[000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to was a part the great irish play right. oscar wilde was imprisoned and most trusted for being gay, as well as for his fear, seeing really cool all victorian morality, but i'll keep him in life today. he may have gotten into even bigger trouble with progressive this news. why is it so important to bit furnace or that serious in

today's prison? and what are the costs of imposing new aspects of society with the victorian like the sale of to discuss that. i'm now joined by david kirsten, a british politician and the leader of the heritage party, which i currently have. great to talk to. thank you very much for being here. yeah, great to be with you in the show. thank you. now, let me start by asking you about heritage, which is such a load that words in best era all seemingly, i'm bound to progress and political enlightenment. what do you mean by heritage as a political category, and how do you think it fits into the spirit of the times? what i wanted to do was the started political party in the u. k, which has socially conservative bodies and principals because i don't think there is one. and we have a sense of right policy goal, the conservative body. they've been in power for 13 years, but they have not conservative a tool. and we have a labor party which used to represent the working people,

but they no longer do represent the what can people in any shape or form whatsoever . i'm the too big tall to use there seems of coalesced around what you could call political correctness work, cold job. climate alarm is the global as the agenda and the really, undermining our country all culture. i'm a heritage so i wanted to set something up with just has common sense principles that will restore all heritage and what everyone thought would it was just normal. that was the here's the guy before we've gone down the path of destruction and degeneration. now i think for those who follow international politics, it's pretty clear that there are many countries in india, it's hard to china, russia, many others for revisiting or even reclaiming the past. and sometimes it's a very difficult past, but in any case, they're using it as a source of national and starvation as a national, private, and national as a source of national strength. but i think we are observing an opposite process in

many western societies because maybe historical fingers manage historical policies are being judged and i couldn't mystically by today's morals, of which opinion amicably would produce a sense of self holy nation and shame. how to explain that phenomena and why do people in the west of politicians in the west need that it is why you know, i called it political correctness or i used to, but now i attend school, that cultural marxism where people are taking months to start the all the g and applied it to uh, identity politics. so they would say for example, the black people are oppressed by white people. the society is systemically racist, and therefore we need to raise whiteness from the public suite. and that's what some people actively teaching and universities and the institutions. and that is thing got into the political policies. it's even got into the media, is going into business as well. and it's very, very disruptive. you know,

i didn't see the pastas all a bad. they were awesome, bad things in the past, but there's some very, very good things in the pasta. well, some people want to do is they raise the o because they have a twisted notion of what social justice is and what they want the country to be. know why reject that entirely on i say, you know, we need to reclaim all heritage. we need to restore our heritage and be proud of the good things. and i'll pause to know why the only way to start from a blind slate, which is going to require the destruction of our culture. i don't know if you would agree with that, but i, i think western civilization in general has had a very, an easier relationship in both progress and the past. it seems as if people are leaders in the west. always want to sort of escape into the future by splitting of the past, but also by splitting of the present reality, which demands a lot of sports careful attention and the, you know, in order to improve something right now,

you actually need to know who you are you need to, you need to know where your problem, stanfull i'm from and try to, you know, correct them with a certain degree of care for your society. what do you think is underneath this phenomenon of sort of aiming for the future, but never actually are reaching it done in the process of doing that. also escaping both the past and the present day reality, and i talked to them about globalism and they were these globally bodies. me not the number one that people are aware of in the west is the world economic forum. they seem to have a program in order to create a society where everybody is optimized and people don't have any belonging to either community, a family, a nation. i mean, that's essentially what was in the communist manifesto from aux, in 1848 and, and governments all. and people in governments are following this agenda to create

a tech come across a future where people just have a relationship with the state, but no relationship with that family with that community with the past or even the future. well, the presence give referring to mars, but i mean, if we're studying, mark says, own biography, can you have his own family. he wasn't very good at providing for his children, but it's not like he was calling for the entire destruction of everything. stories . he was a very much the tulip and about the changing society. but i think my own country provides a very good example of how you can or they eliminate all the ties that make a human a human. i mean, like we need family, we need some belongings to concrete ties. our existence, whether it's a house or you know, a car, whatever. are you sure. it's really about marks and north about something human in the, in the british or in the western culture. no, i do think it is, i mean, i mean, you know, obviously monks and his family life and probably maybe wouldn't have been here to all that he said. but if you look at the communist manifesto, it's which is

a short pamphlet, it's an hour read. and i thinking that he does advocate for the family to be abolished and for children to be brought up by a collective of the women as the unfortunate. oh no, i think you have the bible spring or something. and while he was writing that when he passed as his wife was very angry because, you know, it says children why didn't have what they way they needed to have. the problem is people have taken the amplified, maybe they've twisted it, but this is being taught in universities and then people who are being active based groups and many, many, n d o is have sprung up and they have this progressive agenda and, and it's not. and it's not progress in terms of making the world better. it's all idea. logical progressiveness which actually is, is actively opposed to an agitates against things that we had in the past and liked to result in children at the moment. all being given

