thing is, ever since the Syrian government fell, I've been saying that there is a play here for the Iranians to partner with the Americans if only they were to be slightly less insane.
And after Khamenei dies, it's going to be a military nationalist government.
And a military nationalist government is going to keep some of the appearances of the Islamic State.
But we've had this time and time and again throughout Muslim history.
This is How the Persians ended up ruling the Abbasid Caliphate, and then the Turks ended up ruling the Abbasid Caliphate.
There was a caliph there, there was the sort of religious authority there, but in reality, it was the military men in charge.
This is how we had Mamluk Egypt.
Yeah, I was going to say that Mamluk's a great example.
Exactly.
Exactly.
So you had all of these military regimes nominally under religious leadership, but it was the military men in charge.
And after Khamenei dies, this is pretty much what's going to happen in Iran.
Or at least this is the other scenarios are much worse for the Iranians.
This is the best one for the Iranians.
And in that scenario, they have Pakistan, a Sunni power right next door, hates them.
Turkey, Sunni power right next door, hates them.
But also, a military nationalist government is far less of an irrational prospect than a messianic religious fanatic.
Yes, exactly.
Military men are generally cut from the same cloth as in what's happening in reality really matters.
Exactly.
Because this is win or die, win or lose, live or die.
So that's entirely preferable.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
So it looks like we're, I mean, that's it.
The Islamic revolution has lost.
They can claim now for a few days, we stood up to the Americans and we fired.
But everybody in Iran knows that this is propaganda.
And while they're happy that they didn't get completely humiliated, they know that's only because Trump's nice.
That's literally just Trump being nice to them.
Because he doesn't want to get sucked into another regime change war.
He managed to do it.
And now he's staring down the Israelis.
And thank you for your attention to this matter.
This is going to be my new line.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
No Qataris killed, no Americans killed, very few Iranians killed.
There you go.
A few Israelis killed.
This was the first Iran-Israel war was just thrilled.
And so we are, congratulations, world, it's time for peace.
And he imposed a ceasefire.
The Israelis are still trying to rope him in.
But as I said, if they switch off the air defense.
They've had the flames.
He's just been like, you've got to stop it now, Israel.
Iran isn't the problem.
Iran are like, yeah, no, we're good boys now.
And the Iranians are saying, we accept the ceasefire.
We didn't violate it.
They denied that they were responsible for the.
The Iranians are showing the belly.
Exactly.
The big dog has come along.
The Iranians have rolled over.
The Israelis are still yapping.
Exactly.
Okay, well, you know, good luck.
I mean, they can't handle the consequences of it.
That's the long and short of it.
If the Americans decide, okay, no air defense for three days, they will have nothing.
They will have absolutely no say in it.
They'll intercept some Iranian missiles, but the rate of damage would be much, much bigger, and they'll have to back down.
And the blame will be on them.
This is imperial consolidation at its finest.
This is Trump saying, I'm in charge.
I will indulge you here and there.
I will do things that I think are important.
But when the time comes, that's it.
I'm in charge.
Very genuinely impressive.
Genuinely impressive.
I've got to come back to my question, though.
Was there any hint of this as being a plan a week ago?
Or does he just feel it in the moment and he ends up here?
All of Thanatic politics is feeling in the moment.
The thing is, I think he says that both sides came to me.
Is it in this tweet or in the next tweet?
He said that both sides came to me asking for a ceasefire and I've accepted and helped bring it about.
So he sort of claimed that both the Iranians and the Israelis were asking for a ceasefire.
He gave them both an off-ramp and said, I've decided.
And why?
Because they've both gotten it out of their systems.
And the nuclear program was blown to smithereens.
That small detail there.
So he got what he said he wanted, which is no Iranian nuclear weapons.
The Israelis got what they say they wanted, but what they want is actually a considerably longer list up to and including regime change.
And here we are.
Just a quick question.
How bothered about the nuclear program does Iran seem?
Look, it's always been misunderstood.
It was never about getting a weapon, because if it was about getting a weapon, they would have been able to do that in 2003, 2004.
Like right after the Iraq invasion, when the Americans went on either side of Iran, the Iranians could have and should have gone for the bomb.
Instead, they shut it down.
But what I'm saying is, like, what they did was keep on enriching and keep on building up nuclear capability to say we are fully autonomous in the nuclear cycle.
We can do everything from mining uranium to enriching it to weapons level without building a weapon.
And the idea was always we're going to use that to force negotiations and force talks.
when you, the United States, have to sit down with Iranian representatives, you are therefore acknowledging Iran as your equal.
And that idea of parity, that we are the equal of the great powers It's about recognition.
It's always about recognition.
If they can get the Americans, the Europeans to sit down with them as an equal, that means that they are delivering to their people Iran being a great power.
It's all ego policy.
It's fundamentally pride.
It's all about pride.
Yeah, and that's pure thymos.
So what I mean is, like, Iran hasn't been acting like, oh no, they struck our nuclear program.
It's over, bros.
They haven't been acting like that.
No, no, no, no, no.
Because the nuclear program is not key to their strategic, like, well, the tactical plan in the moment, right?
We're going to fire conventional rockets, and we're always going to fire conventional rockets.
Take out the nuclear plan.
It's like, that's, as you say, like a kind of conceptual weapon we're using.
Yes.
But it's not intrinsic to the actual plan.
The New York Con narrative has been the moment they get a nuclear plan, they immediately drop it on.
Which means you'd think, which was always false, because Israel has a second strike capability.
And even from Islamic theology, you can't justify nuking Israel in a way that guarantees your own obliteration.
Well, just practically, it's far more useful.
And practically, it's always been a deterrent weapon.
And you can't deter the Americans with nuclear weapons.
Not with a handful of them, you know?
so you've built five.
Congratulations.
What are you going to do with them?
They'll get intercepted and you'll get nuked to utter annihilation.
So it was never practically viable for them.
Even if every single one of them hit America's gargantuan, yes.
Okay, you wipe out five American cities.
There must be hundreds of American cities.
Exactly.
As long as you do the Democrat ones first.
They're all Democrats.
So at the end of the day, was anything of value lost?
Shall we go through a couple of comments?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Honestly, this has been...
Yes, absolutely.
He has made gunboat diplomacy again.
Great again.
Glee 7-7 brings a whole new meaning to striking a deal.
Quite.
Bobobad, I have a good deal of respect for you, Fidaz, for coming on today after yesterday.
I think this ordeal shows that Gen X and Y mentality can be stuck in the 2000s, like how boomers are stuck in the 70s, 80s.
Guilty?
I think people of our age are actually a lot less indoctrinated than the boomers were, frankly.
The boomers are struggling.
Yeah, because they had a very strong meta-narrative.
Well, for the boomers, the TV is a primary sense organization.
It's not just that.
I mean, it is, obviously, but it's not just that.
It's that the meta-narrative they are given is that this is like the telos of justice at the Ark of Justice at the end of history.
We defeated the Nazis, we defeated the communists, we're the good people.
And you'll notice they're the heroes in every movie.
Even like when they're old, they're still the heroes in the movie over the young people.
And so it's just like, okay, that's all well and good.
And I'm glad you've got that.
But actually, you're going to be gone soon.
And the rest of us still have to live in the real world.
So Gen X is a lot less indoctrinated into this sort of, you know, post-war mindset.
Anyway.
Thank you, Bobo Bad.
That was a nice comment.
And the Shadow Band says, Load Seaters, do not drop those bangers.
If you do, it's a major violation.
Bring your podcasters home.
Oh, no.
What a great segment.
Sorry, I'll dug up.
Right, so I thought we'd talk about the coming AI revolution and the effect it's going to have on Rachel from accounts, because I don't think it's going to be very good.
Before we get to that, I should mention we've just launched a new show, Real Politique.
