Welcome to the podcast of the Lutherans for Wednesday, the 17th of December, 2025.
So what's that?
13 days till Christmas?
Not even.
Where does that math come?
Oh, wait.
Yeah, eight days.
See, what that is, is wild amounts of optimism.
Yeah.
That's me looking at the things I haven't done yet and being like, oh, I've got two weeks.
What are you talking about?
Eight days till Christmas, which is even more terrifying than before.
I'm joined by Lewis and Charlie from Reform Britain, and we are going to be... Reform Britain.
Restore Britain, sorry.
We were just talking about reform.
Because everyone was in favor of the Bonnie Blue endorsement.
Indefinitely to remain candidates.
Anyway, we're going to be talking about how straight white men are actually systematically oppressed.
And the numbers are in.
And so it's true.
Looking forward to James Lindsay's commentary on this segment.
How the government controls us, because they actually have an institutionalized apparatus of keeping everything on side.
And what the real route of mass immigration is.
So that should all be very exciting.
So let's begin.
This, I think, is probably one of my favorite tweets of all time.
There have been some real banger tweets over the years, but this one, I really like the size of the rake that's being stepped on in this tweet.
It's just like the day after Trump's deplatform.
It's like, wow, it's kind of weird that deplatforming Trump completely worked with no visible downside whatsoever.
It's like, yeah.
Bum, bum.
Exactly, right?
It's one of those tweets where it's like, yeah, only someone who has no concept of linear time can think of that.
I live entirely in the moment and I'm looking around and it's all peace and quiet.
Therefore, there was no problem.
No visible downside.
And I don't need to think about that any further.
And so anyway, this attitude was applied to, frankly, all of the institutions of the West for the last 10 years.
And everyone was like, well, look, what are the visible downsides?
Well, I mean, you could argue that I know Hollywood's terrible, the media's terrible, the political environment's terrible, everything's awful.
But also that young men are basically just a bunch of Nazis now.
They've come to the conclusion.
50% of Gen Z guys are sympathetic to Hitler when and don't really like democracy when polled.
And it's like, okay, I think that might be a visible downside if you're living in a liberal democracy.
Well, I wrote an article for the Mail earlier this year on this very subject about how Gen Z is Gen Z, sorry, not an American, is moving away from, you know, faith in democracy and towards a desire for something like a dictator.
And I didn't necessarily say whether that was a good or bad thing.
I just expressed why that is the case.
Because if you look at, you know, we're told that democracy is the greatest conceivable system of government that's ever existed.
And yet the bill of goods that we receive, you know, what it delivers to us is unaffordable housing, demographic decline and replacement, you know, just a general economic sort of collapse and a feeling of no identity or belonging in one's own country, the country of one's ancestors.
And so when we look at the system that gave us that, we think, why should we have any faith in this at all?
No visible downside, though.
No visible downside.
Obviously.
What's the visible downside of half of young men being basically Nazis?
I mean, I'm not seeing a visible downside.
I look outside in the street, and there's loads of foreigners, but like, I don't see any Nazi battalions yet.
So what's the visible downside?
And this has been the attitude of the institutions, the culture, and the general feeling that has pervaded everything is, well, we can just replace the straight white men with all of the diversity hires and everything will go great.
And actually, I think the chickens are coming home to roost here.
This was brought into major salience by Nick Fwenters recently.
And coincidentally, this article on Compact magazine was published by Jacob Savage just the other day.
And this has gone very viral.
And I think it's because of the kind of marriage of Nick Fuentes owning Piers Morgan, not caring about Lord Finkelstein's grandparents or whatever it was, all that sort of thing.
And pointing out actually, young men have not been incorporated into the system.
They have not been given a reason to buy into democracy or the institutions of society.
And so we'll go through just some of the stuff in here because it's just remarkable.
It's a really long article.
So I'm not going to scroll through.
I'm just going to pull a few parts out.
But he points out that back in sort of 2014, 2015, when DEI hiring was all the rage, it was viewed, quote, as a relatively benign practice meant to increase diversity while also sending the message that workplaces should be fair and open to everyone.
And this may have been how Boomer and Gen X white men experienced DEI.
But for white male millennials, DEI wasn't a genital rebalancing.
It was a profound shift in how power and prestige were distributed.
As in, it was the beginning of an organized attempt at systematic oppression of white men.
Because, of course, the idea that, okay, we can just replace the white men with literally anyone else, well, that is naturally taking something away from people.
Unless the institutions were expanding, which they did not, then you are specifically for racial and sex reasons redistributing who gets to be in the positions of prestige and join the hierarchy and work their way up.
And he splits this into four segments: the press, academia, TV, and everywhere else.
But the everywhere, I mean, it's all really important.
But have you got any initial thoughts on this?
Well, it's just true.
Because you're in that sort of cohort where is it any wonder, really?
Because if you keep browbeating a particular generation, specifically white males, for so long, I think, you know, Dan from Lode Case has done that tweet regarding, obviously, the recent uptick in we must fight Russia now, we must be conscripted.
And it's a timeline of, you know, dump on white men, dump on white men, dump on white men.
And it's like, oh, come and fight for us.
And it's that strange sort of thing, if you keep doing that, is it any wonder that they're going to look for saviours elsewhere?
And I know we're seeing an uptick, not to make it, you know, religious, but we're seeing an uptick in Generation Z, of course, turning to Jesus, which I think is a fantastic thing.
But the ones that aren't are turning to other things, more political, more radical, more extreme.
And I know I sound liberal, even saying that, like, or maybe even a leftist, but it's just the case.
I would add to that as well.
In, you know, from my experience, I was at university in, oh, I joined university in 2019.
And so this was right before COVID and more importantly, right before BLM.
And I remember my own, you know, sort of coming to political consciousness was one of the sort of key events in my life that led to that was an experience.
I went on a, it was a Zoom call about, you know, diversity on campus and all that sort of thing.
And I'd been hearing about this sort of thing for a while.
I thought, you know what?
I'm just going to see what these people actually have to say in their own words.
And I joined this call and there was about, I think there was about 100 people on it.
And it was a presentation given by one of the people was part of the university administration.
And she was this middle-class white woman, very, very liberal.
And the other was a, I think he was a PhD candidate who was a mixed race chap.
And both, it was, you know, height of BLM, and they were talking about, you know, systemic discrimination at the university and all this sort of thing.
And I asked what I thought was a very, very reasonable question, which was, is there any room in this movement for forgiveness, right?
Because we're seeing all of this stuff, like, you know, censorship, tearing down of monuments and so on.
And it was the university administrator, this white woman, who descended upon me in front of, you know, literally 100 people saying, right, kick this guy off the chat.
You know, he's uh, we're not gonna have any room for racism or classism.
She made classism, sexism on this call.
Um, and I kind of thought that's gonna take that aside.
Yeah, yeah, and I kind of thought, right, so that's who these people actually are.
Uh, and that, you know, I think that sentiment was felt very widely by most sort of young white men at that time who had anything like a political sort of consciousness.
And, you know, it's not a surprise, therefore, that a few years later, we're kind of just saying, you know what, I don't care about any of the taboos or the priors that led to this state of affairs.
Right.
Well, I mean, you are literally being targeted because of your race and sex.
And so, how could you not end up developing some kind of political consciousness out of the institution?
And again, it's the institutions themselves.
Because, I mean, when I was a young man, they felt reasonably fair.
It was taboo to bring up someone's race or sex or any other arbitrary characteristic.
Because why would you need to?
What does that actually tell you about the person?
Well, it turns out that that consensus died a long time ago.
And I remember being a YouTuber at the time saying, hey, guys, I think this might not be a good idea.
You know, I actually asked.
What did you think was going to happen?
Yeah, I made many a video saying, look, guys, maybe we shouldn't be discriminating against people based on their race or sex.
Majority at that.
Yeah.
And yeah, exactly.
And nobody listened.
Well, lots of people listened, but nobody in the administration has listened.
And now they are looking at essentially the young men revolution.
But anyway, so let's go through some of this because it's just remarkable.
It's just remarkable just how brazen that it was.
Because we back when all of this started coming about, it came out of the universities.
And people were like, well, it's just nonsense on university campuses.
It'll die off the second it hits the real world.
It's like as soon as these people need to get jobs, they'll drop all this stuff.
Exactly.
No, they'd clean stuff into the jobs with them.
Shock and surprise.
And so talking about the media, there's a young man called Andrew who had done a degree in journalism.
And he says when he was trying to get jobs in 2019, the editor-in-chief of New York magazine said that he responded to the staff disappointment that another white man had been elevated to the role.
I understand the reaction, he told his staff.
Part of me shares it.
The most effective way to move the needle on diversity hiring is for a loud commitment to come from the very top of the masthead.
And I plan to do exactly that.
So as you can see, it was the older straight white boomer men and women who were victimizing the youngers.
Like David Cameron.
Literally pulling up the ladder to make sure that you guys couldn't get ahead.
Management was, as he put it, quote, obsessed about recruiting people of color.
But the pool was very small, and anyone promising was quickly poached by New York Times or Capricorn News, blah, blah, blah.
And so after years of concerted effort, they had whittled down the percentage that were straight white men.
In 2021, new hires at Condé Nast were just 25% male and 49% white.
The California Times, parent company of the Los Angeles Times, they were 39% male and 31% white.
ProPublica hired 66% women, 58% people of color, NPR.
78% of new hires were people of color.
So it's literally just, right, okay, just get anyone then.
Just grab anyone who is not a straight white male.
Again, just systematic institutional discrimination against the young men of the United States.
The same thing has been happening over here, but we'll talk about that in a minute.
In academia, David Walsh, a Yale postdoc and left-wing Twitter personality, decided to detonate any chance he had at a career with a single tweet.
He says, quote, I'm 35 years old.
I'm four years after my PhD.
And quite frankly, I'm also a white dude.
Combine those factors together.
