TRIGGERnometry - Why Young Men Feel Lost - Connor Tomlinson

Episode Date: March 27, 2024

Connor Tomlinson is a writer and podcast host at LotusEaters.com. He was a co-founder and Head of Research at the British Conservation Alliance (2019-2022). He published the research paper, “It’s Easy being Green”, with The Adam Smith Institute, which shaped the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (2022). He is a political commentator for GB News and TalkTV, a contributor to The Critic magazine, and wrote regular columns for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, C3 Solutions Magazine, and The American Spectator. He holds a Masters in English from the University of Kent. Join our Premium Membership for early access, extended and ad-free content: https://triggernometry.supercast.com SPONSORS: Buy gold and earn interest on it! https://monetary-metals.com/triggernometry/ Express VPN. Go to https://www.expressvpn.com/trigger/ and get an extra 3 months free on a one-year package! https://getsuperbeets.com Use Promo Code: TRIG to get a free 30-day supply + 15% off your first order Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! https://triggernometry.locals.com/ OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here: Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5 Music by: Music by: Xentric | [e-mail] | https://www.xentricapc.com/ YouTube: @xentricapc Buy Merch Here: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/ Advertise on TRIGGERnometry: [e-mail] Join the Mailing List: https://www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailinglist Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media: https://twitter.com/triggerpod https://www.facebook.com/triggerpod/ https://www.instagram.com/triggerpod/ About TRIGGERnometry: Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money, whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings. There's a money side to every story. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com. So what's going on with you young people nowadays? Everything they're being taught in the classrooms radioactively uncool, the children of the algorithm, that half of Genzy, don't curate their own internet experience.

So all of their interest and personality are something authentic, but their algorithm. rhythmically driven. It's happened to them. Basically, men don't know how to be meant. And that's a real problem. You're going to get the revolutionary Gen Z. It's just which flavor do you get? Do you get woke communists or do you get the reactionary? Not loving your AT&T or T-Mobile bill? Yeah, we've been hearing that a lot. Good news. Bring your AT&T or T Mobile bill to Verizon and we'll give you a better deal. So get away from that unfortunate phone bill and get to Verizon. Run, ride, canoe, or Whatever it takes, we'll be here. Bring your AT&T or T mobile bill to a Verizon store today,

and we'll give you a better deal on the best network. A better deal. No surprises. That's Verizon. Best network based on root metrics, best overall mobile network performance U.S. second half, 2025. All rights reserved. It must provide a recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person,

redeeming me the deal. Additional terms, conditions and restrictions apply. Connor, welcome to the show. Thank you very much for having me. Great to have you on. Listen, we haven't had actually, I think, somebody talk about Gen Z and your generation from a male perspective. You do that quite well.

You talk about it quite a lot. What's going on with you young people nowadays? So there has been quite a lot of survey data coming out from University of Michigan. There was a piece published in the Financial Times a few days ago that's showing a bifurcation in political attitudes between men and women. The conspiratorial person in me says that this is driven somewhat by birth control, but it's obviously driven by algorithmic trends and certain grievance narratives that are being pushed on social media.

I know you've had Freya in. And she's spoken a lot about how young women are pliable at a time of peak anxiety to social trends. And so if they're being whipped into a frenzy and they say that all of their male peers are participating in some grand conspiracy of oppression against them, they might be more antagonistic towards them. And so you're seeing in retaliation to that, young men are trending more socially conservative, even if they're not identifying with the establishment right-wing political parties that we're currently seeing. And it's not just a symptom of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson, it's a fact of everything that being taught in the classroom is radioactively uncool. If you're repeatedly being beaten over the head

as a young guy who's just trying to make his way in the world, potentially if your dad isn't even around, because around 50% of young people these days in the UK are raised between two households with their father scarcely or never present, you're thinking, well, actually I don't feel like an agent of tyranny. Actually, I feel like you're not credible and you're lying to me. And all of this stuff, I just don't know. associate with it. So I'm going to go and swap to the other side. So you're seeing that split.

And that split is particularly pronounced, I think, within the zoomers between the pre and post phone at school generation. So after the Great Awakening, after 2014, after the massive uptake of iPhones, you're seeing people trend towards social progressivism. Again, particularly young girls. This is where you're getting the stats from the likes of Stonewall and Pew Research, to say one in four or one in five, Gen Z are identifying as LGBTQ by the time they leave school. policy exchange found the same thing. But I think in the reverse, you're seeing a lot of zoomers who are on the sort of zenial cusp, so born pre-2000. They're digital natives, but they're very skeptical of framing. They're quite postmodern in this way, but not post-modern

in the way that we use it as in swept up by grievance narratives. They don't necessarily buy all of the establishment ideals that are fed to them. And unlike the millennials who had a very tight frame of reference for early internet adoption, things like even memes were shared like Nian Cat and Out Charlie and things like that, they have a more personally curated internet experience. So it's a lot more customized. It's a lot more niche. And so they can lean into subcultures which have particular political identities. And so that means they can either follow the kind of Tumblr gender stuff, which is very destructive, or they can look towards the traditionalist revivalism, the vitalism, the almost Christian nationalism that you're seeing

from the states, and they can pick a political subculture and identify with that, and that might actually allow them to follow a brand of politics, which is a rebellion against the current order that isn't serving them quite well. So I'm almost defending Gen Z a little bit in saying, there's hope for some of them, because they can curate their own political identity. Well, by the way, we have literally no reason to have a go at Gen Z. I mean, we don't. Yes. What I mean...

Well, your arc speech was this perfectly. Why are you surprised that Gen Z are a bunch of revolutionaries, no matter what flavor, if they can't own a house and have a family? Right. It's true. And this is one of the reasons I say, I'm not interested in having a go, Gen Z. I think some of the things that they're acting out and saying some of them are pretty stupid. But this was, by the way, people, they get old, they forget how stupid they were when they were 18, 19, 20 also, right? And as you say, you know, the, our generation faced a housing crisis,

but it was nowhere near as bad as your generation is facing. And so I don't want to have a go at Gen Z. I'm interested in understanding where they're coming from, why we are seeing some of the pretty dumb stuff that we're seeing, frankly, you know, they love for some of bin Laden, for some of them for some reason, all of this nonsense. But also, the thing that I find really troubling, and I became a father recently to a boy, is I've always felt that the demonization of men that I've been seeing not all of my life, but most of my adult life. It didn't really affect me because my solution to that was, well, look, men just need to be better. Like Chris Williamson and I talked about this.