I've watched it.
It's very good.
Fraz hasn't watched it, but he's in it.
That's why it's good.
And, Carl, did we pick about the right time to launch a geopolitics show?
I mean, I think it's all over now, so maybe we won't need it much.
Something will happen.
Something will happen.
And I don't want to plug my own stuff, but I will.
And the reason I'm doing so is because I just put out an episode a little while on taxation insanity, what the Labour Party is trying to do in this country, about how it basically is trying to tax its way out of all of its problems, but it's just making all of its problems worth.
And one of the graphs I shared in that episode was this.
So, I mean, it's helpfully labelled when the budget was.
And basically, the blue lines is when you gain jobs.
The red lines is both after the budget and huge job losses.
Yeah, I mean, you can see when the budget happened, right?
Yeah, this is catastrophic.
Very clearly.
Even if it wasn't labelled, you'd be able to tell when the budget was.
Her clever idea was, we want more jobs in the public sector.
So what we do is we're tax jobs in the private sector.
However, the tiny flaw in that plan is that the latter pays for the former.
Yeah.
So anyway, I put that episode out a little while ago.
And the Magic Money Tree, you don't have a problem.
Well, yes.
Unfortunately, the Magic Money Tree doesn't believe in them, so they've got that problem.
The thing is, you've got to remember that the plan is basically one day every single person on earth works for the British government.
Yes.
That's genuinely.
Preferably the NHS.
The NHS being a subsidiary of the British government.
So at some point, every single person on earth, this is the imperial plan of the Labour Party, that every human being will be born cradle to grave working for the British government.
I mean, well, it's not just them, the Tory Party as well, they're both committed to above-inflation gains for the NHS.
So basically, I mean, mathematically, that does consume the entire universe at some point.
Yes, it does.
So anyway, when I did that episode, it was seven months.
We are now up to nine months of falls in employment.
Wow.
And it's still accelerating.
This is a piece referencing this bit here.
I can't believe Rachel from Accounts is extraordinary, isn't it?
She looks so competent.
She was a role.
First female chancellor, so all those little girls can see somebody of their gender screw it up.
Okay, so this is the report.
It's referencing from S ⁇ P Global.
UK flashes, PMI signals, lackluster June.
I won't bother you with all the details.
If only someone could have predicted this, though.
If only someone could have predicted this.
Who could have known that taxing the hell out of the private sector into the public sector was going to cause this?
I did do a few episodes on it before it happened.
Only one person on earth, and it was Dan.
To be fair, it was quite obvious.
It was a fairly difficult, yes.
I think we're heading towards some kind of stagflation, you know, wild inflation and inflation is coming off properly.
Well, that's because they're cramming so many people into the country, right?
Well, I mean, it won't because they need to print money so because people are going to stop buying these bonds.
I won't give you the full, you know, blah, blah, from this, but, you know, key points are growth barely positive.
I mean, growth is 0.1% for the last quarter.
So that's smaller than the population increase, one would assume.
Yes.
Definitely.
And it's significantly smaller than the coupon we're paying on the debt, and the debt is the same size as the economy.
So the economy really needs to grow faster.
Yes.
The debt is growing at 5% a year.
The economy is growing at 0.1%.
But at least we pay a billion pounds a month for foreigners' benefits.
Yes, at least that's that.
So somebody's getting helpful to this.
Yeah.
Yes.
Manufacturing shrinking fast, this report says.
Services are holding level barely increasing, but it's being wiped out by basically everything.
People who actually do stuff, apart from serve food, they're going.
Public sector is going up quite a bit.
If you work in a restaurant, there's more productivity or more production there, if you can call it that.
But if you're actually making real things that feed you and that you need in your home and that sort of, you know, you can sell to the rest of the world, so as for working in the restaurant, yes, it is up negligibly.
You just about see it.
Right.
Everything else, you can definitely see going down, except for public sector, which is, you know, you can see that.
And the quality of service is the quality of services must be improving dramatically.
Oh, You would think, wouldn't you?
Oh, yeah.
Demand and sentiment week and jobs being cut.
I mean, just as a bit of an anecdote, I was speaking to some guys who are still doing VC.
Oh, yeah.
And I was asking them about deal flow and, you know, what prospects they're seeing in the UK.
And they said, yeah, basically we don't even bother looking in the UK anymore.
Wow.
Because every time we invest in the UK, it fails.
And it normally fails because of something the government has done.
And therefore, we just don't waste our time.
And these are all British guys who relocated to Los Angeles or New York or somewhere like that.
It's just not worth even trying to invest in this country at this point.
So they've given up.
And it also reminded me of a conversation I had with Will Straw.
He was Jack Straw's son, who used to run Labour List and stuff like that a few years ago.
And he was saying to me, you know, I don't understand how if a teacher's working in the private sector, they're adding value, but if they're working in the public sector, they're reducing value or nurse or something like that.
And I was saying, you know, okay, on the face of it, that's fine, but you've got to look at efficiency.
got to look further I mean that you'll find efficiency is in the frontline job but you've Well, that as well, yeah.
But you've got to look beyond the frontline job itself.
You've got to look at the admin, the management, the support, the logistics.
All of that would be massively less efficient in a public sector because it simply doesn't need to be.
It's also like why I pay for a service is to get something out of it.
When the government forces me to pay for a service, I have no choice.
And I often don't need it.
You know, I haven't needed to go to the hospital for a little while.
I mean, if you do, don't bother me then.
Just pay the 50 quid and go to a private GP.
It's just so much easier.
You get seen and it's done.
It's a kind of like artificial vampiric pseudo-economy that the government has.
And so to be like, well, I just don't see the difference.
They're both teachers.
It's like, okay.
And I mean, she's left now, but my mum was an NHS nurse for years and years and years.
And I used to get bombarded with stories about massive inefficiencies.
I mean, just to pick a couple off the top of my head, one time her mouse stopped working for a computer.
Right.
So she wanted to go on Amazon and buy a £10 mouse.
I was like, no, you can't do that.
We've got a list supplier system.
So she went on that and it's 60 quid.
But okay, so right, fine, we have to do that then, do we?
Another thing, they used to keep a box of light bulbs.
But now when the light bulb goes, you have to pay 80 quid for the man from the company to come out to change the light bulb.
You're not allowed to do it yourself.
You get told off.
It's simply corruption.
The main Eastern in me just says that this is obviously corruption.
The reason that system was put in is because the last Labour government knew that they were really inefficient, but they thought, okay, the private sector is efficient.
So what we do is we contract out these services to the private sector.
So they went to the private sector and said, so how much can you change a light bulb for?
And they said, well, seriously, 80 quid.
Yeah, from government money.
And it is corruption.
And they were like, okay, yeah, yeah, that must work.
So that's what they do.
Now, back to brokenomics, but the whole premise of my brokenomics series is that basically the economy has changed.
So the old system pre-internet was we are going to do more with more.
So we're going to open another factory, another showroom, hire more salespeople.
I mean, this sounds like a good idea.
Well, and that's fine.
Do productive things.
Yeah, but do more with more.
And then after the internet, it became all about we're going to do more with less.
It's going to be about efficiency and unit cost.
We are going to do more, but we're going to achieve it not through more, but efficiency and unit cost and code and all that kind of stuff.
And I'm not sure that Labour have got their head around the internet revolution yet.
I don't believe it.
Give it another 20 years.
Yes, so it makes me not, I mean, this is just an anecdote I saw, but it makes a point quite well.
A partner at one of the largest accounting firms in the world said something to me that should be incredibly concerning for white-collar workers, Paraphrase.
I'm convinced AI will be able to do my job within the next couple of years.
I used to draft a report and it was 80% there.
Yes, there were flaws in it, but it's scary how convincing it is.
