Latest / Quantum Bombs / Greatest Speech: Why Feminism Destroyed the West 👩‍🎤

Transcript

Greatest Speech: Why Feminism Destroyed the West 👩‍🎤 · Quantum Bombs

• Feminism doesn't know what to do with Islam and the way they treat women. The feminists would look at this photo and say it's her culture and it's her choice, but it's not her choice when it's backed by violence. The majority of people that are complaining and pointing the finger about racism today is really that I'm not that good a person and I kind of want to feel like a good person. So picking up the B card, the bigot card or the racist card, is the easiest way for me to project that I'm a good person by saying others are bad and I'm more virtuous so and I'm willing to suffer more by allowing my suicidal empathy to allow dangerous men to move in next to me because I need to feel good about myself. I'm hollowed and empty. It's that feminization in the case of many important institutions is a bad thing. In a few cases it is so bad as to be you know to threaten the end of civilization. And ladies if you aren't liking the video so far hit me up with your emotions in the comments. Quantum Bombs Welcome to Quantum Bombs, a commentary show on the human condition through metaphysics and freedom. Never thought I'd say this guys, but thanks to the Lindsay Clancy trial, I now have the perfect context to digest this video that I will play for you here shortly. Today's episode is all about women. We're doing three things. We're going to watch this video. Then we're going to do a quick Instagram post and one short clip at the end. Join our friends across the pond in the UK on those last two of three. It's all about us women. Feminism, cultural relativism and how the snake eats its tail. And I will prove my case. It should be so crystal clear by the end of this video. But it's the mental gymnastics of living in 2026, right? And how feminism may be completely behind all wokeism. And you're like, oh yeah, I could maybe follow you Beth. Where are you going with this? This lady is brilliant. It feels a bit academic, hang in there. It's definitely got some bones to the message. I heard it this morning and here I am recording this now for you today. Because that's how much I was like, wow. But had it not been without the pink team from the Lindsey Clancy trial to really show me where we are today as women, it wouldn't have landed. So let's see if it lands for you. We're going to go to Helen Andrews. The libertarian economist Tyler Cowan once wrote a blog post describing all of the revolutions he's seen in the course of his lifetime. Starting with the moon landing when he was a little boy and going up chronologically to today's advent of AI. And there were only seven revolutions on this list because this was only the greatest and most earth-shaking ones. And right there between the fall of communism and the invention of the internet was something called the great feminization. That is not a phrase that a lot of Americans know, but future historians may well rank it as having greater importance than almost any other revolution on that list. The great feminization is very easy to define. It refers to the increasing representation of women in all of the institutions of our society. But as simple as it is to define, it's very difficult for those of us on the other side of that revolution to fully grasp its significance. The first thing that most people fail to understand about it is how unprecedented it is in human history. There have been many societies that have been feminist to one degree or another in which women have been queens and owned businesses and held positions of authority that commanded the respect of men. But there has never been a society in which women hold as much political power as they do today. Think of all of the parliaments that have ever existed, every legislature in every country in every century. None of them has been as ours is one third female. The idea of a female chief of police would have seemed very strange even to many early feminists. And yet today the police department is led by a woman in the largest city in America and in the city in which we are now standing. Law schools today are majority female. Law firm associates are majority female. Medical schools are majority female. Women earn a majority of BAs and PhDs. College faculty are majority female. Women are 46% of the managers in the United States and the white collar workforce overall. Workers with college degrees, a majority of them are women. These are in many cases very recent developments with the tipping point having occurred only in the last five to 10 years. And that is the other common misconception about the great feminization. People tend to think of feminism as something that occurred back in the 1970s. But it took several decades to go from token representation to approximate gender parity. The first woman on the Supreme Court was appointed in 1981 and in that year women were 5% of the judges in America. Today there are of course four women on the court, one justice away from a female majority. And women are 30% of the judges in America, 40% of the judges in the state of California, and 63% of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden. So from the first woman on the court to a likely female majority on the Supreme Court is probably going to be a span of about 50 years. And the exact same trajectory over the same timeline can be seen in many other professions. There was a pioneering generation in the 1970s where a woman was often the only female reporter in her newsroom or the only female professor in her department. And then increasing female representation through the 80s and 90s until a healthy female representation of about 20 