And for all intents and purposes, I'm unemployable as a 20th century American historian.
Bad luck, mate.
To add, it's interesting.
With Restore, We're currently pursuing a particular investigation in regards to law firms and diversity hire within law firms.
And we've had a whistleblower that's come forward that is giving us a list of law firms that are utilizing DEI hire.
And the list is so extensive, it's taken this particular whistleblower and us a month, roughly, to even compile the list.
I mean, it's so extensive.
It's because they all believe in it.
Because they all believe in it.
And I think we've spoken to people as well that are members that are part of law, and they talk about how rotten it is within the actual institution.
But it's interesting.
I don't know whether the establishment understands that they are the creators of their own enemies.
It reminds me of Tommy Robinson personally when he first started his activism and he was like raising the alarm about a particular issue which he had experienced through relatives X, Y, and Z.
And the establishment, the authorities were ignoring him and they were ignoring, ignoring, ignoring to the point where they couldn't ignore him about a particular issue.
And then they started censoring, then they started browbeating, calling them Nazis, calling them whatever.
And it's the same playbook over and over again to demonize people who have legitimate concerns.
It's very, very bizarre.
And you can add this to not just, of course, Tommy, but loads of other people as well.
And it's just the same playbook over and over again.
And this, I really think, is what is underpinning Nick Fuentes' current prominence.
It's just the straight white men who were literally gatekept out of the system.
Like, what are we supposed to do, guys?
You know, what do you think our options are here?
Just on the academia point as well, I can see you've got a tweet up there from Eric Kaufman.
He did some great research earlier this year into UKRI, which is the funding body for research in the universities.
And he found, and they deal in the billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.
And he found that the weighting towards DEI research and research into equality as against excellence has exploded over the last 10 years or so.
I mean, the REF 2029, which is essentially the exercise whereby funding is dealt out in 2029 to the universities, is going to carry, I'm reading it here, carrying a larger weighting of 25% on DEI data.
So you basically have to prove your allegiance to the state ideology in order to get funding for your research, which in turn is probably going to be about systemic discrimination.
That's the same with the green lobby as well.
It's exactly the same with the green lobby.
You have to submit to that in order to get grants.
I think someone did a documentary recently about the green infrastructure and green billionaires and grants being handed out in universities.
And some student can write some BS article about, I don't know, cows farting or whatever, and then receive a grant of hundreds of thousands, we're talking, to do these BS articles.
But it gets them, it keeps this sort of, I don't know, cycle of money going within these institutions.
It's good grift.
Good grift.
It's good laundering.
It's like daycare, to be honest.
It's like, it's insane.
But anyway, in the article, it points out that white men are still 55% of Harvard's arts and sciences faculty, which is down from 63% 10 years ago.
But this is the legacy of Boomer and Gen X employment patterns.
For tenure-track positions in the pipeline for future faculty, white men have gone from 49% in 2014 to 27% in 2024.
In the humanities, they've gone down to 21%.
So that is quite mad.
In 2022, there were 728 applicants for tenure-track jobs in humanities or brown, 55% of whom were men.
After being whittled down through various processes, only 34% of the candidates who made it to the interview round were male, and only 29% of the jobs are ultimately offered to men, not just white men, just men.
And so you can see this genuine sort of two-to-one dynamic that is playing out in academia at the moment.
And of course, with men being the minority of people in the actual universities doing the courses now anyway, this is just going to be an increasingly shrinking share.
and done on purpose.
So again, institutional bias or not even is it even a bias?
It's institutional gatekeeping against white men from joining these things.
Going to TV and Hollywood, obviously it's the same sort of pattern.
Apparently about 22% of staff writers on TV shows and Hollywood movies or whatever they do are white men now.
So that explains why they're all shit.
A whistleblower sent him a document from early 2017 with an internal needs sheet compiled by a major talent agency across the grid which traffics staffing needs TV room writers.
The shorthand appears dozens of times.
Quote, diverse, female, women and diverse only.
These mandates came from some of the most powerful names in television.
Noah Hawley, Dean Devlin, I don't know these people, Ryan Murphy.
But the point is it was systemic discrimination, consciously so, done on purpose, and they know what they were doing.
And so he gets, again, I'm only picking out certain points, but he gets to the conclusion.
And he says, look, instead of settling down, proposing, because he went through this process himself in LA, instead of settling down, proposing to my then-girlfriend, now wife, and earning a steady income that might support a family, I spent a decade insisting the world treat me fairly when the world was loudly telling me it had no intention of doing so.
I could see what was happening.
I was being told point blank that it was happening.
And still, I thought I'd be the exception.
That if I wrote one more script, one more book meeting, took one more meeting, I'd slip through.
But very few people get to be the exception.
It's strange and more than a little poisonous to see yourself buffed by forces beyond your control.
But there's a comfort in it because it's less painful to scroll through other people's IMDb pages late at night, figuring out what shortcut, race, gender, connections, whatever, they took to success than to grapple with the fact that there are white men my age who have succeeded and I'm not one of them.
The truth is, I could have worked harder.
It's like, okay, sure.
But I notice that you're kind of essentially doing the eternal thing that white men do and think, okay, I'm the one at fault here when everything in the system is telling you, no, I don't want you.
Yeah, I'm sort of in two minds about that point because I do think that there is a problem emerging, you know, as part of this trend that you're describing, which is a sense of essentially victimhood.
And at one level, it is the case that white men, straight white men specifically, have been targeted in quite a, in an incredibly mean-spirited and vindictive way by basically every institution, certainly in this country.
But at the same time, I don't know that a victim mentality is the right response to that because I think it's disempowering.
And actually, I do think as well, and this is crucial, you know, things in society tend to happen, bad things in society tend to happen when men allow them to happen.
When men are asleep at the wheel, when men are not interested, when men are more interested in withdrawing.
And I often think that the, you know, the pathological masculine tendency is to withdraw and the pathological feminine tendency is to smother and to and to expand, right?
And what this represents, in my view, is a withdrawal of masculinity from the public domain and the consequent sort of smothering of femininity.
And so in a way, it is the case that men have allowed this to happen.
And I think there's important points to be made there.
And it's the Gen X and Boomer men who allow this to happen to the younger men.
Yes.
But the problem that we have, though, and you are correct, obviously, fostering a victim mentality helps no one.
But the problem is, what he has done is he has individualized a systemic problem.
Sure.
So what he's done is say, oh, no, it must have been me.
I could have done that one thing that would have been exceptional, slip through the cracks.
It's like, okay, maybe you could have, but what about all those other guys who couldn't have and still were denied jobs for which they were perfectly capable, perfectly qualified, purely on the merit of the fact that they are a straight white man?
And moreover, he also says that he was becoming resentful against women and minorities, but he learned to overcome this because, of course, he's a good progressive.
It's like, okay, listen, they are not people without agency, right?
They took advantage of these things willingly, knowingly, and they know that they were fast-tracked up on these particular DEI sort of causeways.
They are also responsible.
Like, try and say, well, they're not responsible for it.
No, no.
This, they are.
The system is against you.
And these people took advantage of an unfair system.
They are culpable for what they've done.
The system is culpable for what it's done.
You are right.
Don't bother.
There's no good fostering a victim mentality.
But this is essentially you individualizing it and accepting defeat means that the system wins.
To add to that as well, I mean, abortion is something I'm going to talk about in my segment.
Nice, cheery one today.
But I think the other, the alternative perspective would be that if you give, you know, as a man, if you give agency and, you know, become permissive of certain behaviors, everyone else is kind of just going to do those things.
You know, they are going to, if the path of least resistance exists, it's going to be taken.
And so, sure, you know, he's saying, well, I became, started to become resentful of women and minorities, but it is actually like you should look at the system.
And he is right for, he's right to correct himself in them not being the source of the problem, because these are just people following incentives a lot of the time.
And you have to look at the system itself that has given rise to those conditions, which again is something that's created by white men, ultimately.
Well, actually, the ideology wasn't created by white men.
The ideology was actually created by non-white women in large part, actually.
So it depends how far back you want to go.
Well, the ideology that directly influenced all of these decisions was actually an ideology that came from non-white women.
So, and a lot of people say, well, Jewish women.
No, no, not Jewish women, actually.
Literally black women are actually mostly responsible for the ideology of intersectionality.
But the point is, once again, you're kind of individualizing it, right?
And it's like, look, it isn't just you that is the problem.
And that's honestly, it's kind of like a comfort blanket.
Sure.
Say, you know what?
It was just me.
I guess I'll just pull my bootstraps up again.
And I'm the first person to say, look, get a job, get in work, actually learn a skill, do something.
Don't just play video games, actually do something.
But you have to accept when there is a political problem.
Yes.
And that's what this is.
I mean, there's just so many actual examples of this.
And we've covered like three industries there, but corporate America has just actually, it's just incredible what they've actually done.
They've got a graph in here.
I remember this.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Where the new hires in 300,000 jobs, only 6% were white.
Wow.
I don't know what percent of them were male, but that is mad, isn't it?
Yep.
Yeah.
But again, to what extent, and it may say this in the article, but is this true belief in ideology or is this the following of sort of ESG type incentives?
It's going to be funding that leads to investment.
It's going to be both.
It's absolutely the ESG incentive as a real, tangible financial benefit.
But there's also the social benefits of doing so.
I mean, if you were going to be a company who maybe you didn't need the ESG money, you were still going to find yourself reputationally damaged, right?
And so, okay, so we've just kicked out white men from basically corporate America.
And then you've got the pressure from the H-1B visas as well, which, of course, has resulted in all sorts of things.
And this was telegraphed very, very clearly back in 2015.
Which one's no, that's the H-1B's one.
This was telegraphed very, very clearly back in 2015.
This is from BuzzFeed.
23 writers with messages for straight white males in publishing.
Let's go down.
They've gone under.
Exactly.
But read less straight white men.
So gosh.
Just zoom this out a bit.