I really think it's a matter of time.
Well, I'm convinced that AI will be able to do Rachel Reeves' job because she's crap.
I think most people could.
I think if anybody can do that, you could ask.
Anyone who's balanced household budget to do her job and it'll manage somehow.
I mean, anyone who's balanced any kind of household budget would surely be able to do that.
Yes.
But then they're not going to be committed to the universal doctrine of human rights.
No, for the hierarchy of mankind.
So anyway, moving on.
I mean, this is a coming thing.
It is going to be a huge...
I knew an accountant from the pre internet days.
And he was saying he used to spend all month doing the monthly management reports for his firm that he worked in.
And he pestered them relentlessly to get this piece of software.
And this was like, you know, 30 years ago or something.
They finally got him the piece of software.
And it then took him half an hour to do it.
And he just spent the rest of the time basically playing golf.
Fair enough.
There are efficiencies to be had with doing this stuff.
But it brings me on to I did see this.
Yeah, so this is...
Yes.
But basically, what happened is these guys have just graduated.
And this guy, perhaps a little bit unwisely, just holds up his laptop and says, yeah, I did the whole thing on AI.
Because he looks like a meme, doesn't he?
He does.
He looks like a...
enough.
This has been remixed a bit.
Okay, that has been remixed a bit.
I find.
I should have picked a different one.
But, yeah, you know, he...
And he got to keep his degree because...
It's hilarious.
Well, because of this point.
You know, a brutally Honest conversation with a top-tier academic in charge of examining classics BA.
She believes that all but one, i.e., 98.5% of the cohort, used AI in varying degrees of illegality to complete compositions in their final degree submissions.
You know, so I just want to be clear: I didn't use AI at all in my degree.
You should have done.
I know, but because the point is not the qualification, right?
The point is actually when you do the thing and you sit down and you spend however many hours every day thinking and working and grinding through it, you gain benefits that are not.
I think that's thinking about it wrong.
I think you should be using it.
No.
Using it in the right way.
Now, I'm not saying to write your stuff.
I'm not saying you can't use chat GPT as a research tool.
It's like, where did Plato say?
Yeah, that's fine.
That's fine.
It's just like an advanced Google search.
But when it comes to that guy, I'd obviously got it to write his bloody essay for us.
Yes, right?
And that's the part that you need to be doing because that is actually where you strain your brain muscles.
And like any muscle, if you don't repeatedly use it and make it better, it withers.
So you have not personally gained the benefit of actually doing the degree.
You've just got a piece of paper and yet you're still a retard.
What do you think?
Should students be using AI?
Absolutely not.
Yeah.
It's flogged.
I mean, use Google search, use it as Google search, but beyond that, it's just crazy.
The purpose of it's now just about gaining credentials.
And so that devalues the degree itself, that it's just a credential, but it's meant to be a learning journey.
You're meant to actually discover something about the world, learn something about the world, in order to actually qualify you for something.
This does nothing for you.
So I've got to say, I go completely the other way on this one.
I think absolutely should be using several reasons.
First, this stuff is completely unbannable.
You're not going to be able to ban it.
And how even would you?
You could just require written tests.
Yeah.
Okay.
My second point is that the degrees should embrace it, but they should just simply change how they test those skills.
So obviously, you know, this guy was able to do it because of a heavy reliance on coursework, because it's easier to mark and all the rest of it.
I mean, fine, have a coursework element, but also have written exams.
And I think you should add in verbal presentations as well.
Honestly, if it gets to the point where like 98% of them are doing the coursework via chat GPT, abandon the coursework.
There's no point to it.
No, you've learned nothing.
You've just handed me in an AI-generated script.
Pointless.
Why am I reading this?
If it didn't come from you, there's no reason for me to even give it the time of day because why am I reading this?
What am I doing?
I'm reading Grok.
Yeah, exactly.
It's sort of...
It's an insult to the teacher.
So it has to be only written tests.
And honestly, probably speaking tests.
Yeah, I would go with a verbal presentation because I'm thinking back to my career.
Sometimes I'd hand in a written report, but 90% of the time, you're standing there explaining it.
So I'd say, you know, encourage them to use AI as a learning tool.
Try and do as much learning as you possibly can.
But when we want to test you, we're going to sit you down in front of three people who really know what they're talking about and they're going to ask you questions.
You know, like the old naval board.
Well, there's going to be no other way of doing it.
No.
Yeah.
Well, what else can they do?
But eventually they'll have something in your ear sort of.
Okay.
Well, yeah.
And then you become a machine.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You sign the thing as sort of become one.
I think it is a tremendous productivity enhancing tool.
Yeah.
Fair enough.
You know, I think about when I started here at Lotus Eaters in 2022, in a week, I could get through a brokenomics and a podcast.
And I was kept pretty busy that.
Now, yes, I was newer then and I was learning my craft, but now I can get through a brokenomics, two podcasts, four dailies, and a lads hour.
And yes, there's a bit of learning that came in that, but a big part of it is definitely AI.
Because I can do things like, I mean, I use it for every brokenomics in the, you know, the amount of times I thought to myself, oh, there was a report written by some guy, might have been at Merrill's, maybe called Mark.
I think he was Australian, and he made a point like this.
And if I tried to find that, it would take forever.
And I agree with you.
As a reference finder, it is really, really useful.
But you can use it beyond that as well.
So, I mean, I do heavily, so I don't get it to write the episode.
But what I will do is I'll write an outline of all the things I want to cover, the angle I'm coming at, and then I'll put that in, and I'll say, okay, if somebody was going to criticise this, how would they do so?
Right.
And it will throw up things that I hadn't thought of.
That's an angle.
That is actually an interesting angle, yeah.
Yeah.
Fair enough.
And other things I can do is, so I used to, you know, like before AI, I'd sit and read two decent sized reports a week on something.
But it's a lot of time because they're like 12. Yeah, getting it to summarize things is useful.
I can now go through 10 a week easily because what I do is I put them all in and I say, what are the key points coming out of this and where in the report are they mentioned?
And I'll look through it and go, I'm not interested in that, not interested in that.
Yeah, I'm interested in that.
And so I can just narrow down on stuff so much faster than I ever used to.
You know what I found AI really useful for is finding connections and things.
So for example, I've got like, you know, loads of philosophy books I've got to read.
But I also have to explain how the philosophers dealt with one another.
Now, that's actually really difficult to piece together.
And it takes a lot of time.
But I can actually just ask the AI, right, okay, did David Hume ever send a letter to so-and-so?
Did so-and-so ever have a meeting with so-and-so?
And it can give you quite a detailed little map of who dealt with it.
You are using it for you.
Well, no, no, no, no.
I'm not using it to write the thing, obviously.
Yeah, but you're using it as a tool.
Yeah, but I'm using it as a reference finder, basically.
Find me some information that I need to know.
Which is fair and that's fine, but that's not what these kids are doing.
No.
But the difference between you and them is that the reason you're doing it is because you can then be put in front of a camera or whatever a person.
And I know why.
So you need to be able to argue the case.
But here's the thing.
Here's the thing.
If you get to a point where you aren't a master of your craft yourself, you can never Tell when the AI makes a mistake.
Yes.
And that is a real issue.
And that's a real, real problem.
I've had this a bunch of times as well, where I'm like, you know, chat GPT, find me where Rousseau said something about the general will or something.
And it will come back with a bunch of references.
And then I will literally take those references, go to like, you know, Internet Archive or some online version of it.
And I will look through and I'll see that passage has nothing to do with it.
And I'll go back and literally say, why did you make this up?
And it'll be like, oh, yeah, no, I actually meant this one.
And it'll go check it.
And this is actually the correct reference.
Because it is just a really advanced probability generator.
And so it will actually make things up.
