Positive Discrimination Rife in 2026... | Trending Ep365

Trending is back with a bang...Jaymie highlights the potential explosion of identity politics in the incoming UK government and key positions are pressured to be based on gender, rather than skill. The UK treasury now don't think math skills are an important criteria to work there. Oxbridge grants based on skin colour. Rochdale grooming gang leader set to walk free tomorrow and REMAIN in the UK, as victims say they've been failed again. Trump appoints Avi Loeb of Harvard to look into the impact of UFO's.

You can watch the full episode FOR FREE over on https://ickonic.com/Watch/3936

You can also subscribe to Ickonic to receive…

-  New Content Daily
-  Feature-Length Documentaries
-  Exclusive Original Series

Start your journey today for just £1.99 for the first month

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:04

Good morning everybody and welcome to Wednesday's episode of Trending. It's good to be back here with you. Hope you've had a nice week. Thank you very much for your patience and understanding with us. Not doing and the episodes passed Monday last week. Back to normal this week. Dot Connect is back, Garethite tonight, or Garethite this week, I should say, is back this evening, and trending is back as normal. Right, let's start here in the UK. So we spoke Monday about Andy Burnham and the new leadership that will take over the Labour Party and become Prime Minister without a single public vote, without anybody having any say on whether they're happy with that. Nope, he's just gonna take over as Prime Minister, and then we're stuck for another two and a bit years without any way of changing that. Now, let's talk about what may come. Let's talk about the sign of things to come, potentially. These two stories we're gonna we're gonna cover initially are baffling, but when you you you know what the agenda is, which is to create one, a disillusion with politics to the point that they can bring in a technocracy of appointed officials rather than elected ones. And secondly, you know the point is to create outrage and to create a feeling of disengagement with people where they just don't feel there's any point in doing anything and trying and resisting because resistance is futile. Half of Labour's government should be women. Labour women, tell Burnham. Andy Burnham is being urged by female MPs to commit to a 50-50 gender split within his government when he becomes Prime Minister next month. We're asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity in society and misogyny within government and institutions. Okay. My issue with that is that the people that should be appointed to whatever jobs in any context, not just politics, should be the best people for the job. Now, you don't appoint the best people for the job by having quotas of any kind, whether it be women, whether it be age, whether it be ethnicity, you don't do that. You appoint the best people for the job because they're the best people for the job. If that happens to be 70% women, 30% men, fine. If it happens to be 70% men, 30% women, then fine. If it happens to be 90% one way or the other, that's fine. I don't care. I want the best people for the job, and surely the country should as well. Surely anybody that wants people to prosper should want the best people for the job, regardless of their gender. Well, unfortunately, gender and identity politics is something that has been rife in the last decade or so, and the parties on the left of politics, Labour, Democrats, and other parties around the world, have been leading that charge, which is to positively discriminate, which is to discriminate against people who may be more than talented enough to take a certain position, or more than talented enough when compared to the person who gets the position, but rather than achieving it, they get cast to one side because they're the wrong colour, they're the wrong gender, they're the wrong religion. And that to me is actually what discrimination is. And this is where I think these people are complete lunatics. Because discrimination for me, and discrimination as a as a description, is judging anybody on anything other than their character or ability or competence to do a particular job. Yeah, that's what these people do. If you say I don't see race, I don't see gender, I just see a person, and I judge them based on their behaviour or their ability to do something, then I'm the racist, I'm the misogynist. That doesn't make any sense. Surely the whole ambition of these movements to create some form of equality in their eyes is to get the answer from people I don't care. When you say, Oh, I'm a woman or I'm black or I'm gay or I'm trans, I don't care, mate. Are you a nice person? Can you do the job you're being asked to do? Great. You can't. Surely that should be the desire. Where people are treated the same, regardless of those things. They're treated based on their ability to do a job. And in terms of being in a government, you're treated based on your ability to serve the people who have elected you. When actually they want the opposite, they want you to notice that they're different. They want you to notice that it's a woman in a position, they want you to notice that it's somebody of a different ethnicity or a different religion or a different sexual identity. If you don't notice that, that makes you a racist, that makes you homophobic, that makes you misogynistic. When surely actually noticing and making a point of giving somebody an opportunity based on any of those differentiating factors, that's discrimination because you are discriminating, you might say