 We've got a packed show for you today. We're talking about North Korea's Haidah Jumbong. We're talking about Will and Kate's baby, or baby to be, baby on the way. We're going to talk about the McStrike, the first strikes that have happened at McDonald's branches in the UK ever. Two of those happened today. And then we've secured an exclusive interview. Very exciting. This is a big deal. Aaron, what are we going to be, who have we got on the show? We're going to be interviewing the founder of Activate, which has been described as the analogue to, you know, the Tory analogue to momentum. We've got an exclusive story with him in regard to the future of the organisation and what next for it? It's a very, very, very big story. And if you're tuning in just for that, stick around. It's towards the end of the show, but explosive. Yeah, we're very excited about it. It's quite a coup in our media. I think a big coup. Yeah. So, onto the serious stuff. It's the unexpected story of the summer. North Korea are developing their nuclear capability at a vastly quicker pace than I think most people predicted. Yesterday, they tested their first H bomb. That's a hydrogen bomb for the wonky stuff. We're going to go to Vox now. So, I think that's going to come up on the screen. Vox.com. Vox.com. That's reclined. So, at noon, local time, on September the 3rd, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake registered at North Korea's Pungri testing site that indicated Pyongyang detonated a hydrogen bomb with a hundred kiloton yield, which would make the device around seven times stronger than the bomb America dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. This was the country's six nuclear tests and it's first during the Trump administration. Lots of big numbers there. Lots of kind of confusing words. Aaron, you're going to start by explaining the difference between a hydrogen bomb and an atom bomb. Yes. North Korea already had tested an atom bomb, but this is their first hydrogen bomb. That's right. So, an atom bomb was obviously used in Hiroshima. Little boy, as it was called. And this weapon was significantly stronger than that. An atom bomb uses nuclear fission. A hydrogen bomb uses fission and fusion. So, it has the initial atom bomb and then it's joined by a separate nuclear process, a distinct one, which amplifies the effects. It's much, much more powerful. The most powerful nuclear weapon ever used was the Zarbama weapon dropped by the Soviets in 1961. I think that had 50 megatons of TNT. So, it's a couple of thousand times more powerful than Hiroshima. Now, that was a bomb, right? And these are on missiles. So, naturally, the payload is going to be a lot smaller and even American ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missiles, are much smaller than the Zarbama, but this is still significantly bigger than what we saw in Hiroshima. And that killed around 100,000 people. So, in a major urban centre, this could kill a million plus people. Yeah. And you mentioned the difference between a bomb and a missile. So, another reason North Korea has been in the news this summer isn't just because they're creating bigger bombs, but they're also creating better missiles. So, it looks like they're at the verge of creating an intercontinental ballistic missile which would get these nuclear bombs to, well, which could get these nuclear bombs to American cities, which is a much more surefire way of landing a bomb than dropping it from a plane in the sky. Well, yeah, like a strategic bomber is a very limited delivery system, which is why we had the Cuban missile crisis, right? You know, you had America putting its nuclear weapons in Turkey, bordering Russia, Soviet Union rather, and the Soviet Union wants to fight with fire, putting similar weapons on Cuba. So, today, the likes of the UK, the United States, can use an ICBM and hit anywhere in the world. Obviously, the number one form of nuclear deterrent is something at sea because then you can't have a preemptive strike, which is why Trident, we have four nuclear submarines in this country, one's always at sea. So, you always have a deterrent which people can't hit preemptively. In a secret location. Precisely. But this is very, they're joining a very elite club by first getting nuclear weapons, but hydrogen, hydrogen thermo, they're called thermonuclear weapons. I don't believe the likes of Pakistan or India have them. Or maybe not, but it's pretty elite technology. Yeah, these discussions can often get a bit wonky, a bit technical. I often lose track of kilotons and megatons. So, that's why we often compare things to Hiroshima. We say it's six times more powerful than the one that was dropped on Hiroshima. To remind ourselves of sort of horror that caused, you had a section from a podcast that I think you must have listened to recently, Dan Carlin. Dan Carlin. Good podcast. Yeah, it's a good podcast. And there's an excerpt we're about to play. And it's from the diary of a Japanese woman who lived and worked in Hiroshima. She was in the midst of all that. She was unaffected because she had the good fortune of being in a toilet and it was insulated. God knows what led or iron or whatever, but she was fine. But her entire family wasn't. So, I