to 30% by the turn of the century. And today 25 years later in many of these fields they are now 40% female or 50-50 gender equal. And the pendulum may not be done swinging yet. As feminized as we are we may get more feminized still. Look at the example of the profession of psychology. As recently as 25 years ago psychology was a predominantly male profession up to 70% male. Today the youngest cohort of psychologists just joining the profession 20% male. Men have evacuated the profession of psychology. And it's easy to understand why. It's because psychology has become feminized. As women increase their representation in the profession they reoriented the field to be more friendly to their ideas and preferences, to be about caring and empathy and non-judgmentalism. So a man who wanted to become a psychologist because he liked judging other people would naturally choose a different profession. The same thing has occurred in literary fiction. Some of you may have read in the last 12 months one of several articles in The New York Times about how men don't read novels anymore. And the explanation why, which is very obvious to me even if it's not obvious to The New York Times, is that the publishing industry is overwhelmingly female, almost 80% female. So men do still like to read novels. They just don't like to read the kinds of novels that today's publishing industry produces. Some fields are more susceptible to feminization than others. There's very little you can do to feminize the field of math or engineering. But as women join a field in greater numbers, we should expect that any field that can be feminized will be and the dynamic will play out exactly as it has in psychology. It may be that a 50-50 gender split is not a stable equilibrium. I have referred several times so far to feminization without defining what that means. I'll have a lot to say about it in just a moment. But if you want to put it in a single sentence, you could say that feminization equals wokeness. Everything you think of as wokeness is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization. Think about all the things that wokeness means, valuing empathy over rationality, safety over risk, conformity and cohesion over competition and hierarchy. All of these things are privileging the feminine over the masculine. So if you have ever wondered why wokeness appeared out of nowhere when it did, that is my hypothesis, that all of the institutions that began admitting women in the 1970s eventually got enough women that they were able to reorient them. For example, women are consistently less supportive of free speech than men in surveys asking which is more important protecting free speech or preserving an inclusive society. Approximately two-thirds of men say free speech and approximately two-thirds of women say inclusive society. In moral reasoning, the traditional way of phrasing the difference between men and women is to say that women have an ethics of caring and men have an ethics of justice. In making a moral judgment, men will ask what are the rules and what are the facts. Women tend to be more interested in context and relationships. So let's apply that to wokeness. When James Deymore wrote his famous, or I should say notorious memo for Google, arguing that female underrepresentation in the hard sciences might not be the result of bias and prejudice, no one even attempted to argue that he was wrong on the facts. The reason that he was fired was because the things he had written might make his female co-workers feel bad. Or consider the Kavanaugh hearings. The masculine position was to say that maybe something bad happened to you, but if you do not have evidence, then we can't allow you to ruin a man's life and career over it. The feminine position was to say, how can you talk about rules of evidence? Can't you see she's crying? Now to be clear, many women were revolted by the way the Kavanaugh hearings played out. In fact, the very best book on the Kavanaugh hearings was written by two women, Molly Hemingway and Kerry Severino. But a political system in which men predominate will tend to operate according to rules of facts and objectivity, and one in which women predominate will tend to operate by the rules of emotions and subjective facts, even if there are individual men and women who fall on the opposite side of those camps. There's a lot more that could be said about sex differences and wokeness, but I'll skip ahead to the controversial part of my argument. Because believe it or not, nothing I've said so far has been particularly controversial. So far, I have only made two claims. One, men and women are different. And two, as institutions become more female, they change in predictable ways according to those differences. I think even most people on the left would agree with that. Feminization is a great example of what Michael Anton calls the celebration parallax, which is a Francie term for anything where you're only allowed to notice something if you think it's a good thing. There are literally thousands of articles out there saying it's great that we have more women judges now because women are more empathetic, or it's good to have more women on corporate boards because that'll make capitalism more humane. It is only when you say women are fundamentally changing the bedrock institutions of our society and that might be bad that you start to get into trouble. But I have two actually contentious claims today, and that is the first of them, that feminization is not just an interesting new development that has had some pluses and minuses. It's that feminization, in the case of many important institutions, is a bad thing. In a few cases, it is so bad as to be, you know, to threaten the end of