positively, but that's surely still not good based on the colour of their skin, their gender, X, Y, and Z. How are we in this point in 2026? History tells us that when people are treated differently because of anything other than their behavior or competence, society doesn't prosper. People don't prosper on either side of the equation. And you've got to look at countries like apartheid South Africa to know that there was extreme racism towards the non-white community in South Africa. They were persecuted and it was absolutely terrible. But then it's overcorrected to the point that white farmers were kicked off their land and having their resources taken from them to then be given to people of different ethnicities who didn't have the same competence and skills to run those farms, as a result, there was food shortages. We saw the same in Zimbabwe. And if things overcorrect, history tells you, just engage with people based on their ability to do something or not, and the content of their character. Martin Luther King all those years ago, still appropriate today. If you're judging somebody judging somebody, saying that you want a 50-50 cabinet split, that is exactly the epitome of what he is saying, or what he said in that speech. You're not judging somebody by the content of their character, you're judging somebody by their gender. In other contexts, you'll judge them by the colour of their skin. And we'll come to a story surrounding that as well. How are we at this point in 2026? Look at history, it tells you that that was wrong. It tells you that that was wrong. Why are we not looking back and going, okay, let's take the bits that the learning curves from this experience, from that experience, and go, right, let's build something better. We know that doesn't work. We know when that happens, that leads to that. Let's build something from scratch that creates an outcome that we take some of the things that may have worked in that area, we leave the ones that don't, and we build upon it. Whereas because we have this bizarre power vacuum between people of different ideologies, where you're either racist if you don't believe this, and you're crazy lefty lunatic if you believe that, why not? Why don't we try and have a meeting of minds? Because there's some ideas on the left which you can get behind. There's some ideas on the right that you can get behind. And if people just actually talk to each other, had real human connections, then maybe we might get somewhere. But as I've spoken about, as Gareth's spoken about, as David's spoken about many occasions, the microphones in the media, the loud, prominent voices on social media are always the polarities, they're always the extremes of both sides. You know, you chat to most people, most everyday regular Joes, they are somewhere in the middle. They see this and they see that. And a lot of the stuff that we are conditioned to be angry about, to be passionate about, to be terrified of, they don't care. You know, I've just spent a week in Spain with a hotel surrounded by lots of English, lots of Germans, and you chat to people, and most people just want to get on. Most people just want to enjoy their lives. Most people just want to have a nice week away with their children. They probably don't care about a lot of this stuff that's being, you know, propaganded onto people. You must fear this, you must hate this person, you must care about that. If you don't do this, you're a horrible person. You're it's just pathetic. Utterly pathetic. But it's the system's way of keeping people separated. Because as we've covered pretty much every day, people being separated is an absolute essential part of keeping this control system in power. Because a united, connected humanity would would bring this house of cards down in a matter of minutes because people simply wouldn't accept it. People simply would not accept the status quo. But because people are separated, because people feel very apart from each other, people feel like they're fighting with each other rather than looking up and going, this same force is controlling all of our lives. The system gets away with it. Carries on, carries on, carries on. With no end in sight. How many times are we gonna keep making the same mistakes? How many times are we gonna keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result? I mean, that literally is the definition of insanity, isn't it? Doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different outcome. Maybe we should try some unity. Maybe we should try calling out this sort of BS for what it is. Maybe we should try standing on our own and not being afraid of being um having an unpopular opinion, which is that, you know, this is complete bollocks. You should judge and appoint people, especially into key prominent positions of influence like this, based on their ability to do the job and nothing else. Right, we're gonna dive into a couple more stories that go down that area, but more specific. In the uh the rest of the show over on iconic.com. We're also gonna speak about Harvard prof Harvard Professor who's just been appointed to keep an eye on UFOs and their impact on American and international society. And we're gonna talk about the Rochdale grooming gang leader who's just or is awaiting release from prison back into the community, not too long after he was convicted of the most horrendous crimes. Just uh just wonder why people think there's a two-tiered justice system. Anyway, head over to iconic.com and I'll see you there.

SPEAKER_01 11:45

Two letters, please, one decap thank you.

SPEAKER_02 11:52

I've just seen the most wondrous minutes on the upstream.