It's a bit zoomed in.
It's just stare as well.
It gets worse, right?
So this, but you can see this is just a direct racial and gendered attack on their enemy.
They're completely shameless about it.
Completely shameless.
And this, I mean, I'm sure I must have done a video on this article back in 2015.
Almost definitely.
Yeah, there's no doubt that I would have done.
And then number eight is another.
The arrogance of this.
We owe you nothing.
Oh my gosh.
Are you insane?
Like every building.
Smiling.
Look at the building that she's in, the complex engineering that was required.
Yeah, yeah.
I know that straight white men built that.
Obviously.
I know they designed everything you're wearing.
You know, like, come on.
Glasses.
Grow up.
Grow up, but no, there are better ones.
What's that one?
Look out there.
Sit down and let us abolish you.
But once again, I mean, the fact of the matter is, a huge number of white men did look at this.
Yeah, yeah.
Say, okay.
Oh, no, it's not even a huge.
Everyone did.
Yeah.
It's like a dominated kink fetish almost.
It literally is.
The thing is, like, I was very active at this.
I was a pariah at this time.
Yeah, yeah.
So I was like, but back in 2013, when I first started publishing videos against feminism, because this is what this comes out of, you basically couldn't really criticize feminism without being called a misogynist.
It was just assumed you hated women.
I was like, no, I think there are genuine philosophical issues with feminism that are going to create problems further down the line, which we are currently going through now.
And this sort of stuff was terrifying to what I guess we'd call the straight white male establishment because they didn't know how they were supposed to defend themselves because they were mired in the kind of classical liberal 90s colorblind ideology of, well, we're just going to hire on merit.
And they, frankly, had kind of judo flipped them with their own ideology, saying, yeah, okay, and your intrinsic unconscious bias has led to you hiring a bunch of straight white men.
It's like, okay.
But I noticed that now, 10 years down the line, everything's terrible.
So there was a tremendous guilt complex on the part of the establishment when attacked in this way.
And they really had no ideological defenses for it because the people who designed this ideology had spent 30 years crafting and honing and figuring out, okay, where are your weak points?
Whereas everyone else was sat there just coasting along, making things and making a great society.
Grilling.
Exactly.
Not just grilling, but just being industrious, building stuff.
I mean, there's just so many other things.
She's coming for you.
Do you know that you're talking to another human being who has dreams and aspirations of their own?
This is the language of supremacy.
This is a supremacist ideology.
100%.
It reminds me, someone had come forward about the NHS.
We get a lot of concerns about the NHS.
It's one of the biggest ones we get.
And it was actually a woman who wasn't white.
And she came, she came to us explaining her story saying that she had a complaint to the authorities within the NHS, one of the manager-level people.
And she went to them with this complaint and they literally said to her something along the lines of, well, do you want to make it racial because that way we can fast-track it?
Oh, well.
And it was like, and she told me that and it was like, it was reading it going.
Like, is it any wonder that this is happening so widespread?
I mean, imagine that.
A white guy goes to like a brown woman and says, yeah, we've read your complaint, but can you make it racial just so that we can fast-track it, please?
That's insane.
Like, how can they not hear themselves and how mental that is?
It just doesn't...
I wonder if their bonus is contingent on the number of racial complaints.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
But they say using the racial element to complaints, especially within the NHS in some areas, is a way to get your complaint fast-tracking hurt.
And this is the other thing.
On the incentives point, that person who took that complaint and suggested that the person make it racial is probably just looking at their workload and thinking, well, if they make this racial, I can get this dealt with in one hour instead of three.
And not just that.
It's just their boss has been like, look, just, you know, we're here to help browns and women now.
So make sure that you prioritise them and you're going to get a tick on your assessment at the end of the year.
So there's all sorts of incentives that just made the system like dominoes, click, just completely flip because it began within liberal ideology.
And like, I mean, look at this.
You have not doomed us.
You've doomed yourself.
What are you talking about, man?
It's kind of true.
Sure.
But like, why are you fighting a race war?
Because that's the language of a race war.
It's like, no, I'm against you as white men.
It's like brilliant.
Again, there are just so many others.
Hire women.
Diversity makes you strong.
Women aren't diversity.
We're talking about, you know, we don't need you.
Oh, okay.
Thanks very much.
This is, again, pretty unsympathetic.
Actually, a kiss on the end, mate.
That's good.
Yeah.
Pretty unsympathetic.
And so, like I said, they were telegraphing this back in 2015.
And now we get to see it everywhere.
This was one piece the other day.
There have been numerous other examples.
This is just the most remarkable in the context of them wanting to start a war with Russia.
But then you've got the BBC offering racial schemes, just literally internships and programs that are specifically for non-white people.
And they think it's the right thing to do.
Remember, this is from 2016.
I doubtless made a video about this as well.
And this is something that they think is legal.
The BBC's like, yeah, no, no, that's totally fine.
I'm not sure that it is, actually.
I think actually under the law, you probably could argue this.
Andrew Bridgen was coming out against this back then.
Good for him.
Again, you can see that the seeds of this, all of the people on the correct side of the argument, they're still here.
You know, it's like me, Andrew Bridge and all these sorts of people.
They're still here because we were correct about all of this.
That's the funny thing.
Like the time horizon that people think on in modern politics is so short.
Like all those people who held up those signs and all the people who were gloating, who were gleeful about, you know, essentially discriminating against straight white men.
They're all still here.
You're here.
Now we're here.
You know, living out the consequences of this paradigm.
And it's like, you know, kind of where do we go from here?
And that is ultimately the question because it can't, you know, it's not going to continue like this.
It can't.
It's not sustainable.
No.
It's also not cool anymore.
Yeah.
That's also, that's also true.
Yeah, there's definitely a shift happening there.
It's not fashionable.
No.
And the thing is, when called to account for this, Labour endorsed this.
I mean, Labour defends, yeah, no, we should have black-only positions.
We should explicitly discriminate.
This is normal to us and the way that we think things should go.
It's like, okay, but like we had said, half of young white men are sympathetic to Adolf Hitler.
I actually don't want that.
I would like a more integrated society.
And so the answer is: well, what can be done?
And, well, honestly, straight white men have got to start making an argument for themselves.
Yeah.
Why actually do we deserve the positions that we get?
And the answer is probably something to do with the continuation of civilization and the fair redistribution of resources.
As in, you're not going to get a wife if you can't get a job.
If you can't get a job, you can't actually pay for the things for a family and actually buy a house, have children, and our civilization dies on the vine.
So, anyway, we'll leave that there.
But it was all explicit, all completely explicit.
They knew what they were doing and they brought this about themselves.
Luke said, They also want straight white men to die for the middle war, like you guys were saying yesterday.
Yeah, I know, it's mad.
Magnus says, Sad to see NPR die.
Bob Edwards and Carl Castle did great radio back in the 90s.
A lot of still people, a lot of people still following, remember Car Talk.
Always takes a white man to build anything great.
Well, I mean, there are things that are great that are built by non-white men, obviously, but like the thing is, you'll notice that they're not innovating in their own institutions, right?
They look at institutions that were built by straight white men and say, Okay, well, we'd like to have the prestige that comes with that.
It's like, okay, but you do that, that's fine.
We are going to start building new institutions elsewhere, and this time we're going to gatekeep.
Sigilstone says, I got over hating women and minorities taking advantage of the system against me by ignoring all the women and minorities engineering the system to be against me.
It didn't get that way on its own.
Exactly.
Drunk Changeling says, You should do everything in your ability to succeed in a broken system, but that doesn't mean you cannot point out the system is broken.
And it doesn't mean it's unjust that you demand the system change either.
It's not a victim mentality, it's recognizing you've been discriminated against.
Sadly, the manly urge to punch something in the face won't fix this problem.
That is basically the issue.
Right, okay, let's move on.
Yep, got the uh uh well, let's go to Connor's one, uh, Connor, Charlie's one.
Um, oh, yeah, I know this is this is Lewis.
It's Lewis, why don't you?
Do you want to go?
Well, no, it's fine.
Okay, sure.
Okay, so polling from Ipsos indicates that immigration remains the top issue for the British public, which is not surprising.
I think it's, you know, it's the most salient issue by far now for most people for a lot of reasons.
And I think the main reason is the consequences of it are evident along every metric, right?
Everywhere.
Price of housing, yeah, law and order, crime.
Walking down the street.
Yeah.
High streets, you know, everywhere.
The demographic reality of the country is self-evident at this point.
And I think that's a lot of people, even those who even a year ago were nervous about touching this topic, it's just become undeniable, right?
And so there's a lot of talk about immigration, certainly on our side of things, and increasingly across the spectrum.
It's, you know, it's interesting.
There is now this consensus across the left and right, whatever that even means at this point, that legal mass immigration is a huge problem and it's tearing our society apart.
You saw Keir Starmer celebrating the news that net migration was down to 204,000 to the year to June 2025, which is still, historically speaking, insanely high.
Well, the gross intake was 850,000.
Yes.
Why are you bringing in 850,000?
How do you not realize?
I mean, like, have you tried, you know, drive anywhere, use the trains, use any kind of infrastructure?
And you realize, God, there are just too many people here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But nevertheless, it does appear that there is now this consensus emerging across the spectrum that this is a huge problem.
And so in my view, it's now become a permitted kind of edgy topic to talk about about how legal immigration is a huge problem because it's just self-evident, right?
And so what I would like the, you know, where I would like the discourse to go now is actually looking at the conditions that created this state of affairs.
Because I don't think that there's really enough serious thinking on this question because we hear the platitude, well, not platitudes, but we hear the kind of the classic lines of, well, it was Tony Blair wanting to rub the rights face in diversity and all this sort of thing.
Which is true, but at one level, that is true.
But in my view, that is it's window dressing for the more fundamental point here.
And that point is that, and I tweeted about this recently, which was it was met with quite a huge amount of hostility, but I think it's important.