civilization. The rule of law, for example, is a very important thing. It's also very fragile. It requires a deep commitment to objectivity and clear rules, even when those rules yield an outcome that is not nice. I do not want judges who are more interested in context and relationships than in what the law says. Academia is the one part of our society that— I want to pause there. That's the one that matters the most to me, is law and order. They did a study on men and women where they were shocking the people they were observing. They were allowed to apply a shock. And nobody, men and women, liked to apply a shock at random for no reason. Then, when the test subjects did something wrong, I think it was steal something or cheat that was cheating. The women still did not like to deal out the shock, whereas the men actually took full enjoyment from issuing justice to the person in the test after they would cheat. I found that really profound. So women, therefore, you have the Lindsey Clancy trial now. Fast forward. Nine women on a jury of 12. All nine, just like she said, took into context that Lindsey was having a bad day. Therefore, she could be deemed not innocent, but deemed mentally ill and unable to control herself. Whereas other people could probably look at it more subjective and say, no, she was more calculated and she acted nefariously, because it wasn't if she was innocent or guilty. And I think that's what makes the case quite hard for— that's why I rise arguing, because it's not if she did it or not. It's more so if she was crazy or not. But a lot of men, which one out of one of three— what two soy boys were on that panel? One of three was actually willing enough to say, no, I think she was calculated enough. Anyways, that's a perfect example of context and feelings. And ladies, if you aren't liking the video so far, hit me up with your emotions in the comments, because we women are guilty of this. I don't know, I'm a bit of a tomboy, and I tend to be into everything man stuff, man is fear stuff. But if the women are disagreeing with me, it's coming from your emotions. It's not coming from logic and reason, which men typically have more of. If you were more rational and logic and reasoning, you're going to hear this woman out, and then actually at the end say, is her proposal of the solution she's going to propose bad or not? Because I think her solution is quite just fine, quite logical. Supposed to be about finding and transmitting the truth. If it instead becomes about censoring ideas that are dangerous or threatening, then it no longer serves its purpose. In business, if the only way to advance at your company is to behave in the most HR compliant way possible, that's going to exclude and discourage the very people who are most likely to be leaders and innovators. I happen to think that the most important political issue in America today right now is immigration, and that is a perfect example of a political issue where the elite consensus is highly feminized. We have all of these laws on the books about citizenship and borders, but we're not allowed to enforce any of them if it might make somebody sad. So rule of law, pursuit of truth, borders, innovation. Without these things, I am not being hyperbolic when I say that a thoroughly feminized civilization will set itself on the road to collapse. So that is the first claim. The feminization is in many cases a bad and a threatening thing. The second claim proceeds from a question. And it's a very- I mean, I guess I'll just pause it there, unless you're like asleep under a tree or in the conservative end of life. Most of us are in agreement that it's the liberal Karens who are ushering in the fall of the West. The suicidal empathy is written all over them, and the next two stories we're getting to in the UK will be my exact proof. Very important question. Can we have demographic feminization in the literal sense without having substantive feminization of the kind that I believe is so dangerous? That is, can we have more female lawyers and judges and academics without having or while still maintaining the old standards? I'll be honest. Like, I, as a woman, am saying this, and after listening to a lot of Aspen Gold, this is my thought. Like, I don't know if it's safe to have a jury full of women again, especially after hearing you do a study like that and you learn that we're programmed differently. We're not able to administer justice. We wonder why a man can murder sweet Irene the Ukrainian on the train. Why was he let out 13 times? You see it over and over again when you see their rap sheets super long, 13 times. This is the suicidal empathy, probably a female judge, or a male judge caught up in the woke-ism, feminism thing that we've... No, I shouldn't call it feminism. But it's softened the language not to hurt anybody's feelings so much that you can't even hurt their murderer, rapist, violent, criminal, stealer, grainy killer, all those things they do. We can't even prosecute them because we're trying not to hurt your feelings. If you look at the comments in this video, one of the top comments was, yes, as a man, I've always been scared I would lose my job over something I've done. Now I fear it's over something I say. And that has sat with me, and I'm watching an AI video today. They're arguing our future safety with AI, and he accidentally said, dude, in the guy in the middle of the debate of five men, apologize and said, people. That's where we're at, right? We're no longer... Actually, I can't remember if United is able to say ladies and gentlemen anymore when they're on the plane versus folks. Okay, sorry, I digress. I'm back on it. Because in theory, of course, you can imagine such a thing. There certainly are enough