a new subjects for relationships and sexuality education. and it teaches that there's all different family type stuff. the mother and the father bringing out their own children is not necessarily the best product, the family. and that's just one kind of audiology which is being taught in educational establishment and the people that are a progressive in terms of trying to create this utopian future are advocating all over the place. now i've heard me say say before, that's one of the fundamental socially conservative principles for you is that there are only 2 sexes and the marriage is between a man and a woman. why is that fundamental? well, i mean, the very nature things tells us that there are men and women and figured out until about 10 years ago, no one would have even questioned it. but suddenly from about 2015, it was proposed to me. you, you just hear about these trends. gen tourism everywhere. i never really heard of it before and that no, of course there are people with gen you in gender dysphoria,

but this idea has been created by some very, very spurious academics. that there is something going gender which is different to sex. and therefore, what your biological sex is, is not necessarily the same thing as your gender or a completely reject that notion. you have a biological sense. a people are being paid sometimes in schools. i'm the, if you are a different agenda to your sex, you should act out your agenda and then it goes to who ripping things it legs, goals a tool to bind the breasts, the boys all towards, you know, they, they give them cuban c blocking whole buttons and, and so on. and when i see what this is doing to kids and how they're being confused and how they're being controlled and co students and mutilating their own bodies. i think this is absolutely we kids an item, i've done totally against it. and yeah,

i would say i'm advocate, there are 2 sex is male and female. all, i would royce, out of law, all of these things like the gender recognition act, which put him to know all the concept. but there is something called gender that is different. the biological sex to i have to say that and all these discourse about gender is this uh, sometimes it makes it explicable to people from other cultures. not only because it's very dangerous because children psyches are not ready to deal with such detail distinctions. and adults sexuality and that's a, that's a fact. i mean, both side as a psychological science has established that pretty, pretty well. but what is even harder for me to explain is this as a sensible drive on the part of western coalitions to impose these discourses on the rest of us on the rest of the world in a very sort of per worth of li, paternalistic way. why kind of the west limit, if social experiments to itself, why does it have to enlist out of countries in supporting its ideas or trying out?

is ideas in practice? i mean, this thing is to me, i think this whole notion of, of gender isn't comprehensible. a is absolute nonsense, but there are people who are active as to think that they're doing a good thing. i mean, some people are useful idiots. some people are genuinely we kids. some people are making lots of money out. so they, they were there was a big money in providing these pupils, he blocking drugs and then providing the operations for the kids that are being confused and then go through with them sex change therapy and, and surgery so, so people are making money from it. so some people from a business point of view wants to expound, is around the world. i mean, the african countries are a big target for this at the moment. but what i think is really bad is the british government and the other governments in the west calling acceptance of the l. g

b t q agenda. to follow tonight and saying you're not going to get for an age. you're not going to get for an investment unless you accept these agendas and teach kids about different kinds of marriage, about gender, all ideology about reproductive rights and all these other things which we joy. i think we shouldn't have been doing in this country. but this is near colonialism. the, the irony is that a lot of people talk about slavery in the cost. yeah. and that was bad, but now they're going, i'm somebody with doing this in the future. doing this right today to other countries that make all see it, but they need to be called out and i want to get into parliament and stopped to base because it's really wrong. i. i mentioned oscar wilde in my introduction, who was uh, open the day. yeah. you can say in those times and who was also very elegant in poking fun at the farcical nature of the victorian era. and i read that according to many historians, it was

a very surprising new development it to britain by storm. but there were certain, uh, sort of the were sitting historical context for that there. and there was a consequence of factors that made that phenomena impossible. and by the, by the weight in the victorian era. as far as i remember, she, shakespeare was also sensor. it's something that we, we see a lot and integration to dates. do you see any sort of historical trends that would have produced this phenomenon, or do you think it's just a political manipulation? is somebody else i would say, which is may be slightly off of the times and is that the western nations, particularly the guy, had a very, very strong christian foundation in christian principles. and bodies often said about 60 or 70 years ago. and those good people grounds, it's in reality, you know, in family values in, in, in science and nature in, in what was obvious but, but thought as being last we had talked to now, you know,

english for the 1st time is a minority christian data is it's a few of them, 50 percent of people in england regard themselves as christians openly and would say so. so christiana, to christian bodies of really decreased and declined in the u. k. and that's the case across the west. and then you know, when people stop believing in god and when to put people stop believing in the foundational value system that they have, it would take on anything and believe anything. and then, but people need to have something that they believing is right and wrong. even if it's completely inverted from what was before, and i think that's normally what's happened over the last 50 or 60 years quite slowly. and people have just taken on new values because they've rejected the old ones. and that's that garden. then we have to take a short break right now, but they will be back in just