think we're going to cut to that excerpt now for people watching. This is quite graphic. So, if you're not watching, don't watch it. Looking around for my sister, I saw her lying sprawled in the corridor, the right side of her body covered with terrible burns. She had probably been washing her hands with her right hand stretched over the wash basin when caught by the searing heat. I put my sister on my back and fled barefoot to Hajima Park. Her face was festering from her burns and her right eye was hanging out. I pushed the eye back into its socket and tried to use a gauze mask to hold it into place, but her ear had melted away and there was nothing to attach the mask to. Her mouth was twisted to the right and she could do no more than whimper for water, only the first syllable of the word emerging distinctly. On reaching Hijiyama Park, I laid my sister down on the ground and set off to search for my children. The fires were still burning fiercely. In a streetcar that had been burned bright red, surrounded by people already killed by the fire, I saw a woman still holding on to a strap and calling for help. The intense heat prevented me from approaching her, however. There was nothing I could do. To a man sitting on some stone steps, I said, come on, let's get away from here, and pulled him up by the hand. But as I did so, the skin came away from his hand and he fell slowly to the Yeah, so obviously pretty, pretty tough to listen to, and I recommend for people who are ambivalent about nuclear weapons research what happened Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's just terrifying. It's worse than any dystopia we could probably imagine, and yet, as we've said, the weapons are far, far more powerful. I think the ICBM warheads that the U.S. has is about 300 kilotons, which is about three times more powerful than what North Korea's just tried to use, more than 10 times more powerful than Hiroshima. Just devastating weapons. And, you know, 70 years after discovering this technology, I still find it the most just supremely modern thing that you could just kill millions of people in the blink of an eye. So I mean, obviously, today we're talking about this because North Korea's developed increased nuclear capacity. Increased nuclear capacity doesn't always, well, it is only once in human history translated into the actual use of a nuclear weapon in war, which was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Bioliberal democracy, right? Bioliberal democracy, yep. And crucially when only one country had the nuclear bomb. So we're going to look at the reactions to this development, to North Korea's test, and think about what might happen. Does this spell nuclear war or is this for show? Or not quite for show, but is it something that we can... A deterrent, right? A deterrent, yeah. That's a rational argument. They don't want the United States to mind it. We have one. Why shouldn't North Korea have one? Anyway, we're going to start with international reactions. And we're going to start where any conversation about international relations should start these days, which is Donald Trump's tweets. He didn't waste much time in getting them out. These should be coming up now. Let's see those tweets. So he hits out, first of all, not at North Korea, but at South Korea, interestingly, accuses them of appeasement. And that's because they've got a... this should be coming up. That's because they've got a more liberal government that's taking a less hawkish line than him. Obviously at the moment America are getting... It's in the news because people in America and American cities are worried that they might be able to get hit by a North Korean bomb. South Koreans and Japan have had to live under that fear for a much longer period of time. They tend to be less inclined to save a rattle. If there is... if military action does start, it will be them that are hit first. I'm not sure if they are going to come up. Anyway, he says it's an embarrassment to China. And then he says, hey, there we go. And then he says, the final one, which is... So, yeah, South Korea. Then we've got our final one, which is he says that America, as a next strategy, might cut off trade with any country that does trade with North Korea. Most significantly that would be with China. What would happen if the U.S. cut off trade with China, Aaron? Well, first I just want to say, in regard to South Korea point, this is really consistent because people like to say, oh, Donald Trump's erratic. He's a madman. He makes no sense. He's irrational. Those tweets are a very, very, very clear continuation of what he's always said. He's always been very angry at the U.S.'s allies. He's always been more angry at the U.S.'s allies than his enemies. Because he says, we're paying for your defense. Europe, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait. We're paying for your defense. Pay for your own defense. So the animosity he's showing South Korea, they're very, very consistent. And then with China, obviously, like he said, it's clearly directed to China, because they are the biggest trading partner in North Korea. Chinese exports to the United States are huge, but they also buy huge amounts of U.S. sovereign debt. So it would collapse the