You just got to study, you've got to improve, you've got to get skills, and then you're going to be fine in the world. And that has been my experience, right? What I think is happening from outside perspective, observing your generation is there are a lot of boys, frankly, to whom that's just not available because their entire life has been spent being told how shit they are. And it sounds like that's kind of what you're saying is happening with boys of your generation.

But, and if they don't have an at-home model for why they should emulate and appreciate masculinity, they're not equipped with the language to push back on them, This is something that C.S. Lewis talked about in Abolition of Man, which is a great little text I advise everyone read. In the first part, he talked about in the 40s how education was stripping boys of their ability to appreciate the world around them and have confidence in their morals. So he was saying there's this textbook that gaslights young men into thinking that if they look at a waterfall and they feel sublime or in awe, that they're actually just projecting their feelings onto the waterfall. It's not that the real world can reliably elicit a sense of feelings in you. So nothing is objective, everything is subjective.

And what that ends up meaning is we can supplant your existing value system and give you R1. And so if these guys, it's almost like the Fight Club quote of, we're a generation of men raised by women and we're being told that a woman is another solution. If you haven't been raised by a man, which lots of young men haven't, then you're even going to look for surrogate male father figures online, the healthier versions like Jordan Peterson, the unhealthy versions like Andrew Tate. or you're going to be so incapable of defending your masculinity that you fall prey to social trends, which is why you're seeing either they're identifying in consumer goods,

like all the people that hoard Funko Pops, or the young boys that are from age 11 upwards, getting addicted to pornography, and there's now a mass prescription, I think it was 4 million last year, of erectile dysfunction medication to young men. So if you've been institutionally gaslit out of thinking, there is value in masculinity and you haven't had a father in the home to understand the value in that and how to transmit that value down a long civilizational chain, then it's no wonder that you either completely check out of civilization, that you retreat to your goon cave

where you've just got pornography and video games and resentful red pill podcasts that tell you that all women are the problem, or you gravitate towards the LGBT ideologies that allow you to achieve escape velocity from being a man, or you actually find identity in reclaiming masculine vitalism in some way because you feel like if you can't be authentic, if you can't be virtuous in the Aristotelian sense, you must be at least continent, you must wear the personas of the past, like some kind of skin suit until it becomes natural. And so that's, I think, the split we're seeing in Gen Z, we're seeing it between algorithmically driven resentment versus those people that want to reclaim something of the past, that thing

that they're nostalgic for but never actually quite experienced. Essentially what you're talking about, Connor, is that basically men don't know how to be men. And that's a real problem, because if men don't know how to be men, then what we're actually talking about is people having a crisis of identity. And when they make up roughly 48, 49% of the population, plus they're stronger, plus they're more aggressive. plus they're more prone to violence. This is a pretty disastrous cocktail, isn't it? Yeah, and I think this is being driven,

and I've got some degree of sympathy for it until it turns malevolent. It's driven by a lot of insecurity and projection on part of people that are afraid of failing through the internet. So a lot of misandric feminism is driven by either people who have made terrible life choices

and want misery as kind of. company from older women to younger women, or people who have had poor experiences with men, and so as a maladaptive coping strategy are mischaracterizing all men as the kind of tyrannical abuser that they have encountered in the past. And this is the same thing for the Red Pill Podcasts as well, which I don't think is a very healthy way of restoring masculinity. I think someone like Chris Williamson's far healthy and someone like Andrew Tate, for example. This is why I've written a piece before saying that red pill is actually a kind of sedative proper male revolution.

Yes. And I don't mean revolution as in just communist uprising. I mean as in a restoration of a forward thinking and responsible, meaningful masculinity. And the reason they're doing that is a containment mechanism because they rely on a cohort of men who believe that they cannot escape their own situation and blame an abstract concept of all women, the kinds of women that they see on the whatever podcast or something. It's the female version of the patriarchy. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's the best way to put it. Yeah. Like the feminists have patriarchy and these people have whatever,

you know, literally whatever, the girls in the whatever podcast, yeah, the emissaries of hypersexual culture, which is gatekeeping you out of having a family. If only these only fans, girls didn't exist, you would actually be married with a battalion of children by now. And that might be true for a couple of people who have fallen through the cultural cracks. But There is a large cohort of men that actually could do better, but instead they are spending their income on insulting women who will never know that they exist and consuming this content to have their own worst fears about the culture reflected back at them. So they don't have to take responsibility and improve. And sure, that might be comfortable, but you will end up bitter, lonely and dead. So it may not be best for you in the long term.

But what both things are aiming at, and this is something that Ivan Illich wrote about in a fantastic. book called Gender, The Reaction Feminists, very hot on this. I think they're right, is that, yes, the feminists think that they are playing a zero-sum game against men for power, wealth, and privilege. And so they think that they are advantaged women as some kind of class by confiscating it from the tyrannical patriarchy that's gay-kept-them-out of institutions. But what you're actually doing is you're destroying the ambiguous complementarity that makes men and women attracted to each other.

This has come about for a transformation in economic conditions, where we're both competing for the same roles and the same resources rather than being inseparable members of the same households with different jobs, different responsibilities, and both attracted to each other. This is Neiman Powers term, a sibling economy. We have less Adam and Eve, and we're now Cane and Abel, and we're wondering why no one's wanting to start relationships. It's kind of incestuous. But play that out long term, what does that mean?

Well, that means that there's an incentive for us to both denaturize each other, ourselves, from the kind of sex-based differences that make us attracted to each other to compete on the same terms. And so actually, it's not just men hating women or women hating men, it's a movement towards the total unisex consumer unit. And so we are totally atomized from each other. We're totally alone. We're totally self-sufficient.