It's essentially that the conditions that gave rise to mass immigration in the United Kingdom are essentially the fault of nobody but ourselves.
And I want to begin by presenting essentially three.
you know, three statements that I think are important to understand here.
The first is that the United Kingdom operates a, what I would call a usury-based economy, right?
A huge amount of our economy is founded on credit and on debt and it's interest-based, right?
And for that, you know, because of that, we have an economy that demands endless and constant growth.
You know, there's a reason that you hear Conservatives, Labour and Reform in unison talking about the need for growth, which really means just increasing nominal GDP, not even GDP per capita, just overall GDP.
And the reason for that is because if we don't have growth, this usury-based system collapses because we can't service our debts.
You add on to that the fact that we have this hulking welfare state.
If we don't have growth, then we can't finance that.
And suddenly you're looking at a situation where people are going without pensions, which, frankly, when it comes to the welfare question, the pension side of it is, I think, the one that our leaders are thinking about the most because they're probably thinking, if we can't pay the pensions, people are going to die because they can't afford food, because they can't afford heating in their homes, and so on.
I think they genuinely worry about the welfare that goes to single mothers as well.
That as well.
Yes, you're totally right.
Like, forget all of the disability, universal, all of that nonsense, right?
I don't think that's what they're thinking about when they're thinking this way.
We were talking on the way up about how it's probably the case when a new prime minister or whatever gets into office and an advisor from the OBR or from the Treasury comes up to them and says, right, so you want to do these tax cuts.
You want to halt immigration, for example.
If you do that, we're not going to be able to raise enough tax revenue to pay for the pensions.
And on your watch, 200,000 pensioners are going to die.
And so when faced with that situation, you can understand why a prospective prime minister would say, well, what am I supposed to do?
You can't do that.
Exactly.
Got to go another route.
Yeah.
And this is the point.
The system as it exists now, it's creaking at the seams because it cannot sustain the economic program that has been, I think, inflicted on the country.
And in my view, mass immigration is a consequence of that.
It's a symptom of that.
It's not actually the root cause of all of our problems.
And this, in my view, is where the right is going wrong at the moment.
We think that mass immigration is at the root of the sickness that afflicts this country, but it's not.
It's a symptom of the sickness.
It's a very, very malign and damaging symptom.
But nevertheless, it is a symptom.
These people have been brought here for a reason.
Yes.
And so to those people who say that remigration is the solution to all of our problems, I just don't think that that's the case because you're still not taking that one step back and looking at the conditions that created this state of affairs in the first place.
And so to that, I want to add the fact that since the end of the Second World War, particularly in the 1960s, our country has, of course, pursued a social program, a socially liberal program, right?
Embodied most, in my view, malignantly, in the forms of abortion, widespread abortion, and contraception.
Because what those two things have given rise to, and the sexual revolution more generally, is declining fertility rates, declining marriage rates, and therefore an aging population, which our leaders are looking at and saying, well, what are we supposed to do?
If we don't have workers who can do the work, engage in economically productive activity and pay taxes, this whole system is going to collapse.
Can I pause you on that?
Because I think that what you're looking at there, like with immigration, are actually the symptoms of a system.
Go on.
I think it's actually the pension system itself that does this.
Because prior to a state-run pension system, people deliberately got married and had children so they would have someone to take care of them.
Sure.
And so all of this, I think, is downstream of that understanding that I don't need to have children to take care of me when I'm old now.
The government will do it for me.
And so the very nature of the pension system leads to contraception, leads to abortion, leads to failing marriages.
But in the same way that immigration is a damaging consequence of that, I think actually it's slightly further upstream.
It's an interesting point that.
And I think this is ultimately the question is what is the direction of causality?
What is the chicken and what is the egg here?
I think you're right about the immigration stuff, and I'm sure I'm right about the marriage stuff too.
Yeah, yeah.
Because on the, well, no, let's go into this.
So the usury-based economy point, I think this is really crucial to understand.
Usury is one of those words that it's not very popular to use in this country for whatever reason.
But in my view, it's just a bit archaic.
It seems archaic.
Well, sure, but it's what you would describe as a thick concept.
Because you could say, you could say debt-based economy, or you could say interest-based economy.
But actually, usury contains within it a condemnation of that practice.
I agree.
Which is right.
Because actually, out of this system, who benefits?
Well, it's certainly not ordinary people who are seeing their wages go down, taxes go up, house prices increase, and ability to live a comfortable lifestyle disappear.
It's fundamentally a non-productive way of making money.
Yes.
So it's got parasitic implications.
Absolutely.
Yes.
And so it's no surprise that so much of our economy is basically based out of the square mile that is the city of London, financial services and so on.
And this is championed by a lot of people on the right.
They think that it's good that our economy has become financialized.
But actually, in my view.
That's the sort of Thatcherite consensus.
And it's like, well, I mean, yeah.
And it's like on paper, like, like when you speak to people who are of that mind, and I've heard multiple people independently use this analogy.
They will say, well, you make the cake bigger and everybody gets more.
And it's like, okay, I can understand that in a very why that might be the case.
And it would be ideal if that was the case.
And in a good system, that will be the case.
Because, you know, this, this, this sort of growth narrative, obviously it's the case that you want an economy that generates wealth and which leads to better standards of living for as many people as possible, right?
But our system doesn't do that.
It does, not to sound like a, you know, like a socialist or a Marxist, but it basically enriches a tiny minority of, you know, money and interests who exist at the top of society.
They own a huge number of the assets and they just kind of, you know, they use their assets to continuously generate money through essentially usury.
And not just usury, but also rent-seeking.
Yes.
Which is another massive problem.
I mean, like, people can complain.
Oh, I don't agree with Zach Polanski.
No, I don't agree with Zach Polanski either.
But the reason that so many people are siding with him now is because he is identifying accurately the problem.
Yes.
Like what we want is actually collectively, we want property ownership.
We want each person to own something.
Well, what did Zach Polanski come out and say the other day?
I want to ban landlords.
That's a very ham-fisted way of saying, I want what we want is for you to own your house.
Yes.
Obviously, we want people to learn this.
They're identifying from different angles.
And that's a crucial point because private property is often bound up with free market and free trade.
And that is what constitutes capitalism in the minds of most people.
And I don't like that.
I don't agree with that because I think that in a lot of ways it is this desire for a completely open, unregulated market that has got us to the position that we're in today, where a huge number of assets are owned by a tiny number of people and organizations.
The very nature of the ideological concept of a free market has hidden the fact that actually the free and open capitalistic market is currently inhibiting property ownership.
Yes.
If you have the free movement of goods, capital, people and services, well, actually, that means that you have the sort of monopolization of a housing industry.
That means that financial services are treated as equivalent as productive functions of industry.
And the free movement of people puts demands on all of these things all at once.
And so young people can't afford houses.
They also can't find jobs.
And everything they do begins with a huge burden of debt on it.
Yes.
And so it's, it's, you know, is this property ownership?
No, but this is a free market.
Yes.
And so, you know, one thing is not serving the other.
And this, and this is the crucial point in my view.
Like our, you know, as a political faction, insofar as we are coherent, our economic, you know, top line has to be private property.
Ownership of property is the prime function of the economy, to deliver private property to as many people as possible.
Because that is foundational to the creation of a household, which is not just a building with people inside it.
It is a, in my view, a spiritual entity, which is composed of the mother, the father, children, the dependents.
A house absolutely is metaphysical.
We call it a home.
Yes.
You know, every other language lives in a house.
We don't.
We live in homes.
Yes.
You know, English is actually really quite interesting in that way.
But you're absolutely right.
Because, I mean, and the thing is as well, the sort of traditionalist right has not properly explained what it is we want out of the economy.
And that is a real problem.
Because what we want is labor to produce.
Yes.
So when we physically make something, we're making a podcast.
But at least we will physically have a podcast at the end of it, right?
So there is a good or a service or a product, something physical that we can say, this is what we have done today.
And the market will determine its value based on supply and demand, natural, uninflated, true figures that allow us to make real, you know, solid money that allows us to purchase property that we can live in and do.
All of those things that you said.
That's just, I think, very traditional view of what the economy should be.
Totally.
Uncomplicated, right?
Yeah.
And you add into this the fiat money system, which allows the government to essentially destroy people's savings to save their own backsides.
I've got a podcast coming out of the Christmas period, by the way, where I go into the death penalty.
Interfering with the value of money, there were dozens of laws against that that would all carry the death penalty.
Like Rishi Sunak, what he did with our currency, would have just been instant death.
He would have been hanged in public 200 years ago.
And this is the point is our ancestors recognize these problems.
They recognize the threat posed by usury, by what we today call constant easing, printing money and so on.
Based on the money split.
Yeah.
You know, because it affects everything.
Well, that destroys everything.
That was exactly the rationale.
It imperils the financial health of the entire nation.
Yeah, obviously.
Of course it does.
Yeah.
And a tiny number of people benefit from it as well.
And like, you know, and it's those people who say, damn, the consequences, damn everyone else, I'm going to just get rich off of screwing over the nation who are the greatest traitors of all.
And it's really, it's those people who occupy positions of power in financial institutions and in government.
And those two entities are in cahoots with one another.
There's a closest line.
Yeah.
Lewis and I were talking on the train about sort of economic systems.
And it is as though in the West we have kind of the reverse of what China has, in that we have public-private partnerships between the state and corporations.
But in our system, the senior partner in that arrangement is the private.
The senior partner is the corporations.
Whereas in China, for example, the senior partner is the state.
And you can make what you want of the Chinese system.
Many people think that it's the economic system of the future, including the likes of Blair.
So make of that what you're doing.
I mean, how much longer can our economic system truly last?
But this is the point.
When the ultimate clients of your economy is not households, but corporations, unaccountable, often international corporations and asset management firms like you're going to go into in your segment, Lewis, how can you say that we've got a good economy?