world of the economy. It would be 2008 on steroids if America cut off trade with China. But again, for decades now, he's talked about the U.S. running a trade deficit with powers in East Asia. It used to be Japan. More recently, it's been China. And that's because they have an undervalued currency. So I think these overtures he's making, yes, it's trying to send the signal to Pyongyang and to North Korea, but it's also saying to South Koreans, we pay for your defense. We don't get much in return, which is kind of true. I mean, they're the global hegemon. That's what they get in return. And then to the Chinese, it's saying, we're in the middle of a trade war. And even though you screw us in regard to devalued currency, you're not even keeping this potentially nuclear state on a tight leash. So I mean, it's what he's saying is rational when you look at it like that in regard to not just North Korea, so China and South Korea. So I mean, so what we have in terms of not necessarily the way he's doing on Twitter, but in terms of criticizing South Korea, in terms of asking the Chinese to keep North Korea on a leash, because they're the ones that matter in this. Well, I don't I'm not sure if it is rational, actually. I mean, let there is a rational. Well, look, there's a rationale, but there's a rational now. I think what Kim Jong-un is doing seems more rational. But in terms of outcomes, you've got the first outcome, which is what the USA wants, which is that more pressure is put on North Korea. Sanctions are tightened and extended to China. So China stops trading with North Korea. That would be them stopping importing textiles. But the nuclear option to use a word out of context would be for them to cut off oil to North Korea. If they do that, most analysts agree the Kim regime will fall quite quickly. And that's what the Americans are really going to be pressuring them to do. The danger here is that when is Kim most likely to use a nuclear weapon, if he thinks that his regime is going to fall anyway? He doesn't want to end up like Gaddafi, killed live on TV, go down in flames. I mean, it's a completely it would be completely different. I mean, the US has been effectively defeated in Iraq because of a guerrilla war, a 10 year protracted low intensity guerrilla war. In North Korea, it would be a very disciplined, ideologically loyal nation. It's very, very different. I mean, it would be it would be hell on earth the United States. They wouldn't they wouldn't be able to have a land based intervention into North Korea. It's not going to happen. So regime change through maybe starving it of energy supplies. Yes. Now, but the danger is that if Kim feels like the regime is about to fall, then even if it's just because of economic reasons, they said it made the economy scream by cutting off oil. That's when you'd be most likely to use some sort of nuclear capability. Turn it back on. I don't think they would because then obviously that there would be licensed the US to completely destroy the country. I think even just using conventional war, I think they'd be okay. So you're not that worried about what's called a strategic miscalculation where? Well, you've always got to be worried, right? Yeah. You think it could happen? I mean, it's a miracle it didn't happen in the course of the 20th century. It could always happen. But I don't think this, if you look at the variables here and say this means it's very likely that there'd be a nuclear war, the North Koreans could fight a conventional war and be very good at it. You know, they still have these missiles. They don't need to put nuclear warheads on them. They can still send them to Tokyo. They can still send them to Seoul. They can still send them to Guam or Hawaii. Well, except no, because the reason you wouldn't use conventional weapons is because North Korea in any other weapons other than nuclear bombs, they'd get destroyed. It's only a nuclear bomb that gives them some sort of strategy. Yeah, but in terms of defensively, not really. And also, I mean, what was the first ICBM? It was these all derivatives of the German V-2 rocket, right? Which wasn't a nuclear weapon. So you could use these or there's a weapon called a thermobaric weapon, which is a very, very powerful weapon which uses similar technologies. So you could use, you know, you could use this. This still shows a very sophisticated level of weapons technology without using nuclear stuff. And I think, I just think the idea of an American military intervention in North Korea's batshit is not going to happen. Probably the most positive analysis I've read of this situation, and why I think that Donald Trump's tweets probably aren't that rational in terms of what's going to be the best outcome here, is that this in fact normalizes relations. So this is a quote from Bong Young-Shik, who's an authority on North Korea at Seattle's Yonsei University. This is quoted from the FT. So he says, actually I don't know if it's a he or a she. King Jong-un now understands that Washington does not have the ability to crank up its maximum pressure strategy any further. He understands Washington does not realistically have a military option. The only option for Washington is for Washington to recognize North Korea as