But there's a reason in the ancient world that exile was a form of punishment. I think there's going to be a lot of lonely people who are confused about their place in the world as a man, as a woman, dislocated from family, who are just endlessly consuming things and finding their identity and stuff. and we wonder why we have mental health crisis. It's a really profound point that you're making. And then on top of that, you've got the social media aspect to it where we're all essentially become dopamine rats,

where we're chasing that dopamine constantly. And that's just another way to fill the void that normally love companionship, a relationship would fill. Yeah, quite. This is, have you seen the new Apple Pro Glasses headset thing? Yes. I think this is one of the most dystopic things has been invented in a long time, because

what we're walking into, sleepwalking into, is Rousseau's vision of the savage in the abundant civilization. And this is why I think wokeness collects to liberalism, but that's a whole rabbit hole. Rousseau believed in the

false anthropology of liberalism, where before civilizations were set up and resources were rendered scarce and unequal, and we needed to enter this zero-sum game. Everything was plentiful. We were roaming around in a garden of Eden. We didn't have to rely on anyone in a relationship, to get what we wanted. We were just gleaning food off the ground

and everything was paradisal. Okay, so what's the job of the revolutionary state to return us to that? So how do we return to that? Well, we can't have relationships and we can't have inequality. So we need a totalitarian state to oversee every single human interaction

to ensure there is no inequality and that no one is having a relationship where one has power over the other. Well, sounds quite familiar. Quite, exactly. It's the comprehensive liberal state that Claire Chambers, a Cambridge academic, sets up.

She references Foucault in it and she says that basically we need to stop you from forming desires which make you desire unequal things. So we need to actually police the thoughts in your own head so you can be free and equal because liberalism. But anyway. I'm in the Soviet Union, but you clearly have your own style. Well, this is why communism, Marxism and the two cheeks are the same backside. But I'm not trying to be provocative, I promise. But these goggles achieve that. You don't need the totalitarian state then.

If you've literally got a vision of your own self-created reality in front of your eyes and no one can see what you're also seeing. then you can augment the world to be purely subjective as you wish, and everyone else is expected to have no social consideration for anyone else. So we're existing in a really population-dense civilisation, where catering all our own needs, your neighbour could be watching pornography in public, he could have a mod where he's seeing everyone naked. But, oh, what goes on in the privacy of your own goggles doesn't concern anyone, right? So we're going to have an entire civilisation of people roaming around in Plato's Goon Cave with the technological assistance to make it so that they can have all their designs, met at once, but never have to worry about anyone else.

And I just think that's hellish. And they're just going to be burned out on dopamine and unable to ever have their desire satisfied. So some companies are going to come along and perpetually sell them new desires that can never be fulfilled. And so technology and commerce become the prerequisite for you to even exist. Who cares about your poops? Ollie does.

That's why Ali's science-backed gut health lineup helps support your family's regularity from this. From daily probiotics to fiber gummies your kiddos will love. Find it all on Ali.com. That's OLLLY.com. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. And what it also does is make real life look fundamentally unappealing. Because with real life, it's deferred gratification. It's working hard. It's having setbacks. It's making your sense. It's making yourself. uncomfortable in order to progress. It's the fear of failure. But if you're living your life

in a glorified video game, you ain't really going to get any of that. No, and why would you want to do chores unless you could augment reality to then gamify it? You're basically background tabbing reality, right? And this is where, and I know Freya's spoken about this before, this is where big pharmaceutical comes in conjunction with social media and pornography and the like. If you are augmenting your brain chemistry with what you're consuming, then rather than stopping consuming, because that's having a bad effect on you, all you can do is instead take this pill and just reset your brain chemistry. So every single human experience becomes optional, conditional on what you consume.

This is the crazy thing that I thought about the other week. You know, we're getting the expansion of LGBTQ rights. This community would not exist if it weren't for technology. They would not be able to meet each other unless it was online. You can't point to the LGBT community on a map. They don't live together. They don't have even necessarily shared interests because one's sex, one's gender. You wouldn't be able to have the trans community without the surgeries to facilitate their transition.

And they're getting increasingly complex and the simulacra is getting increasingly convincing, the more you can, for example, 3D print and appendage. We're getting into all new layers of hellscape. But the plus there is hiding the fact that it will indefinitely expand along with desires and the way that tech can meet it. The perfect example of this is asexuality. Do you remember that woman that was walking around a little while ago in a leather bikini saying, I want asexual rights now. I do, actually.

Yeah, I do. She was quite hot. She was. Yeah, mid. Not my taste. I actually don't remember her very well, but yeah. Yeah. So that philosophy scales upwards to, I don't have an interest in sex and I deserve rights.

What's the right to? It's a positive right to validation and affirmation because we're in the post-scale. Wait, kind of slow down again. So just explain that a little bit slower. Okay. So if you're asexual and you have, and you have, you have, have an identity that says, I am not interested in sex, what right are you claiming? You're claiming a right to recognition. You're claiming a right for your identity to be validated in the minds of

others. And we have entered a post scarcity economy. So what's the current currency? It's a social currency. It's validation, affirmation and the like. So you're claiming a positive right to other people's thoughts. Just to stop you there, but there's also a financial element to it as well, whereby if you're married, you have certain tax breaks. I'm not saying I agree with this, but this would be their argument. If you go to a hotel, for instance, a couple's room, you spit between two people. If you're single, blah, blah, blah, you pay more. They would argue that there's that premium as well. Yeah, they're basically claiming a positive right to have the same privilege as someone who's contributing to civilisation. Yeah. So that's also a positive right. And then the

final positive right that I found interesting as an implication was that you have the right to be horny or not on command. And you have the right to whether or not people sexualise you, on command. And what's the easiest way to do that? Well, it's to medicate yourself. It's basically to press your hormone system like an on-and-off switch. We currently have it as default pressed off, as Abigail Fafale said, with the birth control pill for women. So as soon as we want to press it on, we've now created a whole new bureaucratic infrastructure from the pharmaceutical companies to make human nature optional. So this is just scaling upwards to make you a totally independent, optional person, but it's only optional insofar as you can buy and consume something.

I would much rather have a normal, wholesome, embodied life that doesn't require me by all my meaning from some company. Thank you very much. And what's stopping your generation from having that meaningful embodied life? We talked about the housing crisis, and we can talk more about that if you want. Yeah, there are material conditions and material pressures. Mass immigration is a main one. That's definitely driving down birth rates. It's cyclical in a way.