a few moments station the, the, the, [000:00:00;00]

the, [000:00:00;00] the welcome back to was a part of the david person, a british politician and the leader of the heritage party. this occurred and before the break, we were talking about this incessant drive to impose new set of values, not only on the western societies, but also on the rest of the world. and i think at the core of these arguments is a, is an effort to impose somebody is some objective reality. for example, you know, felt experience of not being at home in your body, not being at peace with yourself. it's a psychological, subjective experience onto the conceptual reality to you, which, you know, for, for many, many centuries has been regulated by facts. and it's not just the,

i mean, manipulation. i mean, this is a pretty explicit attack on a world view on the now for the, for a psychological subjugation. and i think given how press for basic and how intolerant it can be, how punishing it can be towards its opponents. i wonder what gives you believe what makes them believe that you can actually change the challenge that in any meaningful way? well, i am a christian, i know you know, my life's down to don't christian principles and the heritage policy is not specifically christian policy, but we would stand on christian principles and scientific fact as well. and i see that those things are being breaking down, which is very, very dangerous, but we need to reestablish them. but the thing is, i think we, we looked at all of this and all discussion has been talking about what really is in the minds of the leads, the people that run the country, the people of go into the institutions to the long march to the institutions and taken over positions of power, but they all actually, you know, quite small the number even though they have a do fluid switch fall right?

weighs the number. but i think if you talk to ordinary people in the bras rates in the country, they're actually horrified about what's going on of all the sort of world culture that is happening in the country. the, the, the destruction of climate alarm is and where with dismantling or energy infrastructure and replacing it with things that don't provide energy. and the rush of western nations to get involved in war off the war off the war. and there's a lot of people who just one piece to one side and see who want to restore, you know, what is just normal scientific facts and common sense in our country. so i think there is a huge appetite for a new political policy that will just restore sanity to our country. uh, you mentioned the wars and uh we have this major conflict in ukraine. and even before that, there was always

a tash in between the west and russia even after the collapse of the soviet union. why do what is it between my country and your country on my country and the western collective that doesn't allow for establishing a balanced? probably called but mutually respectful relationship. well, i mean, i think there were a number of years where russia was in the g. i. so i think from 1997 to 2014, there was the g. 7 ross who joined and joined them. i know as a, as an, as an ordinary person and not involved in politics. i thought, what is a great thing, you know, russian is joining in the west week and have perhaps a, a friendship in the future. and relationships will get better. but, i mean, the key point there was 2014 where there was the c i a but to in ukraine, because the, the, you know, the american deep states and the e u. a projects wanted to bring ukraine out to russia is a little bit of influence and into the west,

entirely intimate. so it into the you and that was the wrong thing to do. and they, there's no reason to do that. i mean, there's no economic reason that there's no benefit to doing that for the west, but i think it's just hubris, an arrow goods and pride on empire building. but, but again, i would make a distinction between the governments, the leads and the people because the people have gotten no interest in that. and now when the sort of more that began either the cold war in the ukraine, the began in 2014 and he got halts in in 2022. i mean i was against it completely. i said that we should stick to the ministry agreements. i think a lot of people just north, very people didn't want this and they've seen the huge amounts of money. huge amounts of weaponry wasted on this conflict. we've now a built in, let's see, with russia, which is the wrong future for the well to the west. should be friends with russia.

we should not be enemies. i'm not sure about friends. i mean, give them your persistent the efforts to, you know, change our lifestyle, to change our world view with all these new ethics. but, and the very least, i think we, we should be respectful of one another, you know, sort of leaving, let williams, i'm the, you mentioned in part building. and one could understand the why you would want to spread your influence when you have, you know, in a flourishing garden at home. but when we look at the basic social uh, statistics, you know, the provision of social services, the visual of education, the general well being of the people, you know, all on many of those points the west is declining in declining precipitously. so what's the point of trying to expand your influence abroad when your own people? um, you know, living worse and worse lives? yeah, absolutely. i mean politicians and government successively in western countries

i've neglected to look off to their own people. if you like in a, in the u. k, a health outcomes of bummed down to is this record waiting list for the public hospitals. school education has gone down a, a in terms of what he's doing and outcomes for kids because it teaching a lot of his work nonsense rather than focusing on real subjects. crime is born up because there's no community policing anymore. police are not even worried about burglaries, but they all looking at what, what people are saying on the units and then they more focused on that. so it is all kinds of areas where things have just broken down and the public services have got completely the wrong focus as well as this. they haven't been looking off of the economy by getting the nation into more and more than a budget deficit in the u. k. is higher than ever before on national debt is 2 and a half truly in pounds. it's getting on for 100 percent of g d p. whereas i think