a nuclear state and hope to contain it like with the Soviet Union. So basically what's that saying is give up on stopping proliferation in North Korea, accept that they are now a nuclear power, and try and bring them to the table, and make sure that no strategic miscalculation does happen. Yeah, I'd agree with that. So that's one of the reasons why America and the Soviet Union ended up getting coming to the table and saying like, let's stop doing things by surprise because we don't want to accidentally blow up the blood. But a few funny things. First of all, the United States and their soul are relatively well balanced, right? So America gets nuclear weapons first, but the Red Army had half of Europe, and there was a genuine belief in 1945 that they would go all the way to the Atlantic. So if you're in the US, what cars do you have? Well, you have the Manhattan Project. You know, the Soviets have half of Berlin. They're in Poland. They're in Hungary. What's the Manhattan Project? The bomb. Yeah, the A-bomb, the atomic weapons, right? So you've got this incredible army. They've just defeated probably one of the most sophisticated armies in history, the Nazi army, Nazi Germany's army. And in a conventional war, I think it was widely recognized that they would have handed the angst asked them on a plate, right, despite how weird it's all history in Britain, the English-speaking world. So they were evenly balanced. And even then, there were a number of standoffs, which could have gone really badly wrong. So I agreed to the extent that it normalizes things, but I still think, I'll go back to what I said previously, it was a miracle we didn't have one of these, we didn't have a nuclear war in the 20th century, in the 50s or in the 60s, or, you know, even under Yeltsin, there was a near-miss in 95. I mean, this isn't good. The more, I don't think the more nuclear states, the better. I don't buy that. I don't think the better, but I mean, the precedent for the USSR was that basically both sides accepted the other one wasn't going to give up the nuclear weapons, because it was completely rational for them to keep them. So they didn't really bother with sanctions or anything. They said, okay, we can both completely destroy each other. Let's get to the table and make sure that doesn't happen by accident. Yeah, I mean, that was never, that was never inevitable, right? General McCarthy wants to use nuclear weapons. No, it wasn't inevitable, but that's one of the reasons why they were pushed to it, because they got so close. Yeah. But also, I think, sometimes we look at history structurally, and we talk about the big macro dynamics, but it's also about personal decisions. Harry Truman didn't want to use nuclear weapons, right? There was a moment where America had nuclear weapons, the Russians didn't. You know, very high-ranking people in the US army, like MacArthur in Asia, said we should use these against the Russians, because we need war. It's about winning. So you use all the tools at your disposal, and Truman didn't agree. So, yeah. Final thoughts. Should the UN, should the USA, should China accept North Korea is now a nuclear state? We have to treat it as one. We're going to stop bothering applying pressure for them to get rid of their capabilities, and treat them like we do Britain, France, China. If you were America, you'd say we recognize your right to nuclear weapons, but we think you should unify and become a liberal democratic United Korea. Oh, interesting. You get rid of Kim that way, but you recognize nuclear weapons. But then the Chinese, they want a nice satellite state. So, yes. I mean, if I was at the Pentagon, you'd want sort of a shill liberal democratic government with nukes in South Korea. We're going to move on in a second, but out of our media, we're a bit like Corbyn. We're like political peaceful solutions. We think conversation is what can solve the world's problems. And we've thought of a way that we can solve this problem, make sure a strategic miscalculation doesn't happen, and at the same time make quite good TV. It's going to be called Kim Dying with me. Kim Dying with me, okay. Trump, Kim, he's obviously a guy that likes food. They chat. You know, we've both got nuclear bombs. Let's just chill. Make sure it doesn't escalate a couple of beers. Yeah. Stop communicating by Twitter and, you know. As everybody seems to say these days, we've got so much more in common there, what separates us. And you know, I've heard that Donald Trump likes kimchi. Is that true? So, you know, we have so much more in common. We're going to go from one unelected dynasty to another. Will and Kate should be coming on the screen. Kate is pregnant. Yeah. Proud moment for Britain. Very proud. You proud, Britain? It's not normally something we'd cover on Navarra, but it is a particularly opportune moment to point out the predictable hypocrisy of the British establishment. This comes, so the announcement of this pregnancy, which is obviously being celebrated by all of our brave, compliant press, comes five months after reforms are introduced, which punishes ordinary families for having more than two children. So if you have children beyond your first two, you can't claim child benefit for them. And the argument, this was a George Osborne policy. So the argument was that if you can't afford to maintain free kids, you shouldn't have free kids. Who do you think pays for Will and Kate's kids? What's Kate's job? What's Will's job? I don't know. Yeah. Well, it's the fucking taxpayer. There you go. Yeah. So Buckingham Palace, the Queen's taxpayer fund, was doubled from 42 million to 82 million. That's partly to maintain the Royal Palace, which whatever little lizard comes out here, will be able to live in its old age. That's a lot of baby clothes, that. That's a lot of baby clothes. Big rooms. Big rooms. Yeah. Biggest scroungers on the planet. Free kids is OK for them. But if you've got a real job, if you work minimum wage at McDonald's, stick to two, all right? How dare you have free children? It's completely batshit. Yeah, it's completely batshit. But like you said, what else do they do? William, I think he used to fly helicopters. Harry was a liability fundamentally in the British Army. He was so brave in Afghanistan, not really. Because if anybody has any idea who the guy is. Yeah, he probably needs about, like, an operation of 20 people just to protect him. He was putting this entire regiment at risk. What, so that he can feel good about himself? I mean, how much more fucking selfish do you get? No. You're not a normal guy, OK? Sorry. I mean, you can give up, you know, you can fuck off the royal family and, like, go work for a living. Oh, you're not going to do that, are you? So... We'll put him on Bradson Island, like we just heard about last time. HMP Necker Island. HMP Necker. I know, at the Royals, I just think, we do what the Italians did after 1945. You... What did they do? You're going to have to give me a history lesson again. The country became a Republic by referendum, which is what I would prefer in this country. I think it's a referendum, which we would lose, by the way, right now, but I would want... I would want to change that. It's worth a go. I'd want to change that, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I accept that most Brits want to keep the royal family. I think that change after Elizabeth passed away. And after the Republican case was won, it's now illegal for the Italian royal family to re-enter the country. Oh, really? The House of Savoy. They cannot legally enter... Well, maybe it's been changed in the last year or two. So where do they live? I think the Crown Prince lives in Switzerland. But the last time I checked, they couldn't legally enter the country, and they were asking for the laws to be changed because they wanted to live as normal citizens. But I don't think that should happen. Yeah, I'd ban them. Ban them? Ban them. Let's get them out. And they leave them a certain amount of private wealth. That's it. Go live in Monte Carlo or whatever. I mean, Harry probably wants to do that. Yeah, let them off. I wonder what way they'd campaign in the referendum. Anyway, for more details about the reforms that punish ordinary people for having three children, and the scrounging that our royal family do, Mike Steggeloff, friend of the show, wrote a very good article in Huck Magazine today. Recommend it. If you want to get a little bit annoyed before you go to bed tonight. The seg. We're going to move from... This is the big... Royal slobs. Yeah. Oh, no, you've got one. What are you going to say? No, we're going to go from royal slobs to working class heroes. This is the big source, other than activate. Yeah. This is big. And the bomb. In Britain, right? Yeah, this is the big story in Britain. Which is, for the first time ever, there are strikes in two branches of McDonald's. They were today. McDonald's employs 85,000 people. So if this movement spreads, this would be a very, very big deal. It's still very small at the moment. So I think it was 40 people that voted to go on strike in two branches. But even though there is historic in an industry where union organizing has struggled fundamentally. So this is partly inspired by the struggle for $15 in the USA. Fight for 15. Fight for 15. And it looks like, yeah, union organizing is back on the agenda in the service industry. They're fighting for an end-to-zero-riles contract, £10 minimum wage, basic demands, things that you can't really argue with. Unless you're a twat. You'd have to be a right twat to argue with, wouldn't you? We're going to cut some people on Twitter to see that. We've got some twats. Okay, some Twitter twats. So here's... Which one's this? Stephanie Latham, a £10 minimum wage. Why bother getting qualifications, degrees, professions when you can flip burgers in a piss easy job for the same wage? Hashtag McStrike. What do you think of that, Bostano? It doesn't... It was that Stephanie Latham, was it? Yeah, uh-oh. None of that's it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I mean, look, £10 an hour. If you think £10 an hour is the going... That's £400 a week, £20,000 a year. You're saying, I'm going to go to university and we're getting £40 grand debt. And then I'm going to earn £20 grand a year. £20 grand a year doesn't pay for children. When you're... She's young, right? She doesn't know anything about the fucking world. She could just tweet about people being poor and how they deserve it. You can't care for aging parents. You can't buy a home. You can't save. You can't have a pension. Basically, you can't live a proper adult life on £20 grand a year if you want children. We have to care for somebody, right? So she's talking nonsense. And it is not an argument to say, oh, we've had falling pay for people with degrees. Therefore, the people that should suffer are the very poorest and most vulnerable. Ridiculous. Next. Next tweet. I've even got Suzy this time. Suzy. Suzy. McDonald's workers on strike because they want £10 an hour. Go and get an actual decent job and stop expecting handouts. And this is from Suzy Lou GME on Twitter. And guess what Suzy's job is? Tell me your job. Guess. I've got it. She's a professional YouTuber. She's a professional YouTuber. And she's saying, go get a proper job. Are you kidding me? It's hard work doing YouTube, isn't it? But I think feeding people is kind of more important, right? I mean, it's kind of more important. I don't know. Suzy. What the fuck are you talking about? I mean, she's, yeah, so look, she's saying go and get a decent job and stop expecting handouts. So two things here. Firstly, everybody should be paid enough to live. But who's getting a handout, right? Because the taxpayer, including these people, pay for education. They pay for infrastructure, roads. They pay for healthcare. It's not some miracle that you get literate, healthy workers turning up to work every day. It's not a miracle. We all pay for that collectively. Okay. So we're subsidizing the labor force that McDonald's benefit from, right? This is Suzy Lou's fucking YouTube channel. A proper job. We're all subsidizing that and it's cheap labor for McDonald's and then McDonald's are creaming off the profits. So McDonald's don't even need to pay their works enough to live because the taxpayer will pay housing benefit. The taxpayer will subsidize education and primary and secondary schools. So the handout here is going to big business. The handout here in this rig system, it's not going to the workers on less than 10 pounds an hour. It's going to the bosses, going to the millionaires, the people at the top. So Suzy, I'm sorry, you couldn't be more wrong. That's the civilized I get with people like this. Who defines wages as handouts? It's ideology, isn't it, right? It's bizarre. Completely bizarre. It's ideology. The idea that wealth is not created by capital. Wealth is created by labor. Okay. When you buy, no, but this, you don't just, that's the, where does value come from? It doesn't just come, you know, this is not the magic money tree. On the one hand, they say the magic money tree and then when it comes to actually creating wealth, they think it's a magic money tree. No, it's workers work and they add value to things, right? That's why you have to pay them. Are you into the labor theory of value? No, I don't think you have to have a labor theory of value for this. I'm not saying prices reflect labor. I'm saying that labor adds value. Price and value are two separate things. Solidarity with the strikers and McDonald's today. You're heroes and we hope that spreads throughout the country. Every McDonald's, all of these goddamn chains. Every Burger King. I think everybody working on full-time pay in this country should be on the medium wage, 26 grand. It's actually 10 pound an hour is kind of like, you know. Yeah, what do you say? So 10 pound an hour is 20 K a year. Yeah, I'd have at 12, 13 pounds an hour. Yeah, I agree. Ideally. We're agreeing on that. We've all we've got left is our exclusive interview, haven't we? We're going to go to a very quick break and then we have an exclusive for you, the founder of Activate. This is not a wind-up. Don't go away. Over the last 10 years, things have really changed. But for all the darkness, every cause has an effect. For all the talk of change, the present moment is really one of crisis. A crisis of democratic representation. Of identity. A climate crisis. Of a failing economic model, which isn't working for most people. We can't have a media that's beholden to advertisers or the political ambitions of oligarchs. Which is why in 2013, we founded Novara Media. Unlike corporate media, we are funded by our subscribers. There's no tax avoiders. There's no oil money and there's no lords. What we're creating is media for you, which quite simply, you make possible. Looking to raise £40,000, that will allow us to not only keep on paying our contributors, but give them a little bit more, as well as keep our studio and take our fantastic Novara events nationwide. To help us get there, go to support.novaramedia.com and give a one-off donation, or even better, sign up for a subscription. We've already achieved so much, but the truth is, we've barely started. So we're joined by the founder of Activate. It's a pleasure. Into the Viper's Nest, the heart of the hard left. The hard left, yeah. This is Thomas Wellington. Thanks for joining us, Thomas. It's a pleasure, Aaron. Pleasure, Michael. We've had a bit of pushback from our audience, but we thought it's important. It's a big story. So much for the tolerant left. Well, I mean, yeah. We're going to keep this about you, man. We're going to keep this exact list. Let's just try and keep it civilized. Folks, I expect it's a big story. Activate has sought to identify itself as a sort of Tory analogue to momentum. There's been some teething problems, it's fair to say. First question, will Activate be carrying on? Is it over? What's the score? It's been a try in a few weeks. We've had a split in the organization. We've had a couple of controversies. There was one group of Activate who wanted to be a kind of a Theresa May fan club. No real political vision. They are gone. We are now focused on getting the next Prime Minister of Britain into number 10. And who's that? Jacob Riggs Morg. We've got momentum on our side. Nothing's going to stop us now. Right. So this is the splits within Activate is pro-may and pro-morg. Pro-morg. So that's the split. So the pro-may, they're gone. Don't think about them. They're gone. I mean, I know there's a split, but it was unclear to me until today that this was why. They might be at their branch meetings. They might activate. Nothing to do with them. Right. Okay. Were you aware of the WhatsApp group and the comments made in regard to gassing chaps? Children. Right. You know, Whom's to us as children? But they're gone. You know, we have laws in this country. We have conservative values. Yeah. And they're gone. It is illegal to gas people in this country. It is very much against the law. Yeah. But, I mean, morally, do you not find it quite problematic as well? Forget the law for a second. Do you not disagree with it morally? With conservative values. Right. They are, you know, everyone... I mean, you've got to understand the reaction to this by most people hasn't been. These are just children. Most people don't think of children and think they talk in WhatsApp group about gassing chaps. And I think what most people would say is that your organisation is only going to attract people who are... We have some quite unpleasant views about the world, actually. I mean, how are you trying to attract young people to conservatism? And are we not going to see scandal after scandal after scandal of people who fundamentally want to promote hate? We're not living in a world of polished people. You know, managerial politics, David Cameron, Tony Blair, Clinton. You know, we have... We're in the age of Sanders, Trump, Corbin. You know, so the people come from the grassroots... You want to be the UK alt-right? You said Trump, presumably you're Trump, you're not Sanders or Corbin. You want to be the UK alt-right? Pepe Frogs, Richard Spencer. I mean, I think memes have their place. Are we the alt-right? It's different culture. It's different political culture. But you said that you identified conservative values. You're backing Jacob Rees-Mogg. You've just drawn... He's a true Tory, he's a true Britain. But you said you don't like the politics even of a David Cameron and you identified him as somebody, you know, on a par with Clinton or Blair. So what are those conservative values? If they're not the values of David Cameron, but then you're citing a sort of political moment we're in and you're identifying Trump, I mean, what are those conservative values? It's traditional values. Of, I mean, look at Jacob Rees-Mogg. He has, you know, an air about him, which harkens back to better times of, you know, prosperity where we made things. And this is something Trump talks about. But what... I understand he's posh, but what's that got to do with an industrial policy? I mean, do you have any policies? Where the... Does momentum have any policies? Well, that's a good point, I suppose. That's a good question. Yeah, that's a good point, yeah, yeah. No, but it has an agenda that drives it and they're open about that. Progressive value. Progressive values are more democratic society and more equal society. So what does that actually actually want? We're in Jacob Rees-Mogg into number 10 with his family, his pets. The entire estate, the Mogg estate will be in number 10. All right, let's forget the motivations. Let's forget the politics or what drives you. Do you have the power to get Jacob Rees-Mogg into number 10? How's this going to happen? Yeah, are there Tory MPs who want the same thing as you do you think? I mean, that's for the Conservative Party to decide. Right. We are an independent organisation and we will lobby our local MPs as momentum does. Right. Okay, well, I think that's... Yeah, I think that's all we need to know. Yeah, I mean, what next for Activate? What's the next big thing? We have a press release. Yeah. We are breaking with the leadership of the Conservative Party. Yeah. We are going hard for Jacob Rees-Mogg and he... You can see on our Twitter page, we have a press release and it is online. The only Activate page on Twitter. Go on there. Our press release is there. Join the movement. Let's activate Britain. There's obviously a number of parodies, but that's the real one. And... It's a grassroots movement. You're going to have parodies. Well, I meant to mention a lot of parodies to be fair. Okay, well, thanks for that, Thomas. We are back next Monday. I think that's it. We're doing a Tisgy Sal this week. Yeah, we're going to do Tisgy Sal this week. And I think Navarra FM is back on Friday. But we will see you on the fix next Monday. You've been wonderful. See you next week.