It's driving down birth rates. How so? Okay. Okay, so if we are importing net 750,000 people every year and we're only building 200,000 homes, there is major pressure on the housing market. People need a house and a level of independence in order to start family. So native British people, that's one of the exacerbating factors. Also, even if we could flat back build Barrett new builds, add infinitum and accommodate

the entire third world, those people aren't necessarily assimilating to our values. So why would you want to bring a child into the world if you don't recognize the world on your doorstep, especially if you haven't consented it to changing so quickly? So that background anxiety is discouraging people as well. So yeah, there are massive financial pressures, but in terms of believing to be a part of a meaningful story, this was one of the themes of ARC that you contributed to. People don't really believe that. I think there is a reclaiming of it among some Gen Z.

But this was highlighted. So when we went to National Conservative Conference, I did a segment on GB News that day and they asked me what I thought about it. And I was arguing with some Lib Dem woman named Joe Phillips. And they asked me at the time, okay, Miriam Kate and Danny Krueger are coming out with these radical proposals like the nuclear family and not divorcing is best for children. That's terrible, isn't it? And so they asked Joe, who's in a late 50s, early 60s? What she thought about that?

And she said, oh, it's awful that you're saying that women shouldn't have a choice to stay home or go to work. and drop their kids in daycare, we should have subsidised childcare. And I turned around and said, actually, well, the child is the only person in this relationship who doesn't get to choose to be here. So you should parent as if, if the child were to choose, they would choose you. So that means that you should be mindful of your obligations to them. You should be present. You should honour them as they are later commanded in scripture to honour thy mother and thy father.

And there was a clear look of confusion on Joe's face because she just went, what? you would want your wife to stay home at all times. And I said, no, I wouldn't want to pick someone who would privilege an abstract pursuit of freedom over the obligations to their own children. And what this highlighted to me is that there's a big difference between the boomer and the Zuma paradigm.

The boomers, particularly post-war, they have the mindset of what F. Scott Fitzgerald put at the end of this side of paradise. They were a generation that awoke to find all God's dead, all wars for, all things. from men shaken. So they recognised the horrors that runaway nationalism could inflict on the European continent, particularly German nationalism. They felt constrained by the church, weighed down by cultural expectations. And so they thought, okay, we're going to fight for freedom. We're going to

fight for the sexual revolution, the pill, women's for economic independence and workplace enrollment, daycare so that we can have children raised by specialists rather than make it that women are trapped in the kitchen with drudgery. Okay, we aren't necessarily connected as Zoom as that post-war paradigm. We've had enough time and distance and exposure to the adverse consequences of globalist neoliberalism to know that Tony Blair's promise that things can only get better didn't really come true for us. And so we can sit there and evaluate and say, okay, are these decisions, were they good or did they have trade-offs? Is it that freedom is an axiomatic good unto itself?

Or is it more that Matthew Arnold said, freedom's a fine horse to ride, but you've got to ride it somewhere. And so we're trying to search for some meaningful constraints. We're trying to search for a life narrative that we can live up to. And so I think part of the reason quite a few my generation not having kids is definitely material pressures. But it's also because they can't really see the value of it. If they're still trapped in the atomistic freedom paradigm that says you've got to go out and be financially independent and go and have experiences and your body is, there's no

metaphysical aspect to it, it's just a pleasure-making machine and you've got to maximize that pleasure. right? They can't justify making sacrifices under that framework. Those who seek a parallel framework a different story are going to be the ones that end up having kids and searching for that. And only by disconnecting from that sort of boomer mindset, can they really get there? It's interesting you talk about freedom because I think it's also true for our generation too. We're about 15, 20 years older than you. Because I think the conversation about freedom was starting to get a bit old for us too because of what you're saying, which is there's a big difference between the freedom to do things that are valuable and freedom from constraint in general and they're very very different

types of freedom the freedom from constraint that you talk about the endless liberation doesn't lead to any way good because it doesn't create anything good um was the freedom to do things that are of value to you and that are going to make your life what you want it to be and give you meaning is a whole different thing and it seems to me like actually maybe with young people now they don't actually have the freedom to do the things that would make the life meaningful because of the material constraints to a very large extent. Because I can tell you there's nothing more meaningful than having children, for example, right? But if you can't get that, if you can't make that happen for very practical reasons, then you are only really left with the glasses and the apps

and the porn and whatever. Also, if you can't justify the constraints under the prevailing logic that your civilization is operating on. So it's, it's, it's, you know, it's, you know, It's bound up between, because Gen Z have a lot of freedom to have stuff, but it's disposable stuff. Yes. It's the same as we don't have any shared cultural reference points compared to your generation. So you grew up on 80s movies. You can list a bunch of.

You were shaming me on the drive over here for not having seen the wire. Correct. And you should. We're going to do it publicly now. He hasn't seen the wire. I'm 25. Give me a break. But lots of people in my generation, particularly those that started school with their smartphones,

all the content that they consume is disposable. This is why there's a new influencer every year. This is why... Oh, I see. All the content gets memory hold. It's 30 seconds. It automatically scrolls. It's fed to you by an algorithm.

The people that follow the algorithm, the children of the algorithm, that half of Gen Z, don't curate their own internet experience. So all of their interest and personality are... It's not very inauthentic, but they're algorithmically driven. It's happened to them. Exactly. Yeah.

And it's happened to them because, frankly, and this is because households have been split up and because institutional care has become the norm, particularly across both parties, both conservatives, and Labor want to subsidise infant care from six months upwards. Loads of health complications resulting from that. We have outsourced, well, not we, generations prior to us, have outsourced their obligation to act as custodians of culture and pass that onto their kids by being present parents to screens. How many times you've entered a restaurant and some kids watch a pepper pig?

Right. Any parent that currently gives their kid an iPad and gives them unfettered access to the internet is mad. We had ElsaGate, how many years ago, if anyone doesn't remember that. It was YouTube kids were having these algorithmically generated cartoons uploaded to their service and they weren't being vetted. And the contents involved the incredible Hulk shooting up heroin and hit dancing with Elsa and all these weird and disturbed things that were being fed into kids' content.