So when firms are doing this, they typically, first of all, run it on the much increased cycle version rather than just the quick.
Because if it spits you out an answer in five seconds, it's never any good.
So you can put it on a deep think mode.
And also for serious stuff, you kind of want to run it three times and then you can even get it to check itself against those three different versions to see what came out.
So you want to be careful with it.
But as a speeding up tool for preparing stuff.
I'm not saying it doesn't have to be a problem.
It absolutely does have uses.
So, you know, I think, you know, degrees should be embracing it.
They should just be fundamentally changing how they test.
And I think it should be verbal presentations.
I think that's the way to go because that's what you actually use in the real world workplace.
So, but, you know, the point is, as this accountant, a couple of, you know, that guy there is starting to figure out, AI is going to be an enormous deflationary shock.
Because you can do so much more with so much less.
So the need for the private sector to get more efficient at precisely the same time is getting hammered by exit taxes.
Yes.
And then the public sector has no need to become more efficient because it gets more money extracted from the private sector, which is getting it from both ends.
Yes.
You can see how this is not going to work.
This is going to be a disaster.
And do you think Mr. Reeves understands this?
I would suggest not.
I'm not an economist and I'm also retarded.
So basically what this means is that far more will be done by far fewer people in the private sector, putting millions of people out of work, but also without a corresponding rise in new industries.
And therefore, there's just going to be nowhere for these people to go.
Is that correct?
Well, so how it should work is people, so people either embrace it fast and they become significantly more efficient at what they're doing and they do more, in which case they're kept.
Because if you're a firm, if you're now getting a higher return on capital, well, you're just going to do more of it.
So actually, you should employ more people as long as they are individually more efficient, which is why I'm saying everybody should really learn this stuff very fast and students should be learning it.
And I'm trying to encourage my children to learn it.
You should do that.
It's the people who resist against it, they're going to have to end up in the public sector because there's going to be no obligation to do any of this stuff.
But yeah, in terms of, I mean, one of you asked, is Rachel Rees competent?
I've not had a competent.
That wasn't exactly the question, but yeah.
I've not had a competent chancellor in my lifetime.
So in my adult lifetime.
So when I was a kid, I mean, first of all, the best chancellor was probably Gladstone.
Going back a few there.
Yeah.
But after that, you got Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson through my childhood.
Those guys were competent.
And some people try and argue that Gordon Brown was.
He was for the first four years because when he was following Ken Clark's plan, who was also reasonably good.
But I mean, after that, you know, after I turned 18, I've not seen a competent Chancellor.
I'm not sure about selling the gold, but yes.
And, you know, clearly, you know, Rachel from Accounts, she doesn't understand the job if she was doing this 20 years ago before the internet revolution.
She's struggling against that.
She's certainly not going to get what's coming next.
And it's not just AI.
I'll also mention this angle of it.
Tesla have now launched their driverless cars.
Let's play this, but let's turn that sound off.
Okay, if I record?
I'll tell you what, man.
The driverless cars, it's not that they freak me out.
And I'm not against them.
It's just that there's something weird about it not being controlled by a human, right?
Yes.
To not have a driver in the driver's seat is weird.
I mean, I'm absolutely convinced that in 20 or 30 years' time, it will just be illegal to drive cars.
All cars will be self-driven because the numbers will be in.
And what the numbers will show is that it's literally going to be like a thousand times more dangerous to have a human behind the wheel than it is to have AI behind the wheel.
The number of casualties caused on roads by AI will be in the double digits, probably.
And the number from humans is probably in the thousands or tens of thousands.
So they're going to literally be like, you're not allowed to drive.
If you want to drive, you can go to a special racetrack sort of thing where you drive a car.
When we first had lifts, you had a man with a dial that manually made it go up and down.
And it freaked people out when they went in there.
It was just buttons.
But would you get in a lift where there's a man who could just do that and chop you in half?
I mean, you wouldn't.
Well, I'm not worried about him chopping me in half, but like, it'd be weird, right?
And I'm sure for our kids or our kids' kids, they're going to be like, what, you had people in the cars driving the cars?
Yeah.
That sounds unsafe.
Well, it was.
I mean, you know.
So back to my point about this being a deflationary shock.
Being a driver is the largest profession worldwide for unskilled men.
I bet, yeah.
Biggest employee for unskilled men, right?
And then this is coming.
Now, even if you, you know, you ship a guy in across the southern border from Guatemala and he lives in a flat with three other Guatemalans, he still can't be as cheap as this because he eats and he sleeps.
And this is code and it can drive 22 hours a day, you know, a couple of hours for charging.
And also this is basically a one-time investment with very minimal updates, right?
Yeah.
And this can run 24 hours a day.
Well, 22, you need a couple of hours of charging, but yeah.
But yeah, but the...
Never takes a day off, never gets a bereavement, never gets ill.
So basically, this is also going to put an end to grooming gangs?
Well, I think we're still important.
No, no, no.
The taxi industry is key to the problem.
Yes, it was a key part of it, wasn't it?
So, yeah, Elon Musk has saved those kids indirectly.
So, you know, as if the internet wasn't big enough, we've got robotics and AI coming, and our tax system is just fundamentally incapable of solving this problem.
But it is remarkable how good this is.
Yeah.
Absolutely incredible.
Now, genuinely, how to run tax and spend in a Western economy today, it is a genuinely difficult problem.
And I'm not sitting here claiming that I've got the perfect solution.
All I'm saying is, at least I understand what the problem is.
And I have absolutely no confidence that she has figured out the internet yet.
No.
Let alone what's about to hit.
So, you know, I'd like to give you, you know, somebody in the chat, was it Rue the day was asking if I could give a grape or if I could give at least at least some half- Sure, the labels will be in power forever.
Well, yeah.
Or, you know, while you're getting poor, all the people you hate will be getting poor as well.
I mean, there's that.
I mean.
Right, that's all I've got for you, right?
Wow.
Ryan says, Tessa last month unveiled the cyber cab that has no steering wheel.
The thing is, this is just going to be normal.
It's going to be completely normal.
I received a call from AI asking me if I'd finance in the last five years.
They're going to replace call centers sooner or later.
Honestly, that's good.
Yeah, exactly.
India most affected, but at least I'll be able to understand what I'm being cold-called on.
A younger relative of mine can't use ChatGPT because they have to do all their work on a school Chromebook, which is key log of metrics and records the paper being written.
Yay.
Honestly, it's either that or just have, I say, you know, entirely written or manually written verbal.
That young man with the AI thesis and graduation may have proven his own obsolescence.
Well, that's the point.
Any job he can do can be replaced by AI.
Exactly.
Exactly.
We no longer have philosophers.
We have professors of philosophy.
And the only reason they have anything to profess is because at some point someone somewhere dead the dream.
And this is the problem with the institutionalization of these things.
Probably the teachers are grading the AI generated with AI.
Yes, they definitely will be.
It's just literally a time-saving device.
Wow.
Savvy lawyer Robert Barnes, who associates Richard Barris, big data poll, contacted by VP Vance more than once in the past week.
Bottom line plan was mass bombing slash regime change.
Really?
Interesting.
And so what, Trump decided to just swerve at the last minute or what?
Pretty much.
Yeah, interesting.
So they would have sort of prepared these plans for him, subject to approval at different stages.
And it seems that he's decided that no.
But this is why I'm telling you, Trump, none of themotic politics cannot be done with an advanced plan, right?
Because it is not rationally derivable from a series of premises.
So if you know that if you hit X, then Y has to happen, then you can plan two or three steps ahead.
It is very much an instinct game.
It is an instinct.
Yes.
Very, very so.
It's not 4D chess.
Trump just knows people.
That's what it is.
Anyway, so American women are asking, where have all the good men gone?
In fact, not just the good men, just where are all the men gone?