Because on your question of what the purpose of the economy should be and what kind of economic program we should be promoting, I've said many times that I don't think we should be saying capitalism because to a lot of people, from an optics perspective, it's a very negatively coded word.
And more to the point, the free market is actually not what we're lacking right now.
It's economic security.
We've got an excess of free markets.
Jesus Christ.
This is the thing with the steel, the last steel factory.
Oh, we're going to take it into government ownership.
It's like, well, why don't you just put a massive tariff on Chinese steel?
Yeah.
Because actually, I look this up.
Britain has huge iron reserves.
Britain has huge coal reserves.
We've got a lot of copper.
We've got a lot of actual physical resources in the ground here.
We could produce our own and did, which is why we led the Industrial Revolution.
It's just the Chinese can use their slave labor to undercut our markets.
We could prevent that.
I mean, you might have to pay slightly more for a television or something.
But buy one once every one, two years rather than one year.
You know what I mean?
And so we're at a point where public sector debt is 95% of GDP.
And in my view, I think a lot of these politicians who get into positions like Chancellor, for example, Rachel Reeves, being like the prime example, she's probably, she goes into that office, she goes into number 11, and a load of advisors come up to her and say, right, and you are basically just the figurehead to sell this to the public, right?
And so it's, you know, in a way, I mean, I don't feel bad for Rachel Reeves because I think that she is a, you know, a malignant, arrogant individual.
But at the same time, you know, she is like, she's just the person who happens to be in that position whilst everything is collapsing.
Dan gave a speech on this conference, which caused me to say, look, do you want to come and have a job with us?
Because he was look, look, all of the positions are in checkmate.
It doesn't matter who you put into the position.
Exactly as you're saying.
Gophers.
Yeah, they literally can't change it.
And so nothing changes.
Yes, yes.
And so again, household debt, 80% of GDP.
Everyone's in debt.
Nobody can afford anything.
So obviously this system isn't working.
So spending literally half of what's earned.
Yes.
It's a mass.
Yeah, it is.
And by 20, I think it's 2029, net tax revenue is going to be 38% of GDP.
So we're looking at a situation where, as you say, literally half of what we earn is nicked by the government to be spent primarily, not primarily, but largely on financing debt and paying for the foreigners that they've brought here to maintain this system.
And so on that point, and this is the point that I really want to make here, is how, you know, a kind of holistic view of the problem, how these things all link together.
Because in my view, it is, you know, the decline in marriage and fertility rates is, you know, you're quite inseparable from this problem, right?
And so what we've got, sorry, if I, is that not working?
Which one are we looking for?
I wanted to look at the marriage and if we, yeah, next one.
Here we go.
So you look at marriage rates, right, in this country.
And this is from 1887 to 2020.
You look at that drop at the end.
And the consistent drop, you'll notice where the drop begins in the mid-90s.
It's the late 60s.
Right.
And this, in my view, is because of the sexual revolution and a moral paradigm that views things like marriage not as being sources of meaning and belonging for people and which carry a huge amount of spiritual content and have always been the places where people derive their sense of home from, but actually as oppressive prisons that exist to keep you down.
And this is basically the feminist view of marriage.
And so out of that arises abortion, divorce, and contraception.
And what this leads to is a fertility rate that is, here we go, that is going off a cliff edge.
And once again, it's the mid-60s that you start to see the massive decline.
Yeah, yeah, no, you are right.
This is all the post-war settlement.
It's like, right, you're going to have the NHS, cradle to grave, NHS, and then the pension system.
But what you're looking at here is a raw number of marriages.
So remember, the boomers had on average about two kids.
The boomers themselves were a massive generation because their parents didn't have contraception and they didn't know that they were going to get a welfare state, a pension system.
And so they had like five or six kids each, right?
On both sides of my family, both of my parents come from six sibling families.
Massive families, completely normal.
And then, so if the boomers have two kids, come the sort of late 90s, well, you've got a much smaller demographic cohort that then is like, okay, are we going to get married and have kids?
Well, yes.
So that's why you're going to have to.
And then you add into that this problem, which is abortion.
Which, again, you know, people, when I talk about this, people get really weird because it's an uncomfortable issue and everyone says, well, it's a settled issue in the UK.
We don't talk about that kind of thing.
But again, it is inseparable from this problem because since the legalization of abortion in 1967 with the Abortion Act, there have been in this country about 11 million abortions.
And in that same period, by the way, last year it was 250,000.
I was in Poland recently.
There, they have very restrictive abortion laws.
And there were, off the top of my head, 275 full-stop abortions in Poland in 2023.
Here, 250,000, right?
So that's the scale that we're dealing with.
And in that same period, 67 to the present, the population of the United Kingdom has nevertheless grown by 14 million.
Would you like to guess how much of that 14 million is as a result of immigration?
Oh, almost all of it.
Something like 96%.
12% or something.
So 11 million abortions, 14 million population increase.
About 10 million is due to immigration.
So we have this very direct relationship between immigration and the number of babies who were aborted because the vacuum that those abortions leave, again, from the perspective of the government, has to be fulfilled by somebody because otherwise the whole system is going to collapse.
And the whole thing was predicated on essentially being a pyramid scheme anyway.
It's like, okay, well, if when it's set up, the average person's having like five kids or something, the average couple's having five kids.
Okay, well, then we could have a retirement program that means that it continually grows.
Yes.
But of course, this is the sort of Malthusian trap.
No, things don't just continue on the current trend forever.
Yes.
Things change.
And so now, like you say, the economic system of the country is like, okay, well, we're just going to have to bring in these people, whether you like it or not.
And this is why Boris has just opened the floodgates so the Financial Times likes me.
Why does the Financial Times want that?
Because it's the system itself that they're concerned about.
Exactly right.
And this is the point.
I went on GB News recently and I said on there that actually, if the market demands immigration, if the economic system demands mass immigration and the consequent demographic upheaval and replacement, ultimately, of the indigenous population of this country, I say let the market and the economy die.
But that's not going to happen.
And by the way, I recognize what a huge statement that is because what I'm saying there is allow people to essentially fall into poverty and allow everything to collapse.
But honestly, as I said, our people have survived worse in the past.
What they won't survive is demographic replacement on a mass scale.
Notice the kind of implied helplessness when people hear that.
It's like, what, if the government doesn't do it, all of these people are just going to die?
Are they?
No, no.
I'm going to start a charity.
I'm going to help the people around me and you're going to help the people around you.
And that guy's going to help the people around him.
We will be fine.
It's just we won't be wards of the state.
And this is what is so kind of, in my view, narcissistic about the system that we have right now.
It's, you know, people aren't having enough babies, so we have to kind of artificially prop up the system so that, you know, it kind of just continues chugging along, creaking and kind of breaking in different places.
And if that means that the future of this country is completely, is complete chaos and destruction, well, so be it, because we're going to keep the system, the sacred system, going for an arbitrarily longer amount of time.
Just as long as we can.
Carrying the vase as far as we can.
Yeah.
And so obviously, everybody knows this graph, but you can look at that and see, again, this slow uptick from the kind of middle of the previous century to the present.
Again, 1967, that's the key year.
So that's abortion and contraception in the same year.
From there, it's a slow uptick to the point where we have net a million in 23.
You're exactly right.
And you can see that they started getting panicky in the 2000s, 2010s as well.
You can see the start of the game panicky, being like, right, okay, the system is not going to sustain itself if we don't do this.
And again, everybody...
But instead of being like, okay, maybe the system needs to change.
Well, no, there's too many entrenched interests.
Yes.
So just the country has to be replaced.
Yes.
Yes.
In the name of the sacred system.
And of course, this document as well is very famous, this replacement migration document by the UN.
Everybody reads the title of it and they think, oh my gosh, it's a conspiracy and they're trying to replace us.
And if you actually look at this document, really what they lay out.
They're going to say this is going to be terrible.
It's just the reality of the situation.
They say we have these economic systems that rely on constant growth.
People aren't having enough kids.
So we're going to have to bring in millions of people from all over the world.
And towards the end, they're just like, yeah, this is going to cause huge social issues.
Yes.
Obviously, it has.
Yeah.
And they actually, essentially, the tone of it is advising against doing this.
The tone of it is like, oh, this would be a real problem if we do this.
Exactly.
And so to conclude, in my view, any, again, we have to have a holistic view of these things.
And I don't feel that a lot of the right has that at this stage.
I think that we're looking at these things in isolation.
We're looking at the demographics and we're thinking, well, if we just reverse that, then everything will be fine.
But it's actually, no, we have to look at the conditions that gave rise to it.
And we have to grapple with the fact that really a lot of it is the social liberalism that is the problem here.
The thing is, you've got to boil it down to a memetic takeaway, right?
And the memetic takeaway, I think, is you can choose.
You either have pensions or abortions.
Yes.
That's your choice.
That's exactly right.
Pensions or abortions.
You choose, ladies and gents.
Indeed, indeed.
Yes.
So, yeah, as I say, in my view, remigration, if that is going to be on the plate, a sort of thing that could potentially happen in the future, has to be coupled with a re-embracing of traditional Christian values as it pertains to family, marriage, the building of the household, and so on.
By which I mean outlaw abortion, outlaw contraception, and engage in remigration.
And also a kind of return to sort of traditional Protestant economics.
Whether you like it or not, they had it right.
You work hard, you earn your money, and everything gets better.
Yeah, I mean, I do think as a Catholic, I would say that Catholic economics are very good as well.
If you read Rerum Navarum, for example, that's a very interesting text on the relationship between capital and labor from a Catholic perspective, which is basically that the two should be symbiotic, right?
From the perspective of an Englishman, it's Protestant economics that makes the most sense.
Maybe so, maybe so.
Anyway.
We move on.
Before we move on, actually, because I realize I've been sat here just listening, so forgive me.
No, I've been really enjoying it, so I wanted to sit and listen.
To add, just briefly, I think there is a perspective of the normie perspective, right?