rushes national debt is less than 10 percent of g d p. so you know that the, the, the, um, the successive governments in the u. k. in western countries really haven't be looking off. there are and economies and all right in society. i'd say really, they need to do that 1st before they worry about all the countries now on me being a russian, i wanna use this opportunity and ask here about my own country. and i know that earlier this year is you conducted a pull among your twitter followers, asking them who's the best sort of president or later. and i didn't put didn't happen to emerge and talk with over 85 percent of now clearly, and this is only a representative of your subscriber base, but still wonder thing makes this people um, off 4 to 10 at a time when he's per trail in the western need, it is a disagreement preaching that got to. yeah, i mean, i think 2 things i think the west in mainstream media is, is,

is largely now being ignored by a lot of ordinary people. and then people can see through the narratives that are being created by the west of mainstream media. i mean they're taking one side in this conflict and saying these are landscape as an angel and boots and is the devil . but people are just saying, well, this is absolute nonsense a know we should have just try to deescalate from the beginning, like upset. but the other thing is, the western lead us, but we've got soon up by the microphone sholtes. there's so bots, there's some, all pets, he's not. people are going to look the boots in because it these prints and cares about these people printing cares about his country. he protects children from this kind of a sexualize in propaganda. in schools he looks off to the economy and the roster has a strong economy and only thing people look at that and respects him as a leader because he puts his country fast. whereas all data is,

tends to put all countries last. and you know, i've been covering, put in support with except cremeans, politics for today case now. and i, i can say definitely about putting that he's not f, lemoine, politicians. he is actually pretty adult and both and he is dressing style and his presentation settling, especially in his manner of speech because he's very meticulous about details about deadlines and the he's pretty practical in times or bubble. and i wonder if that's what this paul of yours to reflect the people actually hungry for some tangible politics. why they, it's regardless of the personalities that they actually one policies that change the lives rather than aptitude. chat. yeah, i think people can actually see boots in direct on social media and they can hear he's words translated into the english and he tells the truth and he says exactly what he means. and he does exactly what he says, which is very, very different to what you get for most west and politicians. the last person i

think that actually did that was margaret gotcha. in the u. k. but that was a very, very long time ago. so we've had a succession and politicians who had just rely on spin and propaganda, but they don't do what they say and today might be from boy and some have character, but that they're running the country into the root. and so i think people appreciate someone who's just a straight pool and gives you um, it gives you it like it is the story. talker i think is a already and rather exhausted in trying to reach out to the west than just a couple of days ago. she was asked about this latest confrontation with the west, and he said that the only thing that's put down that is the west of learning, the mechanics of respect. that is allowing a space for the interest of another party. and that's there. you know, there wouldn't be no need for control, for expansion, for confrontation because it and he's new, at least some sort of a balanced relationship will emerge naturally. do you think watson, political leads are capable of bad giving others you know,

a more to come of respect then a space for that own interest. i think the ones we have at the moment are not capable of that, and they don't want to do that. i mean, they will use deception and bates and switch all the time. the, the only exception to that is, is president trump, who is not president at the moment, but he might come back and i think, you know, the, to the presidents that pollutes. and then trump had a special different kind of relationship and i think they did respect each other and a significantly when trump was president for 4 years, there was no war. it was the me full years in reason following the there the days. it wasn't like um, you know, a friendship forever. i mean they, they, they negotiations and they have to are pretty tough. yeah, absolutely. but they, they could respect each other and they could, you know, the both men were coming from the position of strength. and they, you know, they, they could, they could lay everything on the line. but then, you know, at the end of the day they realize, you know,

they've got to come to some kind of agreement because they want to do what's best for their people. and when you've got to presidents, who, who was the best for the countries, they can come to a mutual agreement. but the, the leaders you've got in the west at the moment, i just know of that call about. i mean that the dreadful and i think the, the, the ordinary people in the west of just despairing of what we have and uh, does the batch. uh well, uh, mr. gardner. i assume that's one of the reasons why you decided to enter politics. i wish you all the success in this regard. them if you ever become a prime minister promise me an interview. absolutely,

we'll look forward to it and thank you for watching hope to see her again. on

a was a part of the the wearer. and yet the children here, i'm telling you that have died because of the united states government's funding of this since was more somebody baby, sorry, the bill of the so we're currently being shown here in a civilian populated area versus people the are you, how are you i'm great, thank you. how are you was, you know, what am i feeling now? i'm ready to get into there and tell the american citizens what's truly asked me.