Why are we all just on our own in these bars, in these restaurants?
And they are just sat there going, well, look, feminism won and we're the final product of feminism.
There are no men around.
How has this happened?
Well, video games have got better and you got worse.
And that's the end of that segment.
Thank you very much for watching.
That is literally it.
But I thought we'd go through it.
But no, but that is unironically the issue.
But the thing is, it's the lack of self-awareness.
Yes.
That's the thing that underpins it.
It's just like, but we got everything we wanted.
How did it have a cost is the question that underpins it all.
And it's like, yes, well, maybe you should have thought about this.
Maybe, you know, when they were saying you can have everything, maybe you should be like, oh, wow, that's a liar I'm dealing with.
Because the answer, everything is, there are no wins or trade-offs.
But anyway, before we begin, go and check out Firas's Real Politique show.
Obviously, there's a lot going on in the world at the moment.
So this happens to be particularly timely and relevant.
Anyway, so again, these are not like small places that are publishing these.
This is the Wall Street Journal.
This is one of America's premier elite papers, right?
And this is American women are giving up on marriage.
Oh, are the women giving up on marriage?
I don't believe that.
I can believe that American women in their 20s are giving up on marriage.
No, no, no.
Why are they giving up on marriage?
Is it because women don't want to get married?
No, it's because they can't find men.
I don't even mean like good men now.
But look at the way it's framed.
Major demographic shifts have put men and women on divergent paths.
Okay, I love that this.
Oh, well, God has ordained it that there will be a divergence here.
It's not, there wasn't an active attempt to make this happen.
There is a fundamental problem with this headline.
John?
Major shifts put on women on the same path.
Well, that's what led to the disaster.
Divergent paths for what they were supposed to be.
Like, they were meant to converge, but instead now they've, you know, gone in a different direction.
But look at the framing, though.
That's left more women resigned to being single.
Oh, well, the number.
What about the men?
Are the men not resigned to being single as well?
But anyway, so we'll go through this because this is just remarkable, right?
So Daniel Cox, the director of the survey center of the American Enterprise Institute, Conservative Think Tank, says the numbers aren't netting out.
More women than men are attending college, buying houses, and focusing on their friendship and careers over dating and marriage.
And this is just one of those things, Anne.
So over half of women, single women, believe they were just happier than their married counterparts in a 2024 survey.
And just over a third of surveyed men said the same.
So most men don't think they're happier than married men.
But the women are starting to think, well, maybe I am.
It's like, okay, but why...
Well, no, but yeah, I mean, there is that.
But if that's the case, what are we talking about?
Why are you sat there going, Exactly, right?
They've got loads more data.
A 2022 survey showed that single adults, 34% of single women were looking for romance compared to 54% of single men, down from 38% to 61%.
Okay, maybe a lot of women are just dropping out of it.
A rise in earning power and a decline in the social stigma for being single, has allowed women to be more choosy, say Cox.
They would rather be alone than with a man who holds them back.
It's like holds them back from their careers, right?
So this is feminism has successfully turned two-thirds of American women into men.
So it put them on the same path, and the result was fratilitical lapse, social disasters, and everybody being miserable.
But liberal women often have a weird perspective on this.
So, you know, if they've got a degree, but they're working in a coffee shop, they could meet a guy who's earning $100,000 a year as a plumber, and they would look down on him and say, you know, you're below my status.
Yes, she's earning 30 grand a year.
Yeah.
Because she's got a degree.
So the numbers here that 60-something percent of women are happy with this don't.
They're not necessarily happy with it.
Tolerant of it.
Whatever it is, that doesn't match the numbers that we have on the use of antidepressants by women.
Well, yeah, there's something like half of liberal women are on medication.
More so than that.
Probably more so than that.
So you're not really that happy.
Yeah, you're not actually happy.
You're being medicated to pretend that you're happy.
If you're desperate enough to go to see a psychiatrist, get the medication, et cetera, et cetera.
But you're not that happy.
It's the big paradox of female happiness, which over the last 50 years, in which they've got everything they profess to want, happiness has tumbled.
It's declined.
Because actually, being happy isn't being an atomized, essentially an atomized man.
Well, I took from it that you shouldn't give women what they want and then you make them happy.
But the thing is, that's actually what the data are showing us.
But anyway, as you can see here, you've got a 29-year-old woman they're asking who always thought she'd have found her life partner by now.
Instead, she's househunting solo and considering having kids on her own.
Like, that is sad.
That is tragic.
So you can be like, oh, well, you know, 60% of women aren't looking for a husband.
It's like, okay, but that just means that they're losers, right?
Like, this is a loser woman.
So she's like, well, I'm financially self-sufficient to do all these things myself.
Okay, so what?
I'm financially self-sufficient enough to sit in a house and eat Cheetos all day and play video games and bang out the old YouTube video if I wanted, but that would make me a disgusting loser.
You are a loser.
Like, I'm willing to accept being single versus settling for someone who isn't the right fit.
Why would anyone want to fit?
You don't have a space in your life for anyone else.
You're just some incel, basically.
You are the female equivalent of an incel.
And so it's just like, okay, she sees her plans for an independent future as making the best of a lousy situation.
I don't want to sit here and say I'm 100% happy, but I feel happier just accepting my reality.
It's mentally and emotionally a sense of peace.
So again, she's probably taking antidepressants.
And she's just going, yeah, okay, well, I'll never find a man.
It's like.
We need a term for that.
Incel works for men because women control sexuality, but men control off-sell.
Well, no, she's not even an OnlyFan.
But men control commitment, and that's what they can't get is commitment.
So we need something that combines commitment with something.
Yeah.
And this really is the issue.
Like, they have been given everything through the magic of feminism, right?
Yes.
They've been advanced up the career hierarchies.
I mean, if you send, there have been studies to show that if you send the same CV to companies with men's names or women's names, they'll just be biased in favor of the women's names because this is how the culture has gone.
And so it's right, okay, you've got an environment that is just genuinely toxically against men being the breadwinner.
And so it's created a generation of women who are just singletons.
And they're like, I think I might just become a single mum and get sperm donor or something.
It's like, you are mad if you think this is what you were meant to have.
And the fact that you're here going, well, I'm not happy, but I guess I'm just going to carry on.
It's like, you could change.
You could, you would, you don't.
She's 29. She still has options.
Exactly.
She still has time.
You know, in 10 years' time, it's going to be even worse.
Yes.
Anyway.
So, uh, this, and this is, All right.
Go down a little bit more.
I've just copied and pasted the text out of this, so I can't remember whereabouts it is in the thing.
But anyway.
What was the gist of the point?
The gist of the point is.
The share of women who are 18 to 40 who are single, that is neither married nor cohabiting with partner, was 51.4% in 2023, which is up from 2000, which was 41.8.
Wow.
A 2023 survey of college-educated women found that they blamed, half of them blamed them being single largely on an inability to find someone who meets their expectations because women marry up.
So women have not developed the kind of culture required for them to find husbands.
Or men, you know, I don't think a husband is the right term here because what they've done is turn themselves into husbands and they're like, okay, and now I'm looking for a super husband who's even better than me.
And their psychology doesn't really work for this because for men, if you can't get a partner, you think, okay, I need to go to the gym, I need to get a promotion, I need to improve myself.
But that doesn't work this way around because they're not going to think, oh, maybe I should be less of a bitch.
It's not even necessarily being a bitch, right?
A lot of these might actually be quite nice, but it's about status, right?
It's about status.
It's like, oh, I've out-statused all of the men around me.
And unless I'm like some sort of giga babe who, you know, looks incredible in a bikini and, you know, very, you know, I'm 22. And unless I'm that, then the men who are at my level or above, well, that's what they're going to find.
Yes.