And I think we were talking about this last night on the phone when we were discussing about what we were going to talk about today.
And a lot of it is the average person likes to be incentivized by something, so given something in return.
Also, naturally rebellious, whether that manifests in various other aspects.
And also, people like to just get on with what they're doing in their own bubble.
And unfortunately, a lot of the times trying to cut through on these issues to the average person is extremely difficult.
So how do we do that?
And I guess I was going to pose that question, but I guess, you know, to wrap it up, I guess.
Well, this, by the way, if I can just quickly, I know we're a little bit short of time, but this is another point that I've made recently, which again is met with a huge amount of pushback.
It's basically, you know, you look around these days and a lot of people like this.
A lot of people want this.
They want the way things are.
They like the way things are.
And so anything that does, you know, sort of confer any amount of hardship or discomfort is always going to be unpopular.
But the problem with the kind of democratic system that we have is the currency, social and political, is not truth.
It's popularity.
And so if you just say and do what's popular, then you're going to win.
You're going to get power insofar as elected office is actually a position of power these days.
But actually, I think we have to start getting real about this.
We have to start getting real about the fact that, look, there's going to be hardship to come.
The question is, what kind of hardship?
Is it going to be comprehensive collapse?
Or is it going to be you can't have an abortion, you can't get contraception, and you're not going to get paid to sit on your ass all day and do nothing.
There we go.
Let's move on.
Cool.
Let me just grab my notes.
Where are you?
There you are.
Okay.
This segment is inspired by a particular Freedom of Information response that I had the other day pertaining to a particular meeting that happened in November 2024 between BlackRock, Larry Fink, and UK ministers, including Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves.
I remember them posting about this proudly on their Twitter account.
Yes, they did, yes.
And then they started saying, weirdly, in my response, there wasn't no meeting.
And we went, well, here are the photo.
The government's Twitter account has put out.
Literally.
But to understand what's going on, we were having a conversation last night about how does society actually function and how does it work?
And I think the average person doesn't quite understand how it works and what it is exactly.
You know, people say, well, we live in a communist state, you know, people on Twitter.
Or we live in a fascist state.
Or we live in this.
We live in that.
We live in a technocracy.
We're living that.
I propose that it's James Burnham's theory of the managerial state.
And that's what I believe.
And I wanted to go through a bit about in this segment about elite theory, what it means, and how it pertains to our current situation.
So there are five key core principles in what is elite theory.
And obviously, what that basically is in a nutshell is a small group that holds disproportionate power over politics, economy, and culture.
It's fair.
And then you have elite unity.
So elites share a common background, interest, and social standing, allowing them to collaborate and protect their positions.
And I think this particular segment segues quite nicely from what both of what we were talking about in both our segments.
Top-down influence is another one.
Decisions flow primarily from elites to the masses and not vice versa.
Nima Parvini is obviously a friend of the show, wrote a book, Populist Delusion, which talks about that.
And his latest book, not to completely advertise him, but applied elite theory as well, which I actually do recommend reading.
I've been reading it recently and been making notes.
And that sort of shows that it's actually practically on paper impossible almost in this current paradigm to have a bottom-up influence in that respect.
John's weird, just quickly, on the elite theory thing.
I saw a video of Mark Andreessen talking about James Burnham and Robert Michels the other day.
Really?
It's kind of interesting because he is like a top-level tech bro elite.
And he's naming, name-dropping the people that, you know, sort of people in our circles have been talking about for years.
And so it's interesting that, I don't know, by osmosis, I suppose, that he's come to those ideas.
It's interesting.
Elites actually understanding elite theory.
Just to be clear, Burnham was completely correct.
Yeah.
And liberal democracies will be reduced from political to administrative.
And we're seeing that everywhere all the time.
Sorry, Karen.
That's all right.
There's two others.
Interlocking directorates, which is elites often hold positions across different sectors.
For example, corporate, military, and media, forming powerful networks.
Said to you that George Osborne is now the MD of OpenAI.
Yes.
How about that?
Well, I mean, it's been happening.
What was it?
Greg when Claire's Facebook?
That's it.
But then you've got the interchange in the media, like with Go for the Spectator.
Who's that communist that got sage as well?
Oh, yeah.
Do you know the one you're talking about?
Yeah.
It's not got a name.
But it seems to be that's the way the mechanism works.
You get into House of Commons, it's almost like a cogwheel, and then you're put into different positions, whether it be Mark Rutter in NATO, whether it be all these strange positions.
Why is Tony Blair anything that anyone talks about?
The Gaza thing as well, where he's administration of, well, I think that's dropped now.
Yeah, everything's been dropped.
But even just being pushed into a position of rebuilding and everything like that.
And the last one is called the inevitable rule.
So elite rule is seen, unfortunately, as unavoidable in any organized society challenging demographic, sorry, democratic equality.
And I wrote an article for Courage Media back in May 2025 this year where I received a reply from the Cabinet Office pertaining to a Freedom of Information response asking for meeting notes on a particular figure, Bill Gates, another unelected person, of course, foreigner.
I love Bill Gates is so involved in vaccine.
He's like, but you were a Microsoft businessman.
It's so bizarre, isn't it?
He didn't even code.
Yeah, I know.
Anyway, sorry.
So I asked for memos, notes about a particular meeting because it was the meeting happened just before the budget of 2024.
And people online were circulating that he was involved in things like agriculture, which is correct, because he does a lot of work in Scotland particular to do with vaccinating cows and cattle and things like that.
So people made the speculation of that because after that, we saw the inheritance tax or the death tax is what a lot of farmers are calling it, which is totally correct.
And the government claimed it could not release these particular notes when I asked for them because it might, quote, prejudice policy formulation.
So that's alarm bells.
If you're seeing a meeting happen between someone who's unelected and not from this country in particular, just some guy just coming over and they're able to create off-the-shelf policies and have these meetings with UK ministers.
But if you ask, well, what is it you talked about in these meetings?
And they say, no, you can't have that because that prejudices policy formulation, you're going, okay, so they have a hand in creating UK policy.
That's not right.
But that is part of the managerial revolution that happened.
And that book was written in 41, I believe.
So as far back as that.
So I opened in this particular article saying, quote, we live in a managerial revolution.
James Burnham wrote in the managerial revolution in 1941 that the traditional capitalist ruling class would eventually be replaced not by workers as Karl Marx suggested, but by a new elite made up of managers, technocrats and bureaucrats.
You could call them just administrators.
Yeah.
It's like the HR revolution, essentially.
These are the people who control the apparatus of institutions, corporations, and governments and would become the new ruling class, exercising power not through ownership, but through access, administration, and knowledge.
Fast forward to today, and Burnham's theory arguably plays out in the seamless interplay between high finance, international philanthropy, and government.
Figures such as, and I put here Carney, so Mark Carney, who was the BANK OF England and now is Prime Minister of Canada, Larry Fink of BlackRock and, of course, Bill Gates of the BILL AND Melinda Gates Foundation and, I would argue as well Larry Ellison of Oracle, are not elected officials yet they well Carney is now unfortunately, but yet they have been.
The same way, Rishi Sunak was elected exactly yet they have access to and influence over, core government decisions, decision making in Britain, particularly the economy, central infrastructure and net zero.
So I went on obviously, to talk about that in the managerial revolution.
I do recommend everyone everyone who wants to get into elite theory or just to understand how our politics kind of works really is, to read that book.
The managerial is very dry, it's very dry, it is very, very dry.
Exactly, he's right, but it's not exciting.
Yeah, I actually wrote my university dissertation about.
It was about the managerial revolution and Leviathan and its enemies, which is the kind of follow-up by Samuel T. Francis, and I made the case that actually conservatives you know, small C, traditionally minded individuals should absolutely be against managerial capitalism right, because it undermines everything that they hold dear and this is kind of, in a way this.
This does link to what I was saying in my segment, in that it just dissolves everything in the name of growth.
And this is the point is, you know, the managerial and this is Burnham talks about this where the capitalist pursues profit, the manager pursues growth, because growth means that their own you know that the requirement for managers is increased and their own power is is kind of expanded.
Another thing that managers pursue is stability.
Yes, stability is not necessarily a good thing.
I'm very much on the Austrian school of economics with this.
Like no things are dying, then they should fail.
Yes, that will clear the forest for new growth.
That provides opportunity.
That's what actually improvement is.
Yes, and this is the point, you know, who does this system serve?
Well, it's not.
It's not ordinary people, that's for sure.
It is these people you're talking about, Lewis.
It's these, these managers in government and managers in business, who exercise, as you say, a huge amount of influence over our lives, our lives as individuals, and yet we have absolutely no relationship with them.
They manage our pensions, they own our property, they own, they own the, as you say, a lot of the agriculture, farming land and so on, and their goal doesn't seem to be the well-being of Britain.
It's the stability and continuation of the system, exactly.
And Burnham had his flaws you know he's a neoconservative.
So next Trotskyite he, he.
He understood them very, very well very, very well, exactly.
He explains in that book like I said, I do recommend reading it, it is a bit dry, like you said the divorce of power and ownership, arguing that managers, not shareholders, were becoming the true controllers in large organizations such as corporations, state agencies and making sorry state agencies, making a new social order.
He saw the Soviet Union as the most advanced example of this managerial society, where bureaucracy and state control superseded capitalist ownership and this new elite comprised of administrators and technical experts would pursue its own interests, creating a managerial system that could appear in both capitalist and socialist states.
And that's why we see globalism as as a massive sort of vacuum, with that and what it technically is called.
Now and this is the question is, uh, is this inevitable?
Like is it?
Is it kind of like a, you know, a dialectical thing where this is always inevitably going to be the case if you get to a certain level of sophistication as a society?
And I can't see how it wouldn't be inevitable.
And so, in a way, I think the question is, how do we make our peace with managerialism and how do we have a managerial system that benefits ordinary people?
Is it even possible for that to be the case?