Same thing with all those parents that as soon as work from home started, they noticed, sorry, what's in my kid's curriculum at school? What was I turning a blind eye to this whole time? So, frankly, if you don't raise your own kids, someone else will. And so those kids are being raised as children of the algorithm. Whereas the other cohort of Gen Z are like, the gleaners of the fields of our deracinated culture. This is something that Dennis Prager and Ian Hussie-R-Lee have talked about before,

the cut-flower culture, right? If you cut flower from its roots, it might look beautiful for a time. This was the 90s. But it will wither and die eventually. What you need to do is pick up the seed from that and replant it when the soil is fertile once again. Now, politically, the soil won't be fertile for quite some time because we're locked into this paradigm.

but culturally in small enclaves and small groups, you might have fertile enough soil for some reaction resumer to walk along their culture, pick up the seed and plant it elsewhere. I think that's the only element of hope that they have at the moment. Connor, there'll be a lot of people who are listening to this, who are Gen Z and above, who are going... It's on our channel, mate. Highland likely. It's true. Good point.

They're all in their 50s going, what the fuck are these young people talking about? Yeah, exactly. But there'll be lots of people who are listening to this, particularly women going, you have got, and you are making some excellent points. However, in order to run a household now, I've got two kids, both of us need to work. What can I do? What can I do? If I don't work, we're not going to be able to pay the mortgage. The interest rates are going through the roof. The mortgages are going through the roof. The food prices, blah, blah, blah. What do we do? We're trapped. And I have a lot of sympathy for that point of view, if I'm being honest. I have total sympathy for that point of view. I'm very frustrated, and I respect what Matt Walsh has done with What is a woman, but with the Matt Walsh style takes of whenever there is a Zuma girl who complains on TikTok about how soul destroying her 9 to 5 is, the commute stops her from seeing friends and starting relationship, she's barely paid, she's got an apartment

that doesn't allow to save her own house. You see people in their 40s and upwards on the boomer con right go, Snowflake, just work harder. No, okay, wages have stagnated in real term since the 70s. In 1997, the house prices were three times your average income now. It's about 11. I've already said about how we're competing against the mass influx of people that we can never build enough to accommodate. So all of these are economic pressures. By the way, one of the reasons wages are stagnated. Absolutely, yeah. All of the all of these are bearing down on men and women trying to make subsistence households together in in mutual solidarity. Absolutely. So yeah, we do need some structural change. The kind of structural change that I would advise is treating households as

the primary unit rather than individuals. This was the case well before Tony Blair's tax reforms, and I think it should be similar again. This is because the government has a perverse incentive if it wants to grow its GDP graph, not GDP per capita, because we don't have to care about how rich people are, just how rich we look compared to other nations, to only count an individual's economic activity no matter what the activity is. It doesn't matter if you're, we don't distinguish between types of economic activity. We don't say that having a child is worth more than just bringing in someone who isn't as educated in our culture and doesn't have the same skill set as everyone else. It's just as long as the graph is ticking up, that's all that matters.

It's a very inhuman way of doing economics and politics. So yeah, we need massive economic transformation, lowered migration, considering households as the primary consumer units again, of course. But there are some limited things that you can do. This is what my friend Mary Harrington's spoken about before in the women did work. prior to the sort of 1950s economic aberration of you just stayed at home and cooked in the kitchen while your husband went out and worked an office job. It's just they worked part-time around also facilitating childcare. And the digital economy for as long as that lasts for the winning Petro dollar might be able to facilitate that again. It won't facilitate it for everyone, which is why we need economic reform.

But that's something that you can do. And you can lean into your gender roles and find someone that wants to facilitate that as best they can. to try and insulate yourself from the most perverse incentives that are going on at the moment. And the other real challenges, and we've kind of touched upon it, but not really, is concentration spans. So when I was teaching, and this is anecdotal evidence, but I remember talking with my fellow teachers going, concentration spans are dwindling before our eyes. And you could see a very real difference between one year and five years down the line. You go, they just can't focus, they just can't concentrate.

Their interpersonal skills are much more limited. They're more prone to outbursts of violence, aggression. They can't, they literally can't listen unless you have an interactive whiteboard and something is playing. Then you'll grab their attention. But a book, that's a real struggle for them. And that's another problem, isn't it? whereby if you haven't been trained to concentrate,

what can you actually access apart from a 30 second clip on your phone? Well, someone alerted me to this new trend that is very profitable, but nightmarish, of YouTube shorts or TikToks that are split into two, and you've got someone talking about a topic on the top half the screen, and on the bottom half the screen, it's someone playing some sort of mobile game. So it's flashy and stimulating, and it will draw your attention.

So they need that light and sound stimulation to be tricked into listening to someone saying something more complex. That's very worried. We had this guy Destiny on. Oh, I'm so sorry. No, we had a good conversation, but he was like clicking on stuff the whole time. And then I watched some of his content, and I realize that most of the time he does these videos where he's playing a game while talking about politics. And I can't concentrate on the serious conversation while someone's playing a game. Yeah, that's...

But what you're saying is these people can't concentrate on the serious conversation without again being... Yes, quite. They need an overabundant level of light and sound stimulation. And then we wonder why, I mean, I'm sat here in glasses, we wonder why we're having so many posture problems, why our eyes are being burned out, why test scores are going down. I know someone in my family who has just left primary education. And you'll know this. Last week of any term, you don't really do much work. No. Especially before Christmas.

Kids didn't want to watch a Christmas film. Too long. Yeah. Really? Yeah. Genuinely worrying. Some of the reasons for this aren't just because of phones and algorithms, though. This is something that you said in your arc speech and something that Kate's spoken about quite a bit.

