[000:00:00;00] the hello and welcome to was a part the great irish player, right. oscar wilde was imprisoned and most trusted for being gay, as well as for his spear seemed really cool. all victorian morales. he but have he'd been alive today. she may have gotten into even bigger trouble with progressive this news. why is it so important a 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 on the show. thank you. now, let me start by asking you about heritage, which is such

a load that words and based era of seemingly unbounded 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 to start a political party in the u. k, which has socially conservative bodies and principals because i don't think there is one thing we have a sense of right policy goal, the conservative body. they've been in power for 13 years, but they are not conservative. a tool and we have a labor party which used to represent the working people, but they no longer do represent the working people in any shape or form whatsoever . and the 2 big tall to use there seems of coalesced around what you could call political correctness, work, cold job. climate alarm is the global. it's the agenda and they really on the mining all 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

a years ago before of we've gone down the path of destruction into generation. and now i think for those who follow international politics, it's pretty clear that there 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're observing an opposite process in many western societies because maybe historical fingers made a historical policies are being judged and the current mystically by today is 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 and the west need that? that is why, you know, i called it political correctness or i used to, but now i attend school,

that cultural boxes and where people are taking marks has started 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 demand for we need to raise whiteness from the publics via and that's what some people actively teaching and universities and the institutions. and that is then go into the political policies, it's even got into the media, is going into business as well. and it's very, very destructive. you know, i didn't see the positives or pads they were awesome, bad things in the past. but there's some very, very good things in the past, but, but 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? and 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 didn't know if i 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 flux 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 stem from, i'm from and tried 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? i'm in the process of doing that also escaping both the past and the present day reality. and i just want to know about globalism and there are these globalized

bodies. me not the number one that people are aware of in the west is 12 economic for them. 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, or we must 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 technocratic 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 or the presence of referring to mars. but i mean it for yeah, study mark says own biography and he 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 cannot. they eliminate all the ties that make a human the 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. i assure it's really about marks and north about something hidden in the, in the british or in the western culture. no, i do think it is, i mean, i mean, you know, obviously monks at 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, this is a short pamphlet, it's an hour reads, and i thinking that he does advocate for a the family to be abolished and for children to be brought up by a collective of the women. the unfortunately, the, i think you have the bible spring or something and while he was writing that manifestation, 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 that live amplified, maybe they've twisted it,

but this is being taught in universities and then people who are in active based groups and many, many, n g o is of sprung up and they have this progressive agenda of any snow and it is not progress in terms of making the world better. it's all idea of logical progressiveness which actually is, is actively opposed to an agitates against things that we had in the pos them and, and, and like to result in children at the moment. all being given a new subjects or 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 type of family. and that's just one kind of audiology which is being taught in educational establishment and the people that are progressive in terms of trying to create this utopian future or advocating all over the place. now i've heard me say say before,

and 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. and 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 that something called gender, which is different to sex. and therefore what your biological sexes is not necessarily the same thing as your gender. i completely reject that notion. you have a biological sense. a people are being paid sometimes in space. but if you

are a different agenda to you'll sex, you should act out your agenda and then, you know, it goes to repeat things. it legs, goals a tool to binds the breasts. the boys are taught to, 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, ice done totally against it. and um, yeah, i would say i'm advocate. there are $26.00 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 going 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 inexplicable to people from other cultures. not only because it's very dangerous,

because children site is not ready to deal with such detailed distinctions and adults sexuality. and that's a, that's a fact. i mean, by the side. 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 and supporting its ideas or trying out is ideas and 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 is to think that 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 kids that have been confused and then go through with them sex change therapy and, and surgery so, so people are making money from it. so some people who are a business point of view wants to expound, is around the world. 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 of telling acceptance of the l g b t q agenda to far an age, been 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 and it'd be irony is that a lot of people talk about slavery in the pasta. 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. so i, i mentioned oscar wilde in my introduction, who was openly gay. 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 and possible in, by the, by the way, 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 b, u. k. at a very, very strong christian foundation in christian principles and bodies often said about 60 or 70 years ago. and those good people ground, it's in reality, you know, in family values in, in, in science and major in, in what was obvious but, but that as being last of the a talk to now, you know, england's for the 1st time is a minority christian dates. it's, it's a few of them, 50 percent of people in england regard themselves as christians openly and would say so. so christiana, to you and 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 start 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 believe in 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 this occurred and they have to take a short break right now, but they will be back in just a few moments station, the,