Carl, your thinking there?
Yeah, I'm not.
I mean, it is A necessary aspect of a developed economy to have a certain level of managerialism.
But the the issue is that the economy has become so structured towards this form of administration.
I mean like this is what the quangocracy is.
Yes.
It's to create the managerial infrastructure outside of the political bounds of Westminster.
So actually this hems in the politicians that we elect and so essentially it creates this unaccountable power structure that can't be touched.
Or it could be touched, but no one's brave enough to touch it.
Well to be fair, Rupert Lowe on the Public Accounts Committee is actually talking directly to the permanent secretaries of the civil service who are actually the managers in government.
Yes.
Who actually run these things day to day?
The ministers are basically just figureheads.
Exactly.
And that's the exact problem.
So politics has been reduced to administration again in this country.
But the great benefit of this is that actually it's really easy to overthrow.
These people are not personally brave.
They're not actually going to fight for anything.
They assume that this will never have to be the case because everything is done within this layer of rational discourse.
And so if you had someone with a bit of backbone who said, no, we're just going to abolish you and there's nothing you can do about it.
Sit down and let us abolish you to quote.
The British Parliament literally could just abolish every Kwango overnight.
There's nothing constitutional about them.
And that would be the end of them.
And the chips would fall where they may.
There will be chaos.
But if you're prepared to brave the chaos and actually take some sort of initiative about these things, there's nothing actually immediately inevitable about a managerial revolution.
It's just it's convenient.
Like, oh, we just want the path of least resistance.
It's stability.
But actually, what if you don't want stability?
What if stability itself has become oppressive?
Which I think we're finding ourselves in that position.
This is the point, though, again, like our democracy selects for people who don't want to mean that they lose their job.
And that, of course, is demographically linked.
So the straight white men, once again, who actually do well out of chaos are like, well, we don't get anywhere in the system.
So no, you don't.
So the question is as well, how do you get the public on side with such a thing?
Because it's so because we could see hardship and chaos.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
How do you get sounds like fun though, right?
Go and make your fortune.
I need 500 brave men.
So how does a government that has a managerial state get the public on side with such a thing?
And I think a lot of people just don't actually know about this particular theory.
As much as if you're in the know of politics, you might have heard of elite theory and you might have looked into it briefly or touched the surface of it and you might think, oh, it might be too conspiratorial, whatever, which is silly.
Of course, that's just ridiculous.
But one of the tools, and it's a very famous tool, that the government will use to try and get the public on side with what they want and their demands, is this one.
And that is the behavioural insights team or the nudge unit.
The nudge unit is very, very famous.
Don't look back in Angola.
No, of course not.
No, no.
So for those who don't know about the behavioural insights team or nudge units as they're called, they're a particular organization that was and I'd say still is.
They say they're not, but I would say that they still are.
Very embedded with government departments.
Apparently they've gone private.
Yeah, they've gone private.
But the reason is so they can outsource it to a foreign government.
Exactly.
So they're still going to be deeply embedded within our own government.
I love that.
That slogan.
We use deep understanding of human behavior to improve people's lives.
Yeah, yeah.
It's so dystopian.
Yeah, exactly.
The call to chaos and hardship sounds even more tempting.
Yeah, exactly.
I realize that what I just described is basically Cortez's appeal.
It's like, look, I'm offering you chaos, hardship, but we're going to go and overthrow an empire.
So, you know, and that's literally like we're the modern Cortez's guys.
You know, get used to it.
This particular bit are basically used with psychologists to try and wean the public onto particular ideas that either might be quite difficult for people to do.
Originally, digital idea is a big one.
It used to be trying to get people to pay taxes a bit earlier.
So that's they utilized it for that.
But then the famous one, or the infamous one, was during COVID.
So they were the catalyst for lockdown messaging, vaccine messaging, stay-at-home, you know, professional psyopers.
Professional psyopers.
Is what it is.
And one of their techniques is called EAST, which stands for Easy, Attractive, Social, Timely.
East in Least Resistance.
Yeah.
Popular.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Which goes into human nature.
Well, like we're like I was just touching on at the end there.
The average person likes convenience.
The average person just wants to be kind of left alone.
And if they're given a device or given some devices, if it's easy to use, if it's convenient for them, they'll buy, they'll take it.
And they don't really care.
A lot of the it's a it's quite a generational thing now, but with fast-speed internet and with the access to information so easily now, this is becoming more difficult over time.
And post-2020, I would argue, it's become so widespread and easy.
You can now spot a psyop from a mile off.
But not to go schizo, because obviously I was speaking to Josh Firm actually last night on the phone and we were talking about, I was telling him about the behavioural insights unit and I was going to use it for this particular segment.
And he said, well, because obviously him doing about psychology has done a lot of research into this.
And he was saying, he was saying, well, you have to be careful because, you know, the schizo meme of people pointing to lots of things and trying to create dots and then fusing coherent pattern into absolutely everything is a form of like schizophrenia.
So you've got to be careful.
But this is real.
This is very real.
And it's a tool that the elites, I guess we're going to call them that, or the establishment, will use to try and wean people onto ideas that would initially seem very difficult as well.
And of course, I'll go through the behavior insights team and how during COVID these units helped design fear-based and norm-based messaging, playing a central role in lockdown compliance.
And it proved that units like these can shape behavior en masse without laws.
And so if you have a tool like that that the elites can use or these managerial, the managerial class or ruling class, whatever you want to call them, can use to circumvent law, you bet that they're going to use it in absolutely everything.
Exactly.
Especially within media.
Earlier this year, I obtained an internal government document that revealed a coordinated effort by the UK governments to influence the content of television programming.
I did a segment on this with the Lotus Eaters as well earlier this year when this came out, where it showed documents where it showed the collaboration between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and broadcasters.
So the head of broadcasters for ITV, Channel 4, the BBC, where they discussed using actual shows like Emmerdale, EastEnders, the lot to embed their messaging within soap operas.
Think of that one of the right-wing radical who's going around propaganda and beating up immigrant kids.
That's it.
You can see that is clearly part of the nudge behaviour.
Exactly.
In action.
And it shows how we talk about the blurred lines between state, media, and different departments.
And you can see that blurred lines happening.
But also, you can actually find the internal documents that showcases that.
So it's not conspiratorial in a sense that it's not theorized.
It's reality.
It's the system.
It's the system.
A conspiracy is naturally clandestine.
It's naturally clandestine.
It's just you don't go looking for it.
Exactly.
People don't want to believe it either.
People don't want to believe that they are this insidious.
Yeah, exactly.
That's the incentive to be so.
Exactly.
And that's why sometimes it's hard for people to believe it.
But then when you showcase the documents, when you showcase these sorts of things to the public, they then start to actually understand, oh, actually, yes, I can see the inner mechanisms of how this all works and how neatly tight this is.
I call this next part the foreign unelected trifecta.
And that's Bill Gates, obviously, Larry Fink from BlackRock, and Larry Ellison from Oracle.
He's really that old.
He is, yeah.
Yeah, born 1944.
So these three guys, Gates, representing, I call them the trifecta because these three unelected foreign bureaucrats or technocrats operate within different or distinct spheres to influence modern governments and policy ecosystems within different governance across Europe, America, wherever.
Gates through global health initiatives, food systems and population focused programs, as we talked about earlier.
Fink through asset management, BlackRock being the most, the biggest asset management firm.
Is that 11 trillion?
That's something management.
It's absurd amounts.
Along with infrastructure investment, AI and corporate governance norms, ESG, environmental social governance, and Fink through data infrastructure, cloud systems, surveillance technologies, and behavioural compliance tools.
So Illison, sorry.
These are the, I would call, yeah, the foreign unelected trifecta.
That we seem to see these guys meeting with UK ministers, whether it be conservative, whether it be Labour, it doesn't matter.
And also, there's always this atmosphere of as if the emissary of the King of Kings of Persia has arrived in a province of the empire.
Exactly.
Like when, like, Keir Starmer sits down and he's like, brilliant, we've got, what is it, Larry Fink, the boss is here.
Yeah, exactly.
Oh, good.
The viceroy has arrived to tell us what the emperor thinks.
And he's like, yes, we're doing so great for your province.
We're making business.
And it feels imperial.
Yes.
Exactly.
It's a big system.
Yeah.
And you ain't in it.
Yeah, it's a big club.
And when I opened this segment, I said, you know, this was inspired by a particular response.
And here was the response that I got the other day.
This took me a year, a whole year, to try and obtain this particular document.
And we'll go through it in a bit.
But it says, obviously, I've been patiently pursuing this disclosure.
And just over one year after the meeting, the Cabinet Office has finally disclosed partial information about the agenda discussed between UK Ministers Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and the BlackRock board at a meeting held in November 2024.
The disclosed document confirms that, obviously, a meeting did happen.
BlackRock described itself during the meeting as the largest investor in the UK.
The discussion covered UK economic policy and investment priorities, including growth and long-term stability, planning reform and regulatory alignment, infrastructure investment, AI, productivity, and innovation.
Additional agenda areas included energy and renewables, pensions and capital mobilization.
Yeah, there they are again, indeed.
The Prime Minister stated that the UK was back in business and open to global investment.
This is the other thing, by the way, is, you know, obviously in my segment, I spoke about the economic system we have in this country.
But it's an international system that the UK is ensconced within.
It's integral.
I mean, any attempt to extract ourselves from that is not going to happen because these people aren't going to let it happen.
Exactly.
When you look at the document, I mean, I don't know if we can zoom in for that.
I don't think I can do that from here.
But it's interesting some of the language being used as well.
I mean, this is the official document I just highlighted a few bits to, you know, coincide with what it was I was talking about.
And if we just scroll down to the bottom, around there.
So there's some stuff that has been blurred out, and I don't know what that is.
I think it's particular ministers or it's particular representatives, but a lot of it is still partial.
So I'm still trying to pursue this.
But it says the third element was resetting the narrative internationally that Britain was back in business.