And Eric Commissar and other people. It's that institutional care creates separation anxiety from a child's parent. And if you have that level of insecurity in your life, then you're going to try and seek identification and certainty in other avenues. So, for example, if you from six months onwards are separated from your mum because she needs to go out to work to support the household because the government screwed up the economy and then the government decides to subsidise childcare. A baby in the morning has a circadian rhythm of cortisol and if they have skin-to-skin contact, it regulates. If they are separated from their mum, place in daycare, it peaks, it stays at that peak and it

stays at that peak throughout adolescence. And so that can induce all sorts of things like lifelong anxiety disorders. Same with attachment styles. These have been studied by various psychologists. If you have an anxious or avoidant or anxious avoidant attachment style, like your Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars, where you want to suffocate someone one minute and then push them away because you're afraid of being abandoned, do we think that those people are going to engage in the world as healthy adults? No. No. Okay. So if you've been fed a diet of steady grievance narratives, if you have been told that the reason you can't have equal pay, household, all that is because of the toxic, cis white, patriarchy and you don't have a stable home life because your parents offhanded you to some

low-paid managerial class professional who was also caring for 30 other kids and was tasked with behavioral management and you didn't have your needs met and then got divorced. How are you going to feel connected to civilization? You don't have a model, you don't have some kind of unit you belong to, you don't have a unit you think you can transition to, you don't see the value of it, and you feel that you've been robbed of an inheritance so why wouldn't you burn down the entire village to feel its warmth? And that's it's not only that you're not only that you're not only that they can't concentrate, they can't invest in civilization at all. They're totally checked out because nobody's ever given them a reason to be.

Do you, what you're painting is a fundamentally tragic picture of that generation. Does it ever frustrate you, and we've touched on it a little bit, does it ever frustrate you the way that your generation has been painted by older generations where you think, okay, I get the point, I get some of them, but actually this isn't accurate and it's deeply uncharitable as well. Quite. You made us. So no parent can... Jordan Peterson wrote in 12 Rules for Life, never do something that allows you to hate your own children. Well, that's what lots of generations have done. Never let your children do something that... Never do something that lets you hate your own children. Is it... Is it... Are you talking about, sorry, just to clarify, are you talking about

that one or the one way he says never let your children do something that makes you hate them? Well, they're symbiotic because you don't... What your children, children do is contingent on what you instruct them to do and allow them to. Exactly, yes. So if you throw your hands up and don't provide any country guidance. The reason I'm being anal about this is I think what I may maybe there's two separate ones. I think the one you are referring to is never allow your children to behave in a way that makes you. Yes, quite. That's the one. That's that's what I meant here. So it's more about allowing them rather than don't do something

because there is a difference which you will find out when you become a dad. Yeah. Well yeah, I look forward to it. If You throw your hands up and relinquish your duty to act as a cultural custodian. Don't be shocked if the children don't feel connected to the culture and they don't grateful. Douglas Murray and Warren-O-West has a great chapter on resentment. But we have, I think, focused as people that sit down and talk for a living on ideas too much and not incentives because not everyone is as focused with ideas. They just sort of bumble along and fall into the cultural safety net and the safety net should be there to allow you to live a whole.

awesome life according to that. Or material pressures, as you said, about housing and things like that. So I think what's happened, and you see this with the strange application of prior generations adult standards to the current generation, is that they just, I don't want to sound like you just don't understand me, Dad. But it kind of is that. A great example of this was when recently there was a discourse around banning smartphones for under 16s, right? banning the sale of them and prohibiting kids from going on social media. There is also the discourse adjacent to that on applying age verification to online porn sites. The immediate reaction is, well, adults should have a right to consume with anonymity.

It's like, we're not talking about adults, we're talking about children. That's the point. But we always apply adult standards to children because, and I think the prevailing paradigm of the individual consumer unit that we operate under during liberalism, can't really account for kids because they're dependent, they're not self-actualizing. And so we always treat kids with legislation and culture as if they're adults and then get frustrated when they're not living up to adult standards. When in fact, no, there should be certain cultural safeguards there that protect and sculpt kids

into the kind of citizens and subjects that will uphold and feel invested in a civilization. Well, right. The thing that I always find strange, and it's a conversation we have on so many issues where I keep hearing that we need laws for things that parents should be doing. It's like the government needs to stop children from having access to phone. Why? Why aren't their parents responsible for giving or not giving them a phone one they think it's appropriate? Do you know what I mean?

Because children are different too. We may disagree on this. I get the sense that we will. Yeah. Right. But my point is this. There are some children who may be perfectly ready to have a phone at 14. Maybe not.

But that is up to the parents to decide. The parents may be more involved in that child's life. they may be better able to supervise them. They may feel that they may have certain values around that, that they want to pass on to their children, as I would with my son on certain issues. So, like, my son is not getting the phone until he's, I don't know, 35, right, if my wife has her way.

My point is, on almost every issue, it seems to me like we're trying to have the government get involved and solve a problem that a lot of the time is up to the parents to solve. And there's a whole variety of issues in white church. I could give you an example, but you clearly disagree. So don't be wrong, I am very skeptical of especially this government and the government in waiting's ability to build power sensibly. We've just had the COVID pandemic, which I think was a criminal confiscation of freedoms,

not that I'll ever hold my breath for any accountability on that. However, when dealing with children, we do intervene, we feel it reasonable to intervene, when a parent is inflicting a level of abuse on the child. Of course. Yes. And I think that we can say that these companies are knowingly profiting off of the developing and impressionable brains of children. They're inducing anxieties in young girls and they're developing their marketing strategies to do so. We've just seen from the sound investigations that the porn companies are actually making content with 11 and 12 year olds in mind to say, oh, what if a young gay kid watches this and realizes they're gay?

Isn't that wonderful? It's like, why are you making porn for children? Let's say you're 12 years old, you're still figuring out your sexuality, maybe even your gender. Wouldn't it be helpful to see, not a celebration, but just like maybe a normalization of something that you think is what you want, you know, probably helps a lot. Let's say I was 12 and I saw like trans angels, I saw all these different sites. It would help me figure out what I do like and what I don't like. If you're exposed to nothing, you have no idea.

And maybe you're more like cliable. You don't want age verification on there because you're factoring in a demographic that shouldn't be watching it into your numbers to sell to advertisers. You're actively profiting off of this. I obviously wasn't talking about porn. No, I know. But these are all connected to the devices. So I think we do need to go after these predatory institutions that if they do distinguish between an adult and child, it's because they know that the children are more impressionable and therefore a cash count.

It's even more predatory. So I do think there is a reasonable role for a government to step in here. I just wish it was a more competent government than the one we currently got. So that being the case, and we're looking, and you've made a very articulate argument for the crisis that your generation faces. Are you worried that a backlash is coming, that you are going to see a group of young men, a significant percentage of young men, going, no, we're going to check out of this, which, if you look at pop culture through the years, things like punk, teddy boys, whatever it may be, has always existed. But with the ability to be connected globally and in your country could manifest in something quite worrying.