women. There certainly are many women who have the talent and the inclination to meet the old standards. There are many women who are excellent judges. I know many female journalists who are just as hard-nosed and uncompromising as any of their male peers. There definitely are such women, but I am not sure that there are enough of them. That was exactly what I was wondering. I'm literally getting dressed this morning, listening to her, and I'm like, is there women out there like me? Like, I hate to say, I'm like the bro girl. I don't know. I mean, all of my half, most of my audience is men. I'm into men stuff. I don't know. It just happens this way. I'd like to think there's girls out there that have my personality type, or point of view, et cetera. But obviously this lady is similar to myself. So yes, there are enough women. Same thing applies to should women be policemen. If you watch enough Asmongold videos and things, you're going to see a lot of great points being made that maybe they shouldn't be. But then my small town I could think of, the police and sheriff around here, the women are fabulous. They're a certain kind of women, but they're a tough badass bee. So it's such an interesting thing. And thanks to the Lindsey Clancy Trial, myself as someone that's conservative, I guess you'd call it. I don't really like giving myself a name. I'm a libertarian at best, is the way to put it. But these are the kind of conversations that post Lindsey Clancy Trial, I feel totally safe having now. We have completely Karenized and ruined the West. The suicidal, I don't know, it's like the suicidal empathy from the Karens mixed in with the globalist agenda to take us down intentionally. And I think those two are like just like doing a swing dance. They're just like swirling around together in happiness, like the global agenda who's trying to have the fall of the West or somewhat type of control over it while they run it. Though I don't know why they want to control a pile of poop because that's the whole the end game here. Okay, let's keep going. Because the question is not, can some women be excellent professors? The question is, is it possible to have an academia that is majority female and is still as committed to and still respects the unhindered pursuit of unpopular truths as much as the old predominantly male academia did? I believe the answer is no. I believe demographic feminization does inevitably leave to substantive feminization. It is a difficult thing to confront, but I genuinely believe it to be true. So what does that imply? What should we do about it? I hasten to make clear that I do not propose to ban women from any field or even to discourage them from pursuing their goals as far as their talents and ambitions will take them. I don't think we have to do anything as crazy as that. The only thing that I propose, and I think all that is necessary to solve the problem, is to take our thumb off the scale. Because right now in ways that many people don't quite appreciate, there is a thumb on the scale in favor of women. The most important example, of course, is anti-discrimination law. It is illegal to have too few women employed at your company. If women are statistically underrepresented in your institution, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen. So companies and institutions give jobs to women that they would not otherwise have gotten, give women promotions that they would not have otherwise gotten, and in a pinch they create jobs that did not need to exist, involving PowerPoint slides, just to get their numbers up. This is why HR departments exist and why they promote gender diversity so assiduously, not because they're ideologues, although they are obviously, but because they are protecting their company from lawsuits. Anti-discrimination law also mandates that the culture of every workplace be feminized, because if the atmosphere of your workplace is too brash or competitive or combative, that is also a lawsuit waiting to happen, because it is an indication that your workplace is not sufficiently welcoming to women. That is why HR departments are so zealous about policing every interaction and every communication and making sure none of it has any rough edges. So that's agenda item number one. Get rid of all the HR ladies. This is, I just got to say it right now as before we move on, it just feels like bureaucratic rot, like true rot. When you're trying to do something, think of the engineers right in the man's world, efficient, run, nobody's off crying because somebody's feelings are hurt. No, you're building something amazing to honor the shareholders, to the people that put their butt and money on the line. You're there to do a job, and meanwhile we're trying to cook the books so things look good. It's just, it's bureaucracy rot at its greatest, and it's the whole empire of the United States is a representative of this, this whole, but this is, it's just, I feel like I'm grateful, I'm not complaining, I'm grateful to be alive in 2026 when crap's interesting, it's interesting. Just fire them, and then we'll see how it shakes out. Good, fire them. Shouldn't have cut her off there as a great point she made, just fire them. On the other hand, it might not. Either way, we're not going to send a team of lawyers after you to second-guess you. It's funny, HR departments are always so careful about making sure the atmosphere at the workplace is welcoming to women. I wonder if they ever considered that maybe their soggy, conflict-averse, nicey-nice atmosphere might not be welcoming to men. Amen. The other thumb on the scale, obviously, is the two-income trap. Women pursue careers because they have to for their families to attain a middle-class standard of living. If