[000:00:00;00] the,

[000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the welcome back to one of the frontiers david prison, a british politician and the leader of the heritage party, mister cardinal, 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 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 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 for the on site the logical subjugation. and i think, given how for us for basis and how intolerant is, can be, how punishing it can be towards its opponents. i wonder what gives you believe what makes him believe that you can actually che the challenge that in any meaningful way. well, i am a christian, i know you know my life stand it on christian principles and the heritage policy is not specifically christian policy, but we would stand on christian principles and scientific facts as well. and i see that those things are being broken down, which is very, very dangerous, but we need to re establish 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 elite, the people that run the country, the people of go in to the institutions to the long march, to the institutions and taken over the positions of power. but by, oh, actually,

you know, quite small the number even though they have a do fluids which fall right? ways 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 old a sort of word, cold job that is happening in the country. 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 fox and common sense in our country. so i think there is a huge appetite for a new political policy that it will just restore sanity to our country. imagine tours and 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, well, this is a great thing. you know, russian is joining in the west. we can have perhaps a, a friendship in the future and relationships will get better. but, i mean, the key point that was 2014, where there was the c i a but to in ukraine, because the, the, you know, the american deep states and the 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 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, an employee, a 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 it over you great. in the beginning, 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 as far as i mean, give them your persistent the efforts to or 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 uh well being of the people, you know, 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 log into in the u. k, a health outcomes of bummed down to is this brett called waiting list for the public hospitals. school education has gone down a in terms of what he's doing and outcomes for kids because it teaching a lot of this work and on since rather than focusing on real subjects, crime is born up because there's no community policing anymore. police and not even worried about burglaries, but they all looking at what, what people are saying on the units and then we'll focused on that. so there's 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. our national debt is 2 and

a half trillion 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 b. 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, all right, 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 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 representative of your subscriber base, but still, what do you think makes this people um a box slow to attend at a time when stays for trail in the western need, it is

a disagreement preaching that i got to. yeah, i mean, i think 2 things. i think the west and main stream 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 foods 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 latest, but we've got soon up by the microphone sholtes. there's so bots, there's some more sleep now people are going to look boots. and because of these parents and kids about these people pension cares about his country, he protects children from this kind of a sexualize in propaganda. in schools, he looks off to the economy, and russia 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 leaders tend 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 excellent boy and politicians. he is actually pretty adult. and both in his dressing style and his presentation style and especially, and his manner of speech because he's very meticulous about details about deadlines and the he's pretty practical in times i 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 of 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 span and brought the gun and, but they don't do what they say and they might be flung boy and some have character, but that they're running the country into the route. and so i think people appreciate someone who's just a straightforward and gives you it gives you it like it is the story. talker i think is a already a 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 good on 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, a different kind of relationship and i think they did respect the java and a significantly when trump was president for 4 years, there was no war. it was me for years and reasons the it wasn't like um, you know, a friendship forever. i mean they, they, they negotiations that they have were 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 bought a come to some kind of agreement because they want to do what's best for their people. and when you've got to presidents group who was the best for the countries, they can come to a mutual agreement. but the, the lead as you go in the west at the moment i just know of that color. but i mean, that dreadful. and i think the, the, the ordinary people in the west of just despairing of what we have and, uh, does the best. 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 share again on it was a part of the, [000:00:00;00]

the the, the, the the, [000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the