Exema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with eGlis, a once-monthly treatment for moderate disappear eczema. After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase, about four in seven people taking ebbglis achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks. And most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing. Ebglis, Librikizumab, LBKZ. A 250 milligram per 2 milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults in children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema. Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. can be used with or without topical corticosteroids.

Don't use if you're allergic to ebbglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with ebbglis. Before starting, Ebglis, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about ebbglis and visit ebglis.com or call 1800 lilyr-Rx or 1-800-545-97579. I think that the revolutionary appetite among the Zumers is not up for negotiation.

we just need to pick our flavor. And I don't say that as necessarily an endorsement because I'm not a crazy work communist. But it's not just a crazy woke communist. There's also the other side, which... He knows. Exactly. What leads me to believe this is there was an onward paper

about two years ago that broke down by demographic age groups, rather, faith in democracy. And it was nearly 50% of Gen Z that was split between, we want governance by experts versus we want a strong man who can circumvent parliament and the military to take charge. And frankly, it's because, as already alluded to, for us, history didn't end. We were born well after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the defeat the Nazis and the like. And so the moral myth, and I'm not saying myth is an untrue, but like morally loaded story, that created the post-war order doesn't have as much of a hold over us.

what we're instead seeing is, is the system that is currently purported to be the best option we have necessarily working? For example, if you are a migration skeptic, for every single election for the past decade and referendum, you voted for lower immigration. And what happens? It gets raised to record numbers. So democratic accountability seems to be a kind of fallacy in practice. This is something that I think that Hans Holman Hopper got right. He's a libertarian but also a monarchist, very strange. But he said, actually, hypothetically, a monarchy would be more accountable than a democracy with a blob class of unaccountable advisors. Because there's one guy, he might well be more considerate over his subjects than the people who are elected that can just betray you at a moment's notice.

And he can be deposed far more easy than the government could be voted out. So it's less about the system and more about are the people governing of good character and do they care about the people that they're meant to be representing. Or do they represent some abstract anywhere class over in Davos, Geneva, wherever it is? So I think what's going to happen is this total disconnect and dispassion with democracy is going to gravitate moreover towards something like a Bikaley figure. I was just thinking. So he retweeted me yesterday because I said he is the right-wing vibe. What you want isn't with an existential threat, right?

You gentlemen have done a great job in platforming views that you disagree with to show to the public where they might line up. But there are some people that you just genuinely cannot have a conversation with. There is no having a conversation with people that think they are right to set up a sanctuary state in California, confiscate your children from you, and sterilize them. You can't negotiate with those people, right? That's just an existential threat to your way of life. So what the right-wing vibe is is basically to identify accurately the existential threats, crush those, and then give your victory speech on the balcony of a neoclassical palace with your wife and kids by your side. That is every noble man's dream, frankly.

And that's what the reactionary times among Gen Z are going to gravitate towards. And they're going to be less concerned about the levers of democracy and the processes than they are being effective. This is why, did you see the... I can't remember who put out the poll the other day. But Trump once joked about, are you going to be a dictator? Only on the first day. Would you support Trump being a dictator for a day? 40% said yes.

And it's just like, okay. Yeah, but those aren't zoomers. That's just 40% of Americans who will support anything Trump says, let's be honest. Not necessarily anything that Trump says. Pretty much. I think, well, his voter base expanded in 2020. The Trump guys love Trump.

Everything he says that's quote unquote problematic to the mainstream, they take it as a joke and they love Trump. That's kind of that. But I think your point about Salvador is much better, actually, which is I follow the logic of it. I think it's a very historically illiterate way of thinking because this is the slogan of every revolution, right?

The system isn't working. We've got a better one. You have a revolution. Turns out the system that you created was even worse. And then eventually things settled down. And hopefully over the course of history, you kind of make progress. But when I say it's a much better point, what I mean is it's kind of inevitably do your generation feel this? I don't think you're going to have a sort of French revolution or a Bolshevik revolution.

They always end up being that. Yeah, exactly. They always end up eating their own children. What I think instead is the left have already done the long march through the institutions. And so the global managerial state is going to liquidate sex difference and make your consumer units and stick you in the goon cave. Or there's going to be a reverse long march or a charismatic enough leader to use the mechanisms of populism before. democracy dies on its fumes. But you can't. This is why I'm very sympathetic to the argument making, because we've had populism and look where it's taken us.

But you haven't... Look in this country, right? Nigel Farage is the most popular politician as a single man or woman in this country. That's a fact. You can like it, dislike, you can think he's evil, you can think he's far, whatever. It doesn't matter. It's the most popular politician. He led a populist revolt in Brexit, right? And look at Donald Trump. He gets elected on a populist wave of support in America

and the media lie about him constantly for four years and they sabotage everything he tries to do to the point that he indulges in his own worst instincts of which he has many. He can't govern properly. He can't get the country sorted out. They kick him out. They try and sue them.

He's going to get elected again. He's not going to do anything again because they won't let him. And what are people supposed to conclude from that? They're going to conclude democracy isn't working, populism isn't working, we need a guy who's not going to be constrained by any of these things, he's going to come in and sort it out. That's what they're going to say. You just made my point for me. I know. I know. That's why I'm saying. Your point is very logical. I see what you're saying.

Yeah. Totally. I'm not saying I agree with it or like it, but I almost at this point kind of see it as inevitable. Especially if the current politicians have deafened their ears to what the people genuinely want, and we're going to get a continuity candidate under Kirstama, who's said that his loyalties lie more with Davos and in Westminster. But this is the problem as well. Like you talk to politicians, which I increasingly do. And behind the scenes, off the cameras are not on,

they all get all the problems. They understand everything. Oh, yeah, immigration. Yeah, we need to leave the issue. Oh, yeah. And then they go on question time or they go on this and they go on that. And they... There are more houses. That's it.

Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, I'd like to have a good argument against you. I don't. I don't. I can see why people feel this way. Yeah, I think what it is... And the blabocracy, which you alluded to, is where... Like, we did an interview with Steve Hilton,

who's a former advisor to David Cameron, and it basically made me want to kill people. Which doesn't take a lot these days, because with my son, I don't get enough sleep and whatever. But he's basically saying, look, the people you elect can't do anything because the civil service won't let them. Yeah, it's a liberal managerial paradigm.