we address that through various other policies to make it possible for families that want to have one earner to do so, I think the problem of feminization will subside on its own as individuals make different choices based on what's best for their own families. That's just my prediction. Maybe I'm wrong. Let's get rid of the two-income trap and give people the choice, and then we'll see what happens. In conclusion, feminization is a sensitive topic. I am acutely aware of the sensitivities because I am, of course, myself a woman. I very much enjoy being a writer, and I would never want to discourage another woman from pursuing the path that I have followed. On the other hand, I am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions. So if society becomes more conformist and less welcoming to ideas that are controversial or unpopular, I'm also going to have a hard time with it. The important thing to remember is that it's not about what's best for me personally. It's about what's best for the society I live in. And the society my children are going to grow up in. So my final exhortation to all of you is that we should all consider this difficult topic unselfishly, not from the perspective of what's to our individual advantage, but from the perspective of what's best for all of us. Thank you. Incredible. And as a woman, I feel compelled to share this because this is something that men can't really, I mean, think about it. Think about if men actually brought up the fact that there's so many women in these certain fields that the fields have all skewed to be completely woke. And let's just say I'm trying to be fair, right? And like neutral and not make woke a left thing. What I'm talking about is soft, mainly going back to soft on crime, but soft to logic, like soft to things making sense. I do not like meeting any type of HR quotas that obviously this is heavy into the DEI world. You've got people that still actually think it's incredible that they're being racist and hire someone based on the color of their skin versus their qualification. So it poses a very dangerous world, a heavy and bureaucracy rot that I'm talking about. Let's jump into this. This is a perfect example of feminism, right? Okay, I'm reading a Instagram post from Basic Optimism. Excellent follow if you'd like to. And it says, this looks like AI and it's not. This is two visions of women in one photo, one that spent 1400 years deciding a woman could lead its church and one that still decides whether a woman can show her face. So you have this phenomenal woman who is now Sarah Muley Lollie, the first woman ever to hold the office of Archbishop of Canterbury. Let's just stop right there. I want to show you Canterbury Cathedral. She is over, I think it's like 80 million worshipers, Cathedral. It's not just, it's like the Anglican Church. I've been here in the UK. It is one of those churches that beneath it, it's got like those cool catacombs. And luckily I was there with my friend Thomas and who's English and tour guide. So lucky me. Love you, Thomas. We went down beneath in the basement where like all kinds of holy people are buried. It's truly like you're not even a movie in a dream. Anyways, so I just wanted to throw this lady some cred. She's over a church of like 80 million worshipers. So she's the first woman to have this Archbishop of Canterbury presented an award for interfaith cooperation to Tahir Ashrafi, chairman of the Pakistan Ulema Council. Meanwhile, his wife stands there with her face almost entirely hidden in the name of religion. Oh, the irony is so sweet. I hope you're starting to see it guys. Let me just finish this. And it took the church until 1994 to ordain a woman until 2015 to make one a bishop. And in 2026 to let one lead. Okay. So 100 years of reform, so one woman could stand at the front. Then she honors a man whose wife stands behind him veiled to the veiled to the eyes. Yes. So in that picture, guys, there is in case you're listening, his, his wife has just a slit for her eyes. And it's the smallest slit you could ever imagine. So here we are on one hand, celebrating feminism, rising to the front of a church, all for her to not see the irony and honoring a man that will never allow a woman not to be oppressed. And this is where, oh, the beautiful word cultural relativism comes in. Because the left or the progressive would say, oh, no, no, no, no, that's their culture, Beth. It's not oppression. And I laugh because we're not here to make that argument because I already know it's indefensible. And that's what feminism doesn't know what to do with Islam and the way they treat women. The feminists would look at this photo and say it's her culture and it's her choice, but it's not her choice when it's backed by violence. And if you can't really see that she's suppressed and can't get out of where she was born and she knows no different. Basically, if you ask any Muslim man, and they've done this before in mosque across the UK, if they would like Sharia law, it's like nine out of 10. It's not the extremist. They all would like Sharia law, which implies then if a woman leaves Islam, you could, you could even be honored killed by your, your father or your brother. Basically, they're not friendly if you're leaving, right? They're not friendly if you were to leave your family and marry a Westerner, etc. I remember being on a plane ride going from Dubai to Nairobi, Kenya. I was the only Westerner female on this flight from that I could tell. But next to me, I have an aisle seat across the aisle is a woman my age most likely, covered in black, head to toe, but she also had the black gloves on. And over her eye slit, she also had a veil. So even over her eyes, the eyes were veiled. And I remember