The world was more volatile, which had repercussions for business and government alike.
However, there are opportunities, areas where the PM wanted the UK to win the race.
The PM mentioned his recent engagements at the G20 with President Xi, which set a serious pragmatic tone.
And with Prime Minister Modi, that's India, I believe, where there was a shared ambition to seize trade opportunities.
The PM asked for the group's reflection on how the UK best positioned itself.
A lot of it is quite boring, if I'm totally honest.
You can see why they're bothered about Russia so much.
Exactly.
Because Russia isn't playing this game.
Russia's playing the old game of hard power.
And, you know, China, India, Britain, America, they'll all sit down and go, right, okay, well, let's draw up a contract.
Let's draw up arrangements.
And Putin's like, no, I'm sending in troops.
Now what?
Exactly.
And there's more here that says, you can go and find this obviously on my Twitter as well.
The UK would need to accelerate access to top talent to match investment.
We're talking about construction and labor.
Immigration then.
Immigration, essentially.
The PM reiterated his ambition to reduce energy prices.
He also mentioned reforms to produce energy near a demand, which could be especially relevant to, for example, data center infrastructure.
This is the problem with net zero.
Britain's not going to be a hub for AI development, all the while energy is the most expensive in Europe.
Exactly.
So what this shows, in my viewpoint, which I think is not really a viewpoint anymore, to be honest, it shows the inner workings of the managerial class system, how it operates, and the fact that unelected foreign bureaucrats can literally just swan in, fly in on their private jets from wherever, and just create off-the-shelf policies to say, hey, I've got a load of money.
We can do some investment.
We can do a deal.
Government now works as managers as opposed to actual people representing constituencies and the people of Britain, quite frankly.
Proletariat.
The proletariat, if you will, you could use that, yeah.
Swan in and just say, we're taking over now.
This is the way that we're going to govern things.
And the ministers sit back and say, yeah, okay, that sounds great.
It's not even that we're taking over.
It's we'll give you the opportunity to allow us to take over.
And Kirstan was like, brilliant.
Thank God.
I'll bite your hand off for that one.
Yeah, exactly.
Think of all the dinner parties you'll get invited to and all the money you'll make.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But not just that, just to be like, again, the security of the permanence of a global integrated administrative system that Larry Fink or whoever else is going to come along and say, don't worry, we've got this covered.
You just do what we tell you.
Exactly.
They're like, brilliant.
Thank God I don't have to govern.
Anyway, we'll have to skip the video.
Do we have video comments today?
No.
All right, okay.
Right, so talking about the first segment, Kevin says, I don't get why they call it diversity, equality, and inclusion.
Well, they don't call it diversity, equality, inclusion.
They call it equity.
And equity really means fairness.
But I think you can go to the Frank Herbert quote, which is, you know, when I am weaker than you, I ask for your freedom because it's according to your principles.
But when I'm stronger than you, I take them away because it's according to my principles.
The only reason they care about equality or any of the other nice words that they use is because they think you care about them.
You're never going to be able to appeal on grounds of equity as a straight white man to them.
They're never going to listen because they don't believe in it.
So that's the reason.
Russian says, multiple generations of men who failed to launch after university couldn't get a career, impressive women, get married and have kids because they were systematically locked out of the market.
Heads must roll.
Basically, yeah, I mean, this is.
If you've got an administrative system that despises instability and kinetic action, chaos, the last thing you want to do is disenfranchise millions of people who thrive in such an environment.
You want to make it so they're totally dependent on you rather than locked outside.
So that demographic that built all of the world's most aggressive and successful empires.
Yeah.
We don't need those guys.
Jimbo says it would be one thing, albeit still wrong, if they were trying to organize society so that all of our institutions reflected the actual demographics of the country.
However, diversity officers see minorities as Pokemon to be collected.
Every boardroom will need asexual representation.
More than that as well.
It was malicious.
It was malevolent.
It was, we hate white men and therefore we're going to hurt them.
And it's like, okay, well, I'm sure there'll be no visible consequences of doing that.
Brian says, if it wasn't for huge housing, food costs made worse by free movement of foreign low-wage slaves, I suggest that all white workers strike for a week.
Yeah, that's not going to happen, unfortunately.
Grant says, I did the exact same thing with tenure-track academic positions.
There is no choice but to be Petersonian about it.
The only thing you can do is the best you can, but don't ignore the systemic issues.
Well, totally true.
I mean, obviously, you work on yourself and do what you can as you can, but you've got to remember that the system is genuinely stacked against you.
Hector says, everything is becoming more expensive and out of reach, but you know what isn't?
A low-seat subscription for just £5 a month.
You get access to more premium content that you can put in a Christmasy.
That is true.
How much are they paying you?
Yeah, well, he's paying us, actually.
But thank you.
And if you do want to support us, of course, come over and subscribe.
Sophie says, I don't think we need such a big, I don't even think we need such a big workforce.
Over half of jobs seem to be absolutely useless, producing nothing.
They're essentially daycare for unserious people, mostly women.
If you got rid of those jobs and pay the remaining jobs, actually produce a higher wage.
Well, I mean, the thing is about all of those women should be at home raising children.
Well, this was something I was planning on mentioning this in my segment, but I didn't in the end.
It's the fact that the, you know, if you want to go full Marxist about it, first the capitalists came for the women and sold them, you know, the narrative of liberation and feminism.
And what they were actually doing was just expanding, doubling the size of the working pool, thereby suppressing wages and increasing the number of kind of serfs on the corporate plantation.
And then when the women started to run out, and that, to your point, is also, I think, part of the reason for abortion, birth control, et cetera, because it makes them loyal workers for a longer period.
Women who have children don't join the workforce.
And then when they do eventually leave, they are too old to have children, which is a very sad thing.
And so first the capitalists came for the women and then the capitalists came.
When that dried up, the capitalists started coming and poaching people from other countries to, you know, to work on their...
But also what this is, is a dark fusion of the capitalists and the Marxists as well.
Because all the Marxists were like, right, okay, we need to destroy the family.
We need to destroy the dignity of men as the head of the household.
We need to make sure that women aren't having children because we view it ideologically as liberation.
This is the great irony.
It's like, what are you doing for women there?
You're saying, okay, well, you have one place to go now, and that's into the workforce, to be a capitalist serf.
Yeah.
And this is the great irony is that the Marxists acted as the wet nurses for this system.
They absolutely served the industry.
Which is why they all support it.
I mean, Zach Polanski basically is telling the government, do more of what you're doing.
He's the true face of neoliberalism.
That's who Zach Polanski is.
Exactly.
Exactly.
He's pushing it at an open door, just demanding that Kirstama actually do the full scope of the ideology.
And Kirstalma's like, yeah, but if I do that, I'll ruin it.
I saw it.
He overtook Corbyn in terms of favorability yesterday, which is very sad.
Because it's like, you know, who is Polanski really?
Polanski is, you know, he's like a pro-war in Ukraine, pro-NATO, pro-woke, basically pro-neoliberalism, but like maximalist neoliberalism.
He's a maximalist.
Anyway, Alistair says, honestly, sick and tired of talking about pensioners and single mums.
The pensioners lived through the best economic time in human history.
If they'd saved, invested any money in anything, they'd be millionaires.
Yeah, but the thing is they are.
What they should be doing is selling their houses, taking the million pounds that they've banked from sitting in the same house for 30 years and enjoying the rest of their lives with that money.
We shouldn't be paying people who are sat on huge assets anything, frankly.
I've come to be quite radical against the pension system now.
I mean, there are lots of pensioners who aren't millionaires, so okay, fair enough.
But like, just the idea, if you think about it, it's demented.
It's like we're going to divorce people from the natural continuum of the great chain of being by suggesting that actually they don't have to worry about having children and they don't have to like cash in their assets to be able to live comfortably in their later years.
They will just get paid parasitic, vampirically, from the labor of the youth until they die.
It's like, wow.
And this is the point is, you know, the moral paradigm that was born with the boomers, and I'm not saying hashtag not all boomers, but it is a moral paradigm.
It's like it's a quasi-religion of the self.
Like the self is their moral center of gravity.
Liberation from the great chain of being.
That was all of them.
And that's what I'm getting at when I say they view marriage, they view the household, the nation itself even, as oppressive and chains to be broken out of.
And at worst, sorry, at best, they view them as optional, right?
Yes.
No, these should just be optional.
No.
Live your life first and then get it.
It's not optional that you get married, have children, and work hard and invest in yourself and your family rather than investing in the state.
That shouldn't be optional, actually.
And you're creating a really deformed society at the end of it.
But unfortunately, we're over time there, so we've got to stop.
So, chaps, where can people find more of you?
Well, Restore Britain, of course.
We both work there.
£20 a year for membership if you want to be part of one of the fastest growing political organizations in this country that is exerting real pressure on the government and actually getting wins.
I mean, the rape gang inquiry is the most recent one.
We've got our hearings in February.
And we seriously suspect that the government's recent actions on that, on their own inquiry, are largely because of the pressure we're putting on them because against it.
Yeah, yeah.
They all voted against it.
Let me tell you, I mean, we're gathering evidence and putting together this report right now, which is going to be published after those hearings.
And some of the testimonies that we've got in there are, I mean, they're beyond words, basically.
So, yeah.
And myself, CF Downs online.
Yeah, so obviously Restore Britain, of course, like you said, both work there.
We set up the investigations and whistleblowing unit earlier in the year, and it's been a great success.
Lots of people coming forward with concerns from all over within government and outside of government.
We've been pursuing so much.
It's been very, very eye-opening.
So please, if you are, if you want to blow the whistle, I mean, it's up to you.
It's down to your discretion and what you decide to do.
But the door is always open at Restore, so you can find our whistleblowers pack on our website.
And of course, if you want to reach out to me on X as well, you can find me Lewis Brackpool or Lewis underscore Brackpool on X. Great.