Right, and the deep stay in America, people like to say it's a conspiracy, but it's not. This is the thing I think people don't understand with Trump. When he gets elected with Schedule F, I mean, on the run-ups of the election, they're already bringing 90-odd charges against him, fairly bogus court cases, the difficult-to-believe claims by E. Jean Carroll, all of these things, they're stopping at nothing to destabilise his run to the White House. And he thinks on day one he'll be able to fire 50,000 federal agents,

and there'll be no consequence. So, do you think you're... enemies are just going to accept being homeless. They're not going to let him govern. They didn't the first time. Why would they now? Yeah. So this is what I mean by you're going to have to confront basically existential threats. This is why people are getting sort of tired of liberalism. I mean, there's a critic called Carl Schmidt, who joined the ill-advised party in the 1930s in Germany, later announced and was friends with Jewish scholars. So better choice. But he made some very insightful observations about the nature of liberalism being incapable of making its own argument. So he used the analogy of,

if you ask a liberal Christ or Barabbas, he will convene a committee and by the time he has made a decision, the wrong man will have been crucified. And it's because it presupposes in its procedures to be neutral. It presupposes that it doesn't have a comprehensive doctrine of the good, but it also thinks that it can contain all privately contained conceptions of the good, like Christianity and Islam, even if they're totally incompatible, within its borders and it can ameliorate all of those contradictions and conflicts until everyone sings Kumbaya and John Lennon's imagine. And that's the delusion that I think our globally are operating under and the managerial class in the UK. And because they're pursuing this impossible dream, there's a reason Thomas Moore

called it utopia, because it literally means nowhere. It can't exist. We're suffering for that. And I think because people are seeing, okay, the procedures aren't working, the existing ruling class aren't listening, we need a new paradigm and a new way of doing politics, you're going to get the revolutionary Gen Z. It's just which flavor do you get? Do you get, what communists or do you get the reactionary? So let me, and this is very unusual for me, let me put a more positive spin on this. That is very unusual. That is very unusual. One of the ways the liberal elite or the establishment, whatever you want to call them, has always controlled the working classes, the middle classes, whatever else, is through the media.

Now, we're seeing more and more that the establishment media, their power is crumbling, nobody is watching it. Piers Morgan just announced recently that he's moving entirely onto YouTube. As the power grows of influences, people were able to speak more honestly, people like Lotus Eater, people like ourselves, might that help to start a change? Might that help to put pressure on the political classes? now that they no longer have this tool in order to control the narrative?

I think it will encourage some people to insulate themselves from the most perverse of cultural incentives and to not adopt the kind of technologies that will render that obsolete. But I think as the technological landscape changes and as the elite get increasingly insecure, they'll do two things. The first thing I think is they'll seek to control the means of meme production. This is what the online harms bill is about. This is what Caroline Dynage sending letters out over the Russell Brand affair. Again, he hasn't had his day in court, so I'm not going to bother commenting on the allegations.

What I am going to say is that they were so worried about people saying, maybe he should have his day in court first, that they tried to get one of my friends censored on GB News, and they tried to revoke his right to have his show on Rumble without any criminal charges. The government is getting very concerned about the ability to control the narrative now that we don't have a shared cultural reference point, now that we're not all gathered around the television getting the same message. This is why they all hate Elon Musk.

This is why at Davos, Ursula von der Leyen, and in their 2024 risk report, they put absurdly, the most luxury belief concern possible as number one, misinformation and disinformation. They put, what was it, involuntary migration, they euphemized it as, down on the list, and like number 15 or something, and then in 10 years time they said, oh, it won't even be a problem. Again, it's another managerial thing, right? And then the other thing that will happen is going back to the goggles, everyone have an entirely customized, solipsistic consumption experience.

So actually, brainwashing won't even matter because people will be so distracted by bread and circuses that they won't really involve themselves in the real world. Because if you have an AI girlfriend for the kind of guys that were watching the Red Pell podcast and hopeless, if you have six tabs of pornography, open at once, if everyone around you is enmeshed in their own little bubble

of AI-generated movies, You're never even watching the same movie if you put the same prompt again. We're never going to have the same artistic experience again. Everyone's going to be individually siloed and very easy to control because they're not even going to realize that they're being controlled.

They're going to be CS Lewis as chessmen. They don't have the language to give voice to what was lost. So we're living in the intermediate edge at the moment. All we can do is, through media, encourage people to not adopt this technology, not atomize themselves, reclaim the morals of the past,

enmesh themselves in a responsible community and a family. and when the competence crisis or the technological collapse comes, then you'll be aside from that. And it will be like, as Eric Kaufflin said, the religious will inherit the earth. We'll be the only ones having kids. It's been a wonderful interview.

Thank you so much for coming on the show. The final question that we always ask is always the same. Before we go over to our locals, where they get to ask questions to our guests, what's the one thing we're not talking about as a society that we really should be? The insurmountable worldview divide between the boomers and the zoomers. This is what is going to drive total political change

and at the moment is driving intergenerational resentment. The greater divide than between men and women than between classes and races, the between even every human heart, as Soledonitsin would have said, will be between generations. And there is a lot of resentment building among the young. And what is that divide? Whether or not they believe the current system is serving their interests and whether or not they believe that they should be paying the pensions and the healthcare and propping up the housing market of older people who are not going to intend to pay that forward. If you're relying on younger people to take care of you in your old age, rather than importing a low-wage care class who have high rates of abuse,

then maybe treat them a little bit kinder, or they might decide to upend the entire thing. You know what? I wish I could disagree with you. I really do. But I can't. I've been saying this for 20 years now. Initially it was to my 30 Facebook friends, but eventually to a larger audience. How can we continue to have levels of debt in this country that we do and expect young people to give a shit about this country and the future?

You can't do that. You can't in debt your grandchildren and then be like, why don't you love us? That doesn't work. Yeah. Great. Head on over to locals for more. As young men are becoming more conservative, do you think they will also begin to embrace traditional religions because they contain well-defined behaviours and boundaries?

I think you're seeing a three-way split here.