watching her, she had an iPhone just like I have. And to touch it, she would take off her glove to touch the screen. And then when she was done, she'd put her glove back on. And anyway, so I spent the entire flight studying and wondering what this woman's life was like, how different we are. Man, I will never forget just that plane ride and trying to just just empathize and see what that woman's world was like. Back over to Sarah, the Archbishop quickly to make my point is that this is the perfect example of the scale being tipped, but good for her, right? I hope she's doing the church some good stuff. It'd actually be a great case if we actually looked into it. But the point I want to get at is the point of this thing. The West spent generations fighting for women to be seen as individuals, the biggest threat to women. And the West is the cultural relativism of the left. A tolerant society protects a woman, woman's right to dress as she chooses. But this does not require pretending every cultural is equal or that every practice is welcome. Here's why cultural relativism doesn't work if you want to remember something to repeat to someone later. Is that all cultures are in equal? And you're like, oh, I'm too scared to say that, Beth. Well, then here's an easy one. I believe it's Somalia. They still genital mutilate 97% of the women. I'm going to choose moral realism every time. It doesn't matter where I go. I don't say, oh, I'm going to let allow cultures know. If you come to the West, you're not mutilating the women anymore, okay? You could stop cutting up our genitals. So that's what I say. I'm okay saying not all cultures are equal. There's cultures that would do awful things to women. I can't even begin. Next, we're going to exactly what I'm talking about. Because you're too busy writing your high horse, a suicidal empathy. We're going to Pittington, England. For those that are under a rock, short synopsis, the UK government is going to put 1256 asylum-syncing men into an army barrack outside of a small town of Pittington, UK. Population 350. So they would be outnumbering the women there 10 men to one. And they were made popular. Elon tweeted it out. So this has been in the news for months. And they recently, just now, this woman, this woke Karen, will be reacting to them voting. I believe it was basically like 96% of the like 290 people that voted to, they basically voted, yes, they want to leave the UK. Now, regarding, I don't know, there's no organization about them actually leaving the UK. But at least they have, they've all agreed 96% of us were leaving the UK. We don't want these asylum seekers. Now, I could easily play this out of context and make her seem a bit crazy. And I said, I'm going to be fair. I'm going to give you the whole clip. And then I'll go on my rant. Beauties in this country. I have spoken to residents here and they are genuinely worried. Yeah. And I have so much empathy for that, by the way, just to, you know. And they are, they are not far right. They are not hard right. They are residents of Pittington who don't want 1,200 male asylum seekers less than a mile away from them. Oh, I would like to reframe that and say that probably most people in Pittington would be concerned about 1,200 men from anywhere being based just. That's already made the news. Her already not letting it reframe that they're scared of the men because they're asylum seeker. She's trying to make it actually sound a little bit softer saying, no, it would just be any men. No, those were army barracks before filled with British soldiers. They're true. There would be some alarm. And I would even argue there would probably be some, I don't even know if it'd be crime, but there definitely be some catcalling with that many men nearby. But it's a massive difference of asylum seekers coming from countries that do not look at women the same. And you have to hand a rape book to saying, please don't rape the women. Massive difference. Not going to let her softball over that one. It's on the edge of our village. There are many reasons for that concern, scale being the main one. Your views are in a minority from the small sample of people that I've spoken to. Yeah. And I have been seriously othered in order because I've... Just so you're clear because I'm realizing I'm taking this clip out of context. She's not the 96%. She's fixing to let you know how she feels. She's not the one voting to keep the men out of town. And they're saying you're the outsider. Press them. And you know, one of the things about allyship is that you shouldn't be expecting black and brown people to defend or stand up to racism. It's us that needs to do that. And I'm a mother of two mixed heritage. Most people could argue it's not racism. It's cultural that they're fighting for right now. It doesn't matter the race of the person, but the culture of the person. And the proclivities of what they're up to. But hold on. Don't want to talk over her. She says she has two mixed race children. Good boys. So I'm feeling fairly disgruntled by this. And also heartbroken to discover that I am living amongst some very bigoted xenophobic people. Okay. You sound really emotional. Yeah. Sorry. It's really upsetting. Yeah. It's always been like the most amazingly peaceful place to live. And we've never experienced the overt racism that we're witnessing. You're having sleepless nights. Okay. That is the viral clip. Maybe you'll see it or not of this woman. So in context, it isn't so bad because I could put myself there going, okay, well, yeah, all of a sudden your neighbors are being more honest. And they are all, by the way, Lib Dems that voted for this asylum seeking. But now that they're actually putting them on their doorstep, the