Do they want a woman who is actually challenging him for status or do they want arm candy?
Right.
And I mean, we can see who Jeff Pays is.
Men want peace and calm, right?
At the end of the day.
That's a fundamental part.
Sure.
A stable life.
I asked AI what the female version of incel was and it just said, oh, you've already got the word.
It's spinster.
Yeah, fair point.
But apparently the Chinese have also got a word Xing Nu, leftover women.
Left over women, yeah.
But no, I think spinster's the right one because these women just cannot find a man who will commit to them because their status is too high.
And so the consequence of feminism, raising the status of women in the work environment, certainly their perceived status.
Sure, sure.
But also economic status and educational status.
So it's actually their concrete status, like the real status they have.
It's making them very high.
Well, a liberal arts degree probably doesn't have any actual value, but they perceive it very highly.
But most of them won't have liberal arts degrees.
Most of them will have business management or something, like advertising, marketing.
They have a job where they sit in meetings and say, Yeah, and they send emails, right?
That's their job, you know, and I'm sure they do something, but they're going to be getting 100K a year.
And the men are just like, okay, but I'm on 60 grand.
I'm a software engineer or something.
I can't compete because the economy has been rigged against me.
And the entire civilization has been rigged against giving men status.
And this is what these women are starting to realize.
So, yeah, they say they blame their inability to find someone who meets their expectations, showing that they haven't changed their culture and their expectations in alignment with the new changes in society that have come about.
As in, okay, but I was going to marry some Giga Chad billionaire, wasn't I?
It's like, yeah, well, I mean, they're quite thin on the ground.
Sorry.
In fact, it's pretty much Jeff Bezos that meets that criteria.
Maybe Mark Zuckerberg, he's bitch Chad these days, isn't he?
I'm actually dumped for doing a ladzo where we just get female naughty literature and just read it.
I mean, maybe one day.
But the point being is that they're just like, well, I'm just not going to find someone who satisfies me.
It's like, okay, but you need to realign your expectations.
You're the husband now, right?
What are you looking for in a husband?
Do you want someone to take care of the kids?
In a wife?
Do you want someone to take care of the kids, look after the house?
Well, then you don't want him to be the kind of guy who features in women's literature, right?
But if the kind of guy that features in women's literature is the only kind of guy who gets it going for you because of the way that nature has made you, then what you're living in is a massively artificial bubble.
Yes.
Basically, you're living in a fantasy.
But it's also completely artificial that we've made this come about.
And so you, in 30 years' time, will have just self-selected yourself out of the gene pool.
And what we will be self-selecting for, we'll be deliberately selecting for, are those women who are like, I actually don't want to become a girl boss.
I'd actually like to be a housewife.
And okay, there's going to be a bottleneck there because a bunch of guys are just being selected out.
A bunch of women are being selected out.
But then on the other side of it, they're going to raise, like, don't, don't.
Traders hope still.
Exactly.
Base trad world in 50 years is definitely a possibility because of the things that they're doing.
But anyway, there's more in this that I just wanted to hammer a few more.
Let me see if I can find it.
It's a really long article.
There we go.
Right.
So you've got Katie here, who's 30 and runs a leadership coaching startup out of New York City.
And she's like, maybe we're doing it wrong.
It's like, you can see.
Can we have a quick look at Katie?
Is that right?
Is this Katie?
She's perfectly normal looking woman.
Reasonable.
Yeah.
Like, there's no reason she can't find a boyfriend, right?
On her looks anyway.
Right.
So why is she turning into a spinster?
But anyway, she spent the first half of 2024 going on three or four dates a week with men she met on apps, which obviously is not great.
By the end of the year, she'd ramp down the search, calling it the only thing you can do, the only thing you can put 10,000 hours into and end up right where you started.
True.
Many of the men Katie met, she said, seemed either turned off by her ambition or weren't career-oriented enough for her.
It's like, okay, but you don't want to be a wife.
That's a good thing.
You're trying to be a husband.
And the men you're matching with some sort of Chad guy with six figures going, oh, he doesn't want to be my wife.
Of course he doesn't want to be a wife.
And also, you're 30. If he's a Chad guy with six figures, why isn't he picking somebody beginning with a two?
Well, that's another good question.
And so this, I mean, literally, she felt discouraged by just how many of her male friends similarly said that they expect their future wives to prioritise their families over their jobs.
Why does she think she should be prioritising her job?
What is in her mind?
Well, it's already pure feminism, right?
And in 30 years' time, okay, maybe she's still got her office cubicle.
Whereas her friends are going to have grandchildren and kids.
Yeah.
They're going to have family barbecues.
Who's the winner?
Yeah.
Absolutely.
They're going to have family barbecues.
going to have companionship um but for alicia jones not having to depend on this is Again, they spoke to loads of these.
There we go.
There's Alicia Jones.
Again, not a hideously unattractive woman or anything.
And she says that, well, not having anyone else to financially depend on or split rent with is the worst part of being signal.
It's single, especially with the threat of layoffs.
It's just much more stressful being a single person.
It's like, okay.
But look at your view, right?
She says, her last long-term relationship ended two years ago after conflicting views of their shared future.
Quote, he wanted the white picket fence and me at home with the kids.
Okay, that would mean that you don't have to worry about being laid off, right?
That would...
The struggle...
They've been trained to want it both ways to not respect that this division between us is real.
Feminism fundamentally is the idea that the biological differences between men and women should not imply any social, economic, or political differences.
Correct.
That's what it boils down to.
And then you have the same feminists saying, hold on a second, the biological differences really matter because we don't want these trans creatures running around our changing rooms, which is a perfectly understandable sentiment.
Yes.
And also, this is purely from the woman's side.
I mean, we're not talking about any of the men who have had all of their potential opportunities stripped away from them.
All of these men who, because they can't gain any kind of status, will never get a wife, will never have kids, will never have all these things away from them, right?
But anyway, but things I find this fascinating.
She's like, oh, it's just so stressful because of being single because I'm worried about layoffs.
But I don't want to be with my long-term partner because he wanted me to stay at home with the kids.
It's like, you would have been fine.
And the reason, she says, is that her salary was 50% higher than his.
Totally artificial.
Do we think that her contribution to the economy was the actual productive forces between her and her boyfriend, was she producing 50% more money?
I don't know.
I don't know, but my guess would be whatever her job is, it's basically adult daycare to stop women from having children.
100%, right?
And so what I find really fascinating about this is at the end, it says, she identifies politically as a moderate and thinks couples with kids should split the household and childcare responsibilities equally.
She's not a political moderate.
She is a left-wing radical.
That is a radical left-wing position.
That's what must be said.
It must be said that all of the sort of modern feminist project is actually deeply revolutionary, anti-biology and anti-history and therefore anti-civilization.
And it's ruining these women.
And it's ruining their lives.
It's happy.
They can't get what they want and they don't know why they can't get what they want.
And yet they're increasingly growing older and it's getting darker and colder.
There's no love in their future.
It's like, is that what you wanted, ladies?
I mean, I wouldn't mind if these people just self-selected themselves out of the gene.
The only problem is, is that I've got to pay for the boomers while we're waiting for the There's something tragic about it when these women hit their 40s and their 50s and they realize that it's over and that that's it.
Their job is all that they will have.
And by then they probably have the job replaced by AI.
And then you're going to end up with a load of single women with no attachment.
Well, and I've known a bunch of women who get to their late 30s thinking it's all about the job and then all of a sudden the biology kicks in and they're not.
And they want instant marriage.
Absolutely mental.
And the thing is, a lot of these women will not be bad people.
No, that's not the same thing.
This has been done.
I'm not judging them.
When they were growing up in school, they were propagandized with feminism.
And so now they're like, well, no, obviously a man should do half the chores and pay half the housework and I'll go and work and I'll do half the chores and half the housework.
