ITV's Robert Peston & Kishan Koria answer questions on wokery and the importance of voting

Journalists Robert Peston & Kishan Koria take questions from the Oxford Union audience on getting more women into politics, woke culture and getting involved in politics.
Robert Peston is the Political Editor of ITV News and the host of Peston on ITV. He was previously the Economics Editor and Business Editor of BBC News. Kishan Koria is the editor of Peston on ITV, he was previously the Debates Editor of ITV News.
#speaker
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
SUPPORT the Oxford Union ► oxford-union.org/supportus
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
The Oxford Union is deeply grateful and encouraged by the messages of support in response to our determination to uphold free speech. During our 200 year history, many have tried to shut us down. As the effects of self-imposed censorship on university campuses, social media and the arts show no signs of dissipating, the importance of upholding free speech remains as critical today as it did when we were founded in 1823. Your support is critical in enabling The Oxford Union to continue its mission without interruption and without interference. You can support the Oxford Union here: oxford-union.org/supportus

[@Mofgat]

Toxic masculinity is pure bollocks.

[@papershark]

You can tell by the ammont that turned out for this, just how little BBC and ITV news means to people now.

[@georgewaters6424]

BBC, Sky, mean nothing to me now IDF Zionist apologists! Before that their mis information during Brexit. Little more than the PR arm the tory government. Way too establishmentarian. ITV mot so much, C4 News, ITV News, 5 News are all owned & run by ITN. A news organisation that values its independence.

[@jakoflynn2560]

“Representative of everybody” “goes without saying there’s one” (problem) but he also apologises for not being able to define it ….so he’s just insinuating and touting conclusions as if they were sacrosanct

[@seaglider844]

Yeah I just love it when someone says something like "parliament just feels antiquated..." wtf does that mean? If that's the extent of your ability to communicate what is wrong then you're either a failure at journalism or afraid to dig deeper. Maybe both.

[@jakoflynn2560]

@@seaglider844 …or worse he makes gauche assumptions about the in-crowdness of his position and he’s signalling that anyone who wants him to unpack his vague descriptors is de facto “out group”.

[@obiwansherlockclousseau5107]

Has there ever been an objective definition of the word "woke?"

[@ndaspirantaryan]

Very nice

[@TheVeganVicar]

🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: UNLAWFUL DOMINION: In the preceding chapter, it was proven beyond any semblance of a doubt, that an actual patriarchal monarch (that is, a genuine, saintly king, as defined in that chapter) is the only type of person who is qualified to rule a nation, just as lesser societal units (such as nuclear families, extended families, clans, tribes, villages, town, and cities) are best governed by their respective patriarchs. Therefore, logically, any system of administration OTHER than one controlled by a naturally-arisen patriarch, is inherently evil, wicked, illegal, illegitimate, criminal, and adharmic. SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM: SOCIALISM is a political and economic system of social organization in which natural resources, property, and the means of production are owned in common, controlled by the collective public, but typically by a cooperative, the state, or the government, as opposed to private ownership by individuals and/or business corporations. Socialism is based on the notion that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society. It is a stage of society in Marxist theory, transitional between capitalism and communism, and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Hence, COMMUNISM is an extreme form of socialism that strives for both social and economic equality, something which can never be achieved, since true equality can never ever exist in this world. Socialism (and communism) is best defined in contrast with capitalism (or to be more accurate, with free-market economies), as socialism has arisen both as a critical challenge to capitalism, and as a proposal for overcoming and replacing it. Cf. “capitalism”, in the Glossary of this book. Socialism/communism is INTRINSICALLY evil, because it is based on an ideology of both social and economic egalitarianism, which is a practical impossibility, if not a theoretical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably within the atomic and sub-atomic realms. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system, and therefore, independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite, in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes and records a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth. As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely ECONOMIC systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political sphere, because socialism depends on a governing power to organize society in a very meticulous manner. In any case, assuming that socialism is nothing more than a form of economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any kind of free-market exchange (the latter of which is objectively moral - or at worst, amoral - see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation, according to the principles of sanātana dharma. At worst, socialism or communism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, murderous regime, that leads to untold pain and misery, due to certain dogmas that are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, especially the freedom of religious practice. Witless Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposedly-wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies, is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his evil acolytes, had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian principles. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite, Marx, who, for his sustenance, solicited funds from his friends, instead of earning an honest living as a writer. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort resources from his subjects, in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a human in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY: DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will vote, overwhelmingly, for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available. Unlike socialism, in which wealth is stolen from the rich and distributed to the poor (with a “little” bit extra for the ruling elite), democratic governments frequently steal money from the working-class via the taxation system, and distribute it to the already affluent, often indirectly. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not! Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, nutritious, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in “dharma” (righteous living), not in facts and figures, nor in technical training. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily correlate with intelligence! No democratic (or socialist) government will educate its citizens sufficiently well, that those citizens will acquire knowledge of how to usurp their regime. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. One who requires the services of a brain surgeon NATURALLY seeks the most qualified physician to perform the operation, so logically, we ought accept the sovereignty of the most qualified man to rule over an entire nation (a genuine king). Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice - see the entry “democracy” in the Glossary of what is, by far, the most important work of literature ever composed, this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Cont...

[@jakoflynn2560]

If a leader of a party in a two party system can’t say what a woman is I think you need to raise the alarm not play it down

[@TheVeganVicar]

woman: an adult human female. The fact that this word requires defining in the glossary of this book, is outrageous, but due to an upsurge of deluded leftists (“adharma vādin”, or “asura”, in Sanskrit) in recent times, it seems to be necessary to do just that, because such deranged criminals consider a woman to be any human who IDENTIFIES as one (which is entirely tautological, of course). Cf. “man”.

[@NaveedKhan29174]

🎉

[@shipscook3765]

Have we found in Robert Preston Britain’s most smuggest man ?