town of Pittington's like, no, thank you. So they're getting exactly what they ordered up. But I could see why it would hurt as a woman. We get a little bit teary when we're like, well, you know, all of a sudden, like my neighbors aren't who they thought they were. But really, when I first saw it kind of out of context, my also thought is Beth, what would make you go like, I can't believe people would act like this. Okay. My grant is twofold. This is the first one. I can't believe people would do this. The only time, okay, I would be that shook up. I can't believe they're treating. Is if I just saw someone get beheaded, if I just saw someone take a baseball bat and beat us like a person in the face or in the body with it, that would make me go, I can't believe they did that. Like that is what it, that's the reaction. So my first point, I told this backwards, but that's okay. It's how my brain works is that I just saw this clip and I'm like, I think this person wants a star. They have the moral high ground. They are the one pointing out that there are racists and bigots around her and her neighborhood. I am virtuous. I feel like a person like this needs to be told they're a good person because somehow they haven't put in their time of day and time pattern of where they're spending their time enough output of good that they've got to wear it virtuously, moralistically on camera and then go into the, like, I do think the majority of people that are complaining and pointing the finger about racism today is really that I'm not that good a person and I kind of want to feel like a good person. So picking up the B card, the bigot card or the racist card is the easiest way for me to project that I'm a good person by saying others are bad and I'm more virtuous. So, and I'm willing to suffer more by allowing my suicidal empathy to allow dangerous men to move in next to me because I need to feel good about myself. I'm hollowed and empty. It's a rough judgment, but I'll be honest. It was just my first judgment. That's kind of how I felt when I saw it. So I think there's both truth, right? Like, there's a amount of shock knowing you're a neighbor and you have differing views, but I'm just over it. We've seen those clips too much. That lady is so BBC'd. She's like the perfect BBC watcher. For Americans that you don't realize, the BBC is publicly funded like our PBS, which I do think Trump now is in the midst of defunding. And I don't think it's shutting down. It's just getting defunded, which I would be all for public media. However, when you look at what happened to NPR and kind of you would be scared to say, okay, our tax dollars shouldn't fund media because obviously the media is biased. The BBC in the UK, the point I'm making is that you don't get a choice. You got to pay for it. You'll see people bitching online and showing you their bill. It's a like TV tax or like a TV license fee. And they'll literally come after you and make you sound like they're like the IRS. Like, this is your third and final notice. You must pay your tax TV license. You've got to pay for the BBC to shove this junk up your butt, to shove Andy Burnham, whatever their prime minister is, to go on camera and tell you, I'm sorry, this is the first time now we're on camera saying we admit that the asylum seekers are dangerous to the society. And no one wants them, but we're unable to stop the boats. And until we could stop the flow of boats, we've got to do something. And that's when it's the most obvious. I myself, I hate to say it, but I'm saying it because I know it's true. I myself as a one person, well armed woman with a few machine guns could go stand on a beach and stop the boats myself. That easy. If the government allowed me, of course they're going to haul me off or whatever, but it is just that simple. It is simply saying, no thank you, you need to turn around. They could tell them at France, before they cross over into Dover, don't leave, you're not going to get let in, that way you're going to save those lives. But if you allow those boats to come over, thinking they're going to get in, yes, you may have a few people drown, unfortunately, but that's the life we're living. And anyway, it's just, that's my make sense of it today. How dare I have a man's brain where I want to make sense of things, where I want to make things like that lady said in the speech, we no longer uphold immigration laws for the most part. Obviously not with this administration. There's only one thing right now I could say good about Trump and it's that I do sleep better at night. The immigration flow was stopped. We are now trying to stop people coming in undocumented that it could be dangerous to a high trust society that I so want to live in today. I'm not pro asylum seekers, I'm pro honest markets. That's when your little kids can sell items and goods for collected donations in a store that they could leave something out and not man the store and come back the next day and collect money. That's the society I'm still going to keep pushing for in 2026. So D ban and defund all women. Take us off of the juries, get us out of here. Any type of critical thinking that is relied. No, I'm kidding. I'm over, I'm overstating it. Obviously, hopefully ladies, you could take a joke and realize I think the answer has already been stated by that woman that studies this professionally. We need to untip the scale. That's very clear. And the irony is I think that even if you think I'm wrong, only time can prove me right because I don't really think the scale is going to be un-tipped by design most likely for a long time or not. But either way, hope you enjoyed my take on us, the three women things. Stay human, stay free, and stay masculine. Bye bye y'all.