Like, why?
That's a radical feminist position.
That's not moderate.
That is insane.
But it seems normal because those are the waters they swim in.
Exactly.
The fish can't see the water.
Exactly.
And so this was another one.
Sorry, I think the only solution to these women is going to be nunneries.
They're going to have to join.
Order is.
That's literally what nunneries and monasteries were for.
Those people who, well, I mean, like, socially, you know, the social role they fulfilled is when women couldn't find husbands or didn't want to have husbands and men who were autistic, they went to the nunneries.
So what are these women going to do?
But anyway, so this is another one from the other day from the New York Times.
Again, these are not small, insignificant papers that are publishing these.
And this woman- Exactly, right?
Exactly.
These are the places that were promoting feminism a decade ago.
And look where we are now.
Men, where have you gone?
Please come back.
And this woman, she's 54. And she's basically, she keeps having to go out on dates on her own, right?
So she's taking herself out to restaurants.
And she's looking around the restaurant.
And she says, only two tables actually seem to hold dates.
The rest were groups of women or women alone, each one occupying her space with quiet confidence.
No shrinking, no waiting, no apologizing.
It's like, okay, being like the man.
They're the characteristics you want in a man.
Self-assuredness.
The sort of presence.
And it's like, okay, well, you've turned these women into men and they don't have dates.
And then she laments.
She says, I remember when part of heterosexual male culture involved showing up with a woman to signal something.
Status, success, desirability.
Women were once signifiers of value, even to other men.
It wasn't always healthy, but it meant that men had to show up and put in some effort.
Lamenting the chivalric status-driven culture of men with their wives.
So, yes, she's divorced, isn't she?
She is divorced, yes.
I wonder what this woman's position on Me Too was at the time when we were told that you're basically not allowed to make an approach.
Sure, but I think it goes beyond that, though.
It goes back further than that.
So these women have been transformed into men, and she's like, God, why aren't men turning up with us on their arms anymore?
It's like, because you gelded and bid the geldings be fruitful.
What you did is you took away men's ability to gain status.
You took away the pride, the sort of phimotic pride in it.
And the reason that you'd have a beautiful woman on your arm so you can play the part of the beautiful woman and be a center of attention.
Well, that's all taken away now.
You're the man.
So where's your beautiful woman on your arm?
Where's your toy boy on your arm or something, right?
Your culture hasn't adapted to it.
And also those women who crave attention, they've now got OnlyFans.
Yeah.
And like most normal women, or not most, but the normal women who are actually like, I actually don't want this.
I don't want to be a government.
They're all married now.
All the millennial women who are just normal, they're all married and they're getting on with their lives and they're quite happy.
And now we get to hear from the sort of, you know, it's kind of like the bomber effect where it's like, you know, the bullet holes on the thing.
We don't hear from those women who are happily married and with their kids and stuff like that, getting on with their lives and who are not lonely.
We only hear from the lonely ones.
You probably hear from them in our comments, but we probably won't hear from them in the New York Times.
Exactly, right, or in the Wall Street Journal.
And so, yeah, like, I found this particular article from this, from a lady who says, look, all my friends are still single in their 30s.
They're hunting unicorns.
Somewhere along the way, a man stopped being just a man.
Now he's supposed to be your therapist, your best friend, your passionate lover, the father of the year, financial provider, and probably a mind reader too.
All wrapped up in one devastatingly handsome package.
And that's how my wife got lucky.
She's going to watch this.
But so basically, what she's saying is that women's expectations of men are totally demented.
Their status is too high.
And men are just, and as the other woman was saying, look, they're just self-selecting out of this because it's a very difficult game to win.
And it's probably not worth the hassle.
And so, okay, we've created a generation of spinsters and monks.
What are we going to do with them?
What a tragedy.
Yeah, well, like, this is, it was inevitable that feminism was going to do this.
Yeah.
Completely inevitable.
The left had to remove themselves from the gene pool.
Yeah, exactly.
There's just something spiritually wrong with them.
Yes.
And to be fair to the left, even if they do somehow get married, they've still got abortion.
So they've got multiple layers of defense to make sure they don't make it into the next generation.
But it's the earning potential.
I mean, I've come to the point where women just shouldn't be out earning men, it's just not fair to the men.
Like, it's one of those things that it's just like, oh, well, you can't say that.
No, I'm going to say that because it isn't fair to the men.
You know, men should be, for their status and the dignity that they have in society, they should be the primary providers for the family.
Which would have an ancillary benefit of driving up female happiness.
Yeah, exactly.
It's what's required to make women happy.
It's what's required to make children well-raised and well-socialized.
And you also end up when you have too many single women, the women who choose to have children end up facing a lot of difficulty because they don't have a proper social setting for them to function in.
There are all kinds of jokes about how women keep talking to each other and chatting to each other.
I was saying this to my wife the other day.
When we study these terrorist groups, the influence that we can never understand is the influence of women.
Because all of these wives and sisters and so on form their own networks.
And that ends up affecting how the group leadership ends up being composed and what decisions are made.
And they end up having in these highly segregated societies enormous importance.
Like in Saudi Arabia, you have universities named after somebody's favorite aunt because she did a great job of keeping the family together and had this massive influence as a matriarch.
And if you say one word against her, the thing is, everyone can think of someone in their own family like that if you're of sufficient age.
if you're, you know, part of the sort of It's the aunts and uncles of the Boomer generation.
I've got like, you know, on both sides, it was six kids.
Right.
Both sides of my parents' family.
So I've got loads of aunts and uncles.
And I have quite a few cousins, but like my kids only have a couple of aunts and uncles.
My parents only had two kids.
So this is why I had as many kids as I could.
So you've got lots of aunts and uncles.
Well done.
Yeah, well, that was the, you know, that was the point.
Yeah, exactly.
That's the point.
And I think it's important.
And yeah, so it's just, honestly, I've just come to the point where teleologically, men should have the primary role as provided for a family, and everything good about the family follows from that.
And, you know, we're all three married patriarchs, right?
So, you know, you could say, well, you would say that.
And it's like, yeah, but I get to see the good that comes from it.
But I have a future.
Yeah, exactly.
But I can guarantee my wife.
Your children have a future.
Like, I know they're happy because I make sure they've got everything they need.
Because I have children, I have a future.
Even if I wasn't happy.
Yeah, exactly.
If you've self-selected out of the gene pool, you don't have a future.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And honestly, it'd be terrible not to pass on your father's name, I think.
Yep.
Hiros Sinekemban says this female issue ties into the death of man documentary.
It does.
There is no spiritual female magic left.
They are clockwork and see relationships as material and transactional.
That's entirely true.
Entirely true.
But this is just what feminism has done to them.
And you can't be terribly surprised that they're, you know, incapable of understanding that the point of their lives is not themselves.
That's the thing that we have so much difficulty dealing with these days.
Atvar says, yes, Trump swerved at the last minute, aka typical Trump, found a way out while making himself look bigly badass.
His public info can be seen free on the robber barn sticker, right?
Okay, well, that's the thing.
This is what families politics is.
No, Carl Dan is correct.
A lot of these women are gassed up mids with no personality and children because they've not had any real problems.
Them thinking their status is higher is the symptom.
Yeah, sure.
I'm not saying they're not.
Obviously, that is the case.
Some are, yes.
Yeah, but it's not the issue.
The issue is how did they get gassed up in the first place?
And it was because they were given the adult daycare and told that they were better than men and men are basically crappy.
And it's like, no, men are actually great and deserve, like morally deserve to be the breadwinners.
Because when you say, oh, we're just going to make women into men and take that away from men.
It's like, well, why could we deserve to have that taken away, actually?
We'd created a really great world and you were actually really safe in it.
And look where we are now.
So trust me, the patriarchy is going to come back with a vengeance.
There are loads of other comments, but we're kind of running out of time.
So sorry.
but we'll get to the video comments I was watching Carl's video about progressives dying on the hill of abortion, and it made me think.
As Carl said, you know the risk and you make a choice, and it's absurd when you think about how stark the choice really is.
One day of pleasure in exchange for 18 years of responsibility.
That's an insane deal of the consequences seen as unacceptable.
Then I thought some more and I realised it's a pattern.
Thieves who break and enter, then complain about being harmed.
People who draw on the police and then complain about being shot.
People who stand in front of cars and then complain about being run over.
It's all one big mindset.
Ask an abortion activist if a store owner should be allowed to shoot looters and you'll see that all of these opinions are held in common.
That is exactly the correct point.
And I'm completely in favour of you shooting someone who breaks into your house.
Yes.
And running over people who block the road.
I want to see more of that.
I mean that less so, because okay, it's a public thing.
I can understand the frustration with it, but it is the same principle that's at play.
But like, you know, when it comes to a man's house, I'm going to kill you.
I think that picture is just incredible.
I think that image is just incredible.
I think it's really good.
This favourite screenshot that, Samson.
Because that's so good.
Anyway, let's go to the next one.
A thorny problem tempts people to tackle it with their individual strengths.
Edward De Bono warns this risk entrenching people in their own viewpoint.
Better is to have them view from each other's.
So he conceived the six hats.
Each is colour-coded to highlight its thinking function.
White is uncontaminated data.
Red is unexplained emotion.
Black is cool caution and criticism.
Yellow is positive appraisal.
Green is fresh and lateral thinking.
And blue is organizing and thinking about thinking.
Judicious use of the hats can streamline meetings and crystallize decisions.
Yeah, I think it's a good summary of how we need to actually approach problems, Frank.
Yes.
Let's get to the next one.
You know, with all these AI pack numbers being thrown around, the most interesting part to me is just how low they are.
Here in Canada, $1.7 million might get you a crappy apartment in the lousy side of Vancouver.
Down in the U.S., I guess the cost of living is just so low, that'll buy you a whole senator.
Not only would we get his undying loyalty, he'll also vote to open the gates to the treasury and spend trillions of dollars just for the privilege of fighting in your behalf.
That's one hell of a return on an investment.
Though, inversely, the Iranian state once tried to kill my grandpa, so I hope they both lose.
So, what's interesting is that Trump got loads of money from APAC.
Absolutely loads.
Something like 200 million or something like that, I think it was.
He got 100 million from Miriam Adelson.
Yeah.
After a billionaire that he didn't have time to research and Musk.
So the fact that Trump is like angry at Israel and not angry at Iran is really funny.
It's hilarious.
It just goes showing how poorly Israel is playing a hand as well.
Yes.
Like not only have they ruined their own public sort of perception, or they're poisoning their relationships with their biggest patron now.
So it's just like that's not smart.
But anyway, let's go to the next one.
Let's talk about the fact that President Trump incited an erection.
His various cases of, you know, he's got inciting charges of inciting an erection.
Donald John, Donald John Trump incited the erection.
They didn't like Donald Trump.
They said he participated in an erection.
Stupid sexy Trump.
That was quite a good one.
Let's go to the next one.
I'm at the pig.
This is my little brother, George.
This is Mummy Pig.
And this is Daddy Pig.
I heard about this.
Women in Islamic areas now keeping pet pigs for this reason.
That's smart.
That's insane.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, we shouldn't have to be doing this.
But right, let's go.
Stellios has left us a comment.
I have three Chudjack apology forms that need to be signed urgently.
Yes.
Yes.
You're right, Stellios.
Yes, nothing ever happens.
Everyone doubts.
He did a segment on it last week, and Fares and I put up a spirited defence and have just been completely...
Always bet on nothing, man.
Arizona Desert Rat says, you have to admit, many of the White House reporters are really obnoxious.
Well, yeah, I mean, but his cussing them out, as she puts it, is, oh, it was so funny.
That was beautiful.
But we had to skip it.
Darth May says, amazing that the businessman and TV star are wiping the floor with lifelong politicians and member of the establishment.
Trump is a 4D chess master.
It's not even being a 4D chess master.
That's the thing.
It's just knowing how the game is.
Just reading the instincts.
Exactly.
Reading everybody else's instincts and controlling his own and playing his own when he should.
Payless son of your cube says, imagine being a pannikan.
Imagine not trusting the plan.
Imagine thinking something would happen.
And Sophie points out, conclusion, if you think about having a dick measuring contest with Trump, just don't.
You're going to lose.
I mean, he's the president of the United States.
You're not going to want up this.
My button is bigger than yours and it works.
Yeah, exactly.
And it works.
Yeah, exactly.
It's exactly that.
Kevin says, I believe AI could do Rachel Rees' job.
Carl, I used to have a Tamagotchi that could have done Rachel from a camera.
That's true.
That's absolutely true.
I would actually pick a non-Immy's comment because they say, I'm doing a data engineering course.
And while there is a coursework element, we have verbal exams.
They do encourage to use AI, but not for writing.
I was surprised, to be honest, to see a BID exam board adapt so far.
So they are starting to adapt, but that is the way to go.
That's good.
Yeah, yeah.
Michael says, oh my God, these articles on Where of All Men Gone.
My God, it's the consequence of my own actions.
Yes, but you've got to remember that a lot of these women were just puppeteered into this.
They were indoctrinated.
Yeah, they were indoctrinated.
There was mass indoctrination of all of society.
We all fell for it at some point.
And here we are.
And when I was a kid, it was relentless.
I mean, it's propaganda.
It was just war.
And the thing is, at the time, it was all equalitarian property.
Now we call it Netflix.
Well, yeah.
But, you know, well, men and women are both going to go to university.
They're both going to enter the workforce.
They're both going to do this.
Like, why are we doing this?
This is not good, actually.
And, you know, I'm just basically on the complete hyper-traditionalist point of everyone would be happier if the men just went out to work and the women did the social things that women always used to do.
Like, who was the guy who wrote Bowling Alone who complained about the Collapse Society?
I can't remember the name of the academic.
But he wrote a book called Bowling Alone.
He's saying, look, no one's doing social activities anymore.
And if you look back, like 100 years ago, it's because these things were all run by housewives.
Yes.
Housewives ran the partisan.
Social events, who gets invited to which event, who gets invited to which wedding.
And it's the charities, local councils, everything that needs to actually be done to make things operate.
It's all housewives that were doing it.
And of course, they were sat at home, so they had the time to do it.
But if they're not housewives now, then there's no point volunteering.
No one's going to do anything.
And I thought that stuff was so important.
Exactly.
It kept society functioning.
It made the world worth living in.
Yes.
Right.
And now we look around and go, oh, wow.
You know, the rivers haven't been dredged.
Well, whose job was it to do that?
Don't know.
Whose job was it to organize that?
Whose job was it to make sure this happens and that happens and that happens?
Like, no one's now.
You know, everyone's at work.
So well done.
Feminism.
Anyway, Omar says, even if true, the implication of men to intimidated is they must change to be less intimidated.
That is true, but the self-appointed girl boss doesn't have the agency or obligation to become less intimidating.
Me, me, mean mentality.
Yeah, and this is the thing.
It's like, look, I'm not going to say that women can't have jobs or anything like that.
You know, if you want to go out and get a job, get a job.
But just be aware that there is a consequence to being the breadwinner.
And if you're not prepared to get a wife, you're not going to find a partner.
So anyway, thank you so much for joining us, folks.
If you want more from us, go over to listies.com, sign up for £5 a month and support everything that we're doing.
Help us keep the light on.
And we will see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection