Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 12, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:36

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #262

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music Good afternoon and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	This is episode 262.
	I'm your host Harry, joined today by my guest Josh.
	Hello!
	It's been a long time since I've been on the podcast, hasn't it?
	Yes, it's been a few months for you.
	How are you feeling?
	Very good.
	Energised?
	Absolutely.
	Enthusiastic?
	Wonderful.
	Well, today we're going to be talking about a few interesting subjects, including Carl Rittenhouse's trial taking an even more dramatic turn after he took to the stands to give his own testimony in his defence, We're also going to be taking a look at how the corporate press are still a bunch of liars.
	And we've also seen the return of burn, loot and murder.
	Yeah, so Black Lives Matter have threatened to burn and riot in New York.
	Just the usual, really, in that case.
	Of course, yeah.
	Surely.
	Yeah, so before we get into those interesting subjects, though, we've got a few announcements to make.
	So first of all, just, was this today or yesterday this went up?
	I think it is...
	It is the 12th today, isn't it?
	Yeah, it's up now.
	So just this morning, yep, we've had Rory and Thomas' collaboration article.
	I think it's premium.
	If you go down, yes, it is premium.
	We've got an audio track from John reading through it on the fallacy of postmodern neo-Marxism, where they go critique people like Jordan Peterson...
	Using that particular phrase and why it is that they have such a disagreement with it from their unique lens that they approach things from.
	So that should be a very interesting one.
	I've not had a chance to read that yet.
	I know that they put in a lot of work on it.
	Yes.
	They collaborated together on it.
	And it is something that does need addressing because postmodernism and neo-Marxism or Marxism...
	Tend not to be consistent with one another, and that's basically what they're trying to break down.
	Postmodernists tend not to be consistent with one another, and Marxists tend not to be consistent with one another.
	So honestly, from my perspective, it's not a perspective that I am particularly favourable to, but once I've read it, I'll see if they've changed my mind on that.
	If we move along, we've also got this other new article, which Josh wrote on hiding criminalised speech control without accountability in journalism.
	Tell us a little bit about that.
	Sure.
	So I noticed a trend where when reporting on criminalised speech, the press, particularly in the UK, tends to hide behind just saying, oh, this is racist speech, or they just give it a label and don't address what was actually said.
	And for most people, people don't read the legislation which dictate what you can and can't say because it's...
	It's very tedious.
	So people use practical examples of what you cannot say, but through not reporting on what can be said or what can't be said, the press are essentially making people have to adopt a strategy of over-cautiousness.
	They avoid things entirely because they don't want to fall afoul of what they see as the legislation.
	Sounds very interesting.
	We've also got an audio voiceover from John for that one.
	We've also got my recent article, Rock Music's Left-Wing Bias, on my perspective on rock and metal music and some more mainstream music as well.
	Like most things in the mainstream, having a very left-wing...
	Slant to them, especially you can see there the image, Rage Against the Machine, shilling for the establishment nowadays.
	Shilling in the name of.
	Yes, exactly.
	But if you're interested in that, give that a read.
	And we've also got my premium video that's just come out, yes, on Wednesday, actually, by the looks of it, which is about what happened to the January 6th rioters.
	So if you're interested in learning about what's been happening to them, I mean, reasonably, if you want a succinct answer, the answer is nothing good, sadly.
	It's to be expected, really.
	Yeah, so if you're interested in that, give that a check out.
	And without further ado, let's get into the news.
	So, as many people may know, I have been keeping a close eye on the Rittenhouse trial as it's been proceeding over the past week or so.
	primarily this week is when a lot of the more interesting stuff has been going on, including Gage Grosskraut, the only survivor of Kyle Rittenhouse, testifying on behalf of the state, getting caught in the cross-examination by the defense, saying that, yeah, Rittenhouse only shot me when I was about to point a gun at his head, which Rittenhouse only shot me when I was about to point a gun at his head, which kind of destroys any argument against
	But there are also the deaths of the death and shooting of Joseph Rosenbaum, the convicted pedophile, and Anthony Huber, the convicted abuser as well.
	So we're talking about some incredibly virtuous people here that Kyle Rittenhouse was defending himself against, as far as I've seen, in terms of the video evidence.
	But, so, trial day seven, which was Wednesday, is when things really took a turn, because on Tuesday, the prosecution, the state who are trying to prosecute him with murder of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, rested their case.
	They brought forward their last witness at the time, and then the defense started to bring their witnesses forward.
	And on Tuesday, Wednesday, there was a pretty major turn of events when they decided to bring Rittenhouse himself onto the witness stand to testify in his own defence, which was very interesting.
	But before we get to that, there are a few details I should probably mention in regards to what led up to that.
	So one of the things that was brought up on Monday in regards to Gage Grosskreutz was the fact that his roommate, Jacob Marshall, After the incident had occurred, picked him up from the hospital after he'd had surgery on his bicep, and posted in the comments when he was arguing with a few people, I've got Gage right here, the only thing he says is he wishes he'd killed that kid, obviously in reference to Kyle.
	So they subpoenaed him and brought him in, and I was expecting it to be a bit more juicy than what actually went down, but upon directing cross-examination of Jacob Marshall when he was on the stand, essentially he just said, oh, well, people were threatening Gage, and I didn't want that to keep happening, so I posted that to scare them off.
	Yeah, right.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Who's going to believe that?
	That's so ridiculous.
	Yeah, that's my point.
	And then he later deleted that as well because he's like, oh, this doesn't look very good optically.
	So the whole thing seems a bit deceitful, especially when you're testifying under oath.
	But they sort of like went along with it.
	Yeah, and he said that Gage had never actually said that to him.
	He was only saying it to scare off people who were threatening them.
	But there's also the case of Grosskreutz himself being quite deceitful after the incident he had filed in a lawsuit against the state of Wisconsin for $10 million for what happened to him, as if the state had any...
	Well, I mean, you could blame the state for allowing the riots to happen, given the fact that the police were quite ineffective in reality when you look at the footage.
	But he certainly didn't have a case for $10 million, and he tanked his own case.
	So, with him doing that, and Jacob Marshall being his roommate, I don't believe a word either of them say between them, apart from, of course, him admitting that, yeah, okay, I was going to shoot him in the face, and then he shot me.
	Well, he was shown video evidence in court, and it was basically undeniable, wasn't it?
	It was pulled out of him, yeah.
	And then they also called in one of the owners of the car source, which was the business that Kyle was protecting, along with a few other people.
	I think his name was Sam Kindra they called in, just to confirm some details of his testimony, which had seemed a little bit contradictory at first, but it wasn't really that important.
	The important stuff was when they called out Kyle Rittenhouse, which was the defence's choice to do so.
	Kyle decided to waive his Fifth Amendment rights at that point and testify on behalf of himself, which...
	Honestly, it's an incredibly risky move.
	I mean, given how much the prosecution have managed to tank their own case up until this point, that many people, including Rakita Law, Viva Frey people, who I trust for their legal knowledge far more than I would trust myself, were saying that this is basically a bad move because, you know, you put somebody like that up on the stand, they could tank their own defence case or self-defence case if they're not ready for the sorts of questions that may be fired onto them through cross-examination.
	It's certainly not something that happens very often, as I understand it, with someone going up and giving their own defence.
	It's a relatively rare thing because of the very reason that you could incriminate yourself, right?
	Exactly.
	But honestly, to give a little bit of a spoiler, I think he did an excellent job, but we'll go into why that is.
	So the first thing that the defence did upon direct examination was they just got him to confirm his story and walk through the timeline of events from...
	You know, when he got there to when the shootings occurred and prior to that, why he was there in the first place.
	You know, details like having spoken to the owners of the car source, just corroborating a lot of other witness testimony that had been given by the people, like Joanne Fiedler, who was a member of the group that Brittenhouse was part of, who was defending the property.
	And the business.
	So it just sort of corroborated with a lot of stuff like that.
	But the most important part in terms of the optics of bringing him onto the witness stand, which is what I can only imagine the primary reason that they brought him up there in the first place, because up until that point, you know, Rittenhouse had been part of the trial, he'd been sat at the sidelines, so...
	This seemed to be an opportunity to humanize him.
	And this is what happened when they got to the point, you've probably already seen this, but just to show it again because it is very important and quite powerful, was that Rittenhouse began crying during his testimony when he got up to the point when he was describing how Rosenbaum and Joshua Zeminski had cornered him.
	So if you could play that for us, John.
	The car short slot number two was...
	And did you get back?
	Were you able to go in a northerly direction?
	I wasn't.
	Describe what happens.
	Once I take that step back, I look over my shoulder and Mr.
	Rosenbaum was now running from my right side.
	Um, and I was cornered from in front of me with Mr.
	Zeminski, and there were...
	It's tough watching.
	I don't want to watch it again.
	It's quite difficult to watch, yes.
	People right there...
	I think that's enough of that.
	People have probably seen that.
	That's just to reiterate what happened.
	You know, he's describing what happened, and then he obviously begins to experience what appears to me to be a panic attack caused by post-traumatic stress from the incident that happened in the first place, because obviously this would be...
	People have tried to mischaracterise this, people have tried to spin this and say that this was an instance where Rittenhouse was faking crying crocodile tears, I've seen all that sort of stuff.
	Callum and Leo went over a lot of the reaction to that in an excellent segment yesterday, so if you want to learn more about that check it out.
	But just to me that does not seem fake.
	In the slightest.
	And he's trying...
	He's not just doing a performative single tear or starts to blub and just entirely shuts down.
	He's trying to continue to give his statement on what happened.
	And he's beginning to hyperventilate.
	There's not many actual tears going on, which if you're...
	If you're in the midst of a panic attack, you don't necessarily cry.
	It is more hyperventilation.
	And you can see his entire body language begin to change.
	He starts to quiver.
	So I think if you are going to try and claim that that's a fake reaction to basically the first time he's had to go up in front of the stands and relive the experience in his head so that he can give his testimony, it's pretty scummy.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	As far as I'm concerned, to be perfectly honest.
	So, yeah, that led them to take a break.
	They came back.
	And then when they came back, they just confirmed the rest of the testimony, which once again just corroborated the rest of the story that anybody will be familiar with if they've been keeping up with the trial or even if they've just watched all of the footage that was released.
	I think like later on in the day...
	When all of this actually went down on the 25th of August last year.
	So there's nothing particularly new other than the fact that he stated that many people have made the argument, oh, he was an outsider, he shouldn't have been there.
	He did make the statement that his dad actually lives in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and he was very familiar with the community.
	So you could make the argument, well, yeah, this was him going there to try and protect a community that he was very familiar with.
	But then, moving on after the defense did the direct examination, we got onto Binger.
	Binger's cross-examination, Binger being the Assistant District Attorney for Wisconsin, who has been the lead prosecutor for this, and I believe was the man who brought the charges for Rittenhouse in the first place.
	And he made a number of big mistakes through this, which do not look good to him if you have been following the trial, and of course the media have tried to spin this, as we will get on with the corporate press being a bunch of lying scumbags in the next segment.
	So this article here, we've got Legal Insurrection, is stating one of the things that ADA Binger got him in hot water with Judge Schroeder this morning was his referring several times on cross-examination of Kyle that the 17-year-old had not previously sought to explain the events of that night, improperly referencing in front of the jury Kyle's exercise to...
	Exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights, obviously the right to not do anything or say anything that could incriminate yourself.
	And this was in reference to the idea, oh, Rittenhouse has been sat there at the sidelines this entire time while the trial has gone on, and he could have tailored his testimony to what everybody else has been saying, so it fits in and corroborates more clearly with them.
	The problem is that you're not allowed to do that.
	That is a violation of his Fifth Amendment's right, and it's also prejudicing the jury to start to think that, especially given it's a line of questioning that was not permitted by the judge.
	And it led to this pretty spectacular encounter between the judge and Bingo, which was not the first of its kind.
	If you show us the clip, John.
	Why would you think that that made it okay for you, without any advance notice, to bring this matter before the jury?
	You are already, you were, I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence.
	That's basic law.
	It's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years.
	I have no idea why you would do something like that.
	And it gives, well, I'll leave it at that.
	So I don't know what you're up to.
	Yeah, so that response is, in my opinion, very well deserved, if anyone's been paying attention to the way that Binger has been conducting himself during this entire prosecution.
	He has not been acting with honour, you could say, and in fact, one of the previous...
	Witnesses, when cross-examined by E.D.A. Krauss, the other prosecutor, had made reference to the fact that the two prosecutors, upon visiting him, had actually tried to get him to change his statement, or seemingly falsify his statement, prior to the trial coming up.
	So they do not seem to have been conducting this in any way honourably, as I've said.
	And the other thing is that...
	Oh God, one sec...
	Once again, this has been spun by the media in the sense of they've just been pointing out that the judge has been shouting at him, they're trying to make it seem as though he's biased in favour of Rittenhouse, when in fact he seems to be, to my eyes, biased in favour of upholding the law and sticking to the jury, sticking to justice, you could say.
	But yeah, throughout the rest of the cross-examination, Binger continued to make a number of ridiculous reaches in terms of what could have motivated Kyle to go out there and murder people, so play this one, John.
	Did video games that resemble all guns?
	Isn't it true when you would hang out with Dominic Black, you'd play Call of Duty and other first-person shooter video games?
	Sometimes.
	And those are games in which you use weapons like AR-15s to pretty much shoot anybody who comes at you, correct?
	It's a video game where two players are playing together I don't really understand the meaning of your question, to be honest.
	Isn't one of the things people do in these video games, try and kill everyone else with your guns?
	Yeah, in the video game, it's just a video game.
	It's not real life.
	Yeah.
	Correct response there.
	Yes, you can see even the look on his face when he realises, what is this clown trying to say?
	Like, what on earth is this line of questioning that he's going down?
	I mean, you have to be really desperate to go down the Jack Thompson route for video games cause violence.
	This is what's made all of these young people evil and violent.
	I mean, that's pretty much what...
	Isn't that what the Christian conservatives used to say?
	And once again, Democrats and the left showing once again that they're just making all the exact same arguments that Christian conservatives used to make as well, just when they're convenient for them to try and paint people in a bad light.
	And once again, in regards to the crying, people tried to point out as well, like, oh, it had to be fake crying because after they'd come back from a ten minute break that the judge ordered, all of a sudden Kyle had managed to compose himself and remained composed for the rest of the...
	For the rest of the cross-examination and the direct examination.
	Which is not true.
	These people may not have evidently been watching up until this point.
	Where Binger's line of questioning almost makes Kyle cry again.
	It seems to be bullying behaviour.
	So if we play this clip...
	If I would have let Mr.
	Roosevelt get my gun, he would have killed me.
	But you had already pointed your gun at him.
	Yes, because he was chasing me.
	Did you want him to think that you were going to shoot him?
	No, I never wanted to shoot Mr.
	Rosenbaum.
	Why'd you point it at him if you didn't have any intention of shooting?
	He was chasing me.
	I was alone.
	He threatened to kill me earlier in that night.
	I didn't want to have to shoot him.
	But you understand.
	I pointed at him because he kept running at me and I didn't want him to chase me.
	But you understand how dangerous that is, don't you?
	I pointed at him because he was chasing me.
	Yeah, so that's about enough of that.
	You can tell exactly what Binger is doing.
	He's trying to, once again, put the claim onto him that he went there with the intention of killing people, went there purposefully to create conflict that would allow him to shoot his gun and murder people.
	And that is very upsetting to Kyle right there.
	I find it very impressive that he managed to stay composed in that situation.
	But you can see the kid is still a teenager.
	He's 18 years old.
	You can hear it in his voice.
	His voice is starting to quiver a little bit.
	You can see it in his eyes.
	He's starting to tear up a little bit.
	So for anybody out there who's saying, oh, he only cried the once and then stayed completely composed for the rest of the jury, you're lying.
	You're lying to yourself and you're lying to other people if you actually believe that.
	Yeah, and then there's a few other things that he tried to...
	that Binger tried to do that were a little bit duplicitous, you could describe.
	He got shouted at again for trying to submit evidence of Kyle saying that he wished he had his gun with him.
	There was that video footage of him, like, watching looters...
	loot...
	As you'd imagine, and you can hear him say, oh, I wish I had my AR with me so that I could do something about this.
	This was not permitted by the judge to be submitted, and Binger tried to put it in front of the jury again, once again, seemingly to prejudice them against Kyle.
	This was not relevant because, of course, that was like a few weeks before the incident happened, and it's very different to say, oh, I wish I had my gun with me, than to actually be in the situation where you have your gun with you and are being chased by people.
	Then he also tried to submit that image of Kyle wearing his Free as F shirt and doing the OK symbol with a bunch of people, which was terrible optics, yes.
	But, once again, that was a few months after the incident, and from what I'm aware was set up by one of his attorneys, or at least the head of his legal team, as a press shoot, which seems to have been a terrible idea on his part, if that is true.
	But yeah, going on from there, the questions basically ran round and round in circles for a few hours until the cross-examination just decided to end at one point.
	They didn't really get any incriminating evidence out of him.
	His story was very consistent.
	And honestly, he did a fantastic job for an 18-year-old putting that much pressure.
	The defense afterwards chose not to redirect.
	So they ended the day there.
	And now we move on to Day 8, which is the last day of any witnesses being brought forward.
	So we can see here, the final day of testimony in the trial was the first time the prosecution had offered any evidence in this case that was inconsistent with Kyle's core legal defense of self-defense.
	defense must be disproven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.
	The evidence came in the form of two fuzzy enhanced photo exhibits admitted in the closing minutes of the trial under the circumstances in which even the state expert responsible for creating these images could not tell the court that the enhancement process hadn't loaded them with false artifacts not present in the original images.
	So they've been trying to put forward this evidence for a while now at this point.
	The defense had argued that the AI algorithms that mean when you enhance things artificially put pixels into the image which use the algorithm to artificially color these pixels therefore you're not necessarily able to tell if the enhanced image is entirely accurate as a representation of the original image.
	Which was the main argument that the defence was putting forward, but they tried to put these forward in front of the jury anyway, saying that it showed Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Joshua Zeminkis in a way that would constitute a threatening manner that could potentially have aggravated them to start attacking him alongside Joseph Rosenbaum.
	If you look here, Jack Posobiec has...
	We've done a side-by-side comparison, showing an image of Kyle walking around with his gun on the night to the image, and you can see that the image is...
	Can you tell what's going on in that right image there?
	Not at all.
	It's really blurry, isn't it?
	Yeah, so if you just skip along to it...
	Yeah, it's very difficult to tell what's happened.
	That's been zoomed in and enhanced, so all the pixels have been messed up.
	I mean, to me it looks like he's just holding his gun like that, with his right shoulder a bit raised, but they're trying to make the argument that this is him pointing his gun at Joshua Zeminkis, which I do not think it shows.
	Posobiec himself has said that "Kyle always held his rifle right-handed and low-ready, but Binga's interpolated image makes it look like he's holding it left-handed at high-ready." But it's more likely that the algorithm made his strap look like part of the rifle instead, as far as I can tell.
	They then, if we go back to the article again, they brought in James Armstrong, the state image expert, to confirm the issues with the enhanced photo.
	And when they did a redirect with the prosecution, Krauss had asked Armstrong, so did you compare the enhanced image to the original?
	And Armstrong responded, I did not compare the enhanced image to the original in this instance.
	No.
	So this is the guy who enhanced it, and somehow, for some reason, once again, prosecution steps up, scores an own goal against themselves by getting the guy that they were asking to enhance the image to say, well, I don't really know what the original had in the first place, so how do you know that it's An accurate representation of it.
	It all just looks pretty bad for them.
	Ultimately, the judge allowed these enhanced images to be published to the jury, meaning that the jury get to see them, but Armstrong was never permitted to characterize the images, so they get to see them without context, just what do you think this is, and they're all probably going to go, I don't know, it looks like he's just holding a gun and pointing it to the ground.
	Then they went to another witness, John Black, who's a use of force expert who just confirmed a lot of the information regarding the videos that we already know.
	They brought forward another witness, police officer Brittany Bay, who, when I was watching Rakita Law's coverage of this, caused the entire chat to come out simping, which was shameful behaviour.
	As far as I can tell.
	But she just confirmed a few other things.
	The state was trying to make the suggestion that when, I think it was Huber or Grosskraut, was approaching him that Rittenhouse had tried to fire before he thought he was in danger and there'd been a jam.
	So you can see him re-rack it, but basically all of her testimony proved that, well, it would be very obvious in the footage that he had re-racked it, which, if you've watched the footage, you can tell that he hasn't.
	And then they brought in the most controversial witness who I believe is the last witness for the whole case at this point.
	A man called Drew Hernandez who works for a right-wing publication called Real America's Voice who was there on the night covering the riots for his social media.
	I don't think he was part of Real America's Voice at the time, however.
	They just reconfirmed a bunch of things that we already knew about it, but then on the cross-examination by Binger, it became very apparent that Binger was very prejudiced against this man for his political views.
	And it's true that this guy seemed a little bit biased in favour of the defence, but at the same time, he was there, he knows the details of what happened.
	If he knows that it was self-defence, he would naturally come across as quite biased towards the self-defence argument.
	But you can see how Binger treats Hernandez through his questioning.
	So if you just play this clip here.
	I just saw was your editing of them together.
	You guys asked for my footage, so I gave it to you.
	Through your attorney?
	Yes.
	That's an attorney that you have out of Madison.
	How much does he charge?
	Your Honor, we've had a lot of questions about other people.
	I would like to know why he felt the need to retain an attorney to provide video on this case.
	You have a right to it.
	I think it goes to credibility.
	Oh my god.
	It was a solicitor client.
	So you can stop that there.
	You can hear the panel on the Rakita Law stream there just saying, well, yeah, he has a right to retain an attorney if he's going to be speaking to the prosecution or the defense.
	And he was just trying to make it seem like he was retaining an attorney to hand over that evidence for...
	For negative reasons, for whatever reason.
	I don't know where that line of questioning was going, to be perfectly honest.
	But he was seemingly just trying to paint him in a very negative light.
	And then this next clip, you can see the way that Binger is trying to characterise the Rioters in a very positive light, if you just play this next clip.
	Your videos that you have captured of these incidents that you call riots, they're very slanted against the people who are rioting.
	You characterize them as Antifa, Black Lives Matter rioters, correct?
	Because they are rioting in the footage, yes, absolutely.
	Yeah.
	Just like, why are you calling these rioters rioters?
	Well, because they were rioting.
	So he's trying to paint the rioters in a very good light to try and justify why Rittenhouse murdered them instead of defended himself against them.
	And then the most telling part of all this, I find, is this next clip here.
	So if you just play this, I'll describe it to anybody who's listening rather than watching.
	No!
	Does Real America's Voice have any sort of...
	Political bias or agenda or anything like that.
	It goes to the bias of the witness.
	He wasn't working for them at the time.
	That's a speculation.
	I assume in what respect, I assume that people-- Did Binger just admit this is a left-first right issue?
	Political trial?
	And Binger just admitted it widely.
	He just said it's a political trial.
	He did.
	So yeah, that's that clip.
	For anybody who is listening rather than watching, when the judge said this isn't a political trial, Binger gave himself a little head tilt as if to say, well, it might be, which basically says it all about why it is that he brought this forward in the first place.
	He's trying to turn it into a political trial because he sees Rittenhouse as an enemy to BLM, an enemy to Antifa, who presumably, being an assistant DA, make up his voter base.
	Let's be perfectly honest here.
	And then the last thing after that, there was nothing really much more notable about that.
	The other last thing is that Drew Hernandez himself, if you scroll down on this image, after giving his testimony, has been receiving death threats.
	Beautiful, of course, for being told that he is absolute effing scum for having defended a murderer.
	So these are the people that he was characterising as looters and rioters, living up to the label making them seem...
	Just, like, making themselves seem like absolute scum for trying to ruin the life of an 18-year-old boy who was just trying to defend himself, as far as I can tell.
	And that's all the information that we got from trial day 7-8.
	I believe that's all the testimony done now, and now we've just left with jury instructions that are going on today, and then on Monday we'll see the closing statements, and then we'll just see the verdict.
	So, fingers crossed that the jury delivers just this.
	He's hoping.
	First of all, I'd like to apologise a little bit because I'm not really feeling very well all of a sudden.
	I'm really feeling quite sick, so that's why I'm quiet.
	I was wondering why you were shifting so much.
	Yeah, I feel terrible actually.
	Oh, that's fair.
	Perhaps those eight cups of coffee this morning weren't your best idea.
	Well, let's try and get through the rest of this without any Biden-esque incidences, shall we say.
	I can't make any promises at the minute.
	If he assumes this position at any point, we know what's going on.
	So what I wanted to talk about, if I can make it through, is that the corporate press are not exactly changing.
	In fact, perhaps you could even make a case for them getting worse.
	So as I have titled it, the corporate press are still awful.
	And as we were talking about the Rittenhouse trial, I wanted to look at some of the stuff going on there.
	There are some particularly bad examples.
	Exactly.
	So there's this article from Vanity Fair, which is just awful.
	So this is the title for a start.
	Seems to have been written by a teenage girl.
	Yeah, but this is actually written by a grown woman.
	I know it's difficult to think, but the Carl Rittenhouse judge is the actual worst.
	Let's be honest, in democratic circles, is there much of a difference between teenage girls and grown women?
	At least in behaviour and attitudes.
	So anyway, the article starts off by saying, Last April, America, or at least a part of it, breathed a heavy sigh of relief when former police officer Derek Chauvin was actually held accountable for murdering George Floyd.
	Obviously, people weren't holding their breath because it was unclear whether or not Chauvin was actually responsible for Floyd's death.
	To anyone who watched the video of him kneeling on Floyd's neck, it was beyond clear he was.
	But because, as a country, we're so used to white people, particularly cops, being allowed to kill black people with impunity.
	So nice and balanced journalism here.
	What does this have to do with Rittenhouse?
	Rittenhouse isn't a cop.
	None of the people that he shot were black.
	Well, apparently that's relevant, and it needs to be mentioned that apparently white people can just kill black people with impunity, according to Vanity Fair and their journalists.
	If Rittenhouse shows anything, white people can't even kill white people with impunity.
	It's so ridiculous, isn't it?
	White people can't even kill paedophiles with impunity, sadly.
	For starters, she says, even before the trial began, Schroeder refused to allow prosecutors to refer to the people Rittenhouse killed as victims, claiming it was too loaded a term.
	Well, yeah, I mean, as somebody with knowledge of this, the reason for doing so is because, you know, a claim of self-defence means that if it's self-defence, Rittenhouse was the potential victim.
	So, if it wasn't self-defence, then we can confirm that these people he shot were victims.
	Absolutely, yeah.
	Pretty clear cut.
	So, she then quotes someone else, which is kind of a slight of hand move.
	Because, of course, I've been working here for now a year, and I can kind of kick out this...
	Well, it's almost a year.
	In eight days' time, it will be.
	But as I've been writing so many articles myself, I can tell that when someone quotes someone else in an article like this, they're doing so because they're trying to say something that they want to be able to get away with.
	But through quoting someone else, it's like an appeal to authority.
	Yeah.
	Authority.
	They quote the national justice correspondent Ellie Mistel and she says, I call Schroeder biased because at the same conference at which he decided to prohibit the prosecution from using the word victims to describe people Rittenhouse shot, he said he would allow the defence to use words like rioters, looters and arsonists to describe those same people.
	Well, I mean, the footage shows them rioting, the footage shows them looting, and the footage shows them committing arson.
	I'm pretty sure Rosenbaum himself was explicitly committing arson, and also was running around shouting the N-word at BLM protesters and asking for people to shoot him, so...
	Absolutely.
	And then the quote says, that's BS, that's not what she says, but she says the full word, but the ahem victims are not on trial.
	Rittenhouse is refusing to allow prosecutors to use the linguistically accurate terms for people who did not voluntarily attempt to catch a bullet with their face at the same time as allowing the defence to use prejudicial language to characterise what those people were doing at the time is the very definition of bias.
	I mean, honestly, if you listen to Joseph Rosenbaum, it sounds like he was voluntarily trying to catch a bullet in the face.
	Oh yeah, wasn't he saying, shoot me?
	Yeah, he was shouting, shoot me N-word, at BLM rioters to try and antagonise them, presumably either to start even more of a riot, or because he'd just got out of hospital for suicide attempts.
	Just so that you could get himself killed.
	So, they go on to claim that, in fact, the judge had a God bless the USA ringtone, which was used at Trump rallies, and this is somehow grounds for it being a mistrial, because he's politically biased.
	A patriotic American, biased, right-winged, evil.
	Oh, dear.
	So there's also been some other stuff.
	So CBS claimed that this is an image before they retracted it.
	that before the actual resolution of the trial Kyle murdered two men and then they later corrected the same story if we move on to the next one breaking down in tears he told the jury he killed two men so they clearly after realizing that they got backlash changed the tone after realizing that the entire trial is to determine if he murdered them or not that would be quite a glaring distinction to make Absolutely.
	And then we move on to this next thing.
	This isn't necessarily a journalist, but an author.
	But you found this one.
	Yes.
	He says, Ahmaud Arbery was murdered.
	Carl Rittenhouse is a murderer.
	Decent white people can admit that.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Alright.
	That's coming from someone who has a book called If God is Love, Don't Be a Jerk.
	I mean, maybe you can take his own advice right now.
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, the entire point of the trial is to find out.
	Who is innocent and who is guilty.
	I mean, if only terrible white people can see that Kyle Rittenhouse didn't murder anybody and only shot people in self-defence, well, I guess we're scum of the earth.
	Apparently so.
	Moving on to CNN making a massive issue over a joke the judge made.
	So, the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial makes an inappropriate Asian food joke, and all he says is, I hope the Asian food...
	That isn't coming, isn't one of those boats from Long Beach Harbour, because I think there was some kind of hold-up.
	Oh, okay.
	So he was just making a joke about current events, things being held up, but obviously it was just a joke, and CNN wrote an entire article trying to dismiss the judge as being racist.
	Was it CNN or MSNBC whose coverage of the riots was the now famous fiery but mostly peaceful?
	Yes.
	CNN bastions of good journalism.
	I've made this point earlier, but if CNN was around during the 1910s and 1920s, we would have had such beautiful articles as fatal but mostly peaceful lynching.
	Oh, dear.
	So this next one is the media covering for Joe Biden, saying no, Joe Biden did not refer to Satchel Paige as...
	I'm not sure if I can say that on YouTube, but the more archaic version of the N-word during Veterans Day speech.
	So they're basically deflecting for him, even though it's on video, saying that he did.
	It's very clear if you listen to it.
	So here is a Washington Post...
	Columnist Gene Weingarten saying at what point at which the unvaccinated need to be prosecuted.
	So if you don't have a vaccine you should be prosecuted.
	We don't.
	Need prosecuting, because as far as I'm aware, we've not done anything wrong, have we?
	Well, according to them we have.
	But no, this goes to show that the extremity of the people that are in the so-called accepted circles of the corporate press, these people are just out to stir up trouble, it seems.
	Yeah, these are the sorts of things that anybody on the opposite end of the political aisle would never be able to get away with in a million years.
	Absolutely.
	So there's this gem by Vice.
	I mean, openly leftist at this point.
	So one of Europe's most notorious far-right hate fests gets official backing.
	And this is, what is this official hate fest?
	So Poland is celebrating their Independence Day.
	And apparently this is a far-right hate fest.
	Do you know who else were nationalists?
	Who?
	The SNP. Yeah, I mean, when are you going to write that article, Vice?
	I'd like to see it.
	So, just reading from Wikipedia, just so I don't get anything wrong about Poland's National Independence Day, they celebrate it on the 11th of November, which was yesterday, to commemorate the anniversary of the restoration of Poland's sovereignty as the second Polish republic in 1918 from the German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires.
	Following the partitions in the late 18th century, Poland ceased to exist for 123 years until the end of World War I, when the destruction from the neighbouring powers allowed the country to re-emerge and they have a non-working holiday to celebrate Poland.
	The existence of their entire country.
	Sounds like something worth celebrating if you're from Poland.
	Yeah.
	If you are a Polish person, I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to celebrate your national identity.
	Exactly.
	So, sure, there was probably some extremists there, but...
	All in all, it's a massive national holiday.
	Do we really want to start pointing out rallies and other such things that have extremists show up to them?
	Calling the kettle black a little bit.
	So, this is something that's very interesting because, actually, Carl and Callum, I don't know whether John was there as well...
	But they actually were at the Polish Independence Day march in 2019, and the so-called extremists at this Independence Day march are highlighted here on the screen.
	That is the small number of extremists, which I believe are the Polish fascists.
	I mean, it's a shame that there are Polish fascists, but, you know, in the vast sums of the crowds, I mean, that's only a small portion of the crowd.
	I mean, and even the crowd that's on screen, the actual larger event, that's not even most of it.
	There's hundreds of thousands of people there on the streets of Warsaw.
	They are massively outnumbered.
	There's about, I don't know, 20, 30 people there, the extremists.
	I'd say 30 at tops, let's be perfectly honest.
	So it's making a mountain out of a molehill a little bit.
	Sure they're there.
	Sure it's not ideal that they are, but also it's a national holiday in Poland and characterising it as some kind of far-right extremist event is just trying to raise alarmism.
	It's the kind of thing that makes left-wingers say, OK, well, there's a rise of the far-right and things like that when, in reality, the Overton window is only shifting further leftward.
	Oh yeah.
	I mean that's how centrists suddenly end up being far right for instance.
	Well yeah.
	It's just ridiculous and it's an obvious political tactic to do this because no one who actually covered this would say okay yeah this is like a far right event because it's just people waving the Polish flag celebrating the existence of their nation.
	And I mean given the history of Poland as well and what the people have suffered I think they have a right to celebrate the fact that they are no longer subject to The tyranny of other countries, although they still are members of the European Union, which I know they're busting heads with at the minute.
	Yes, I mean, I think this year's one, didn't they have some people wandering around with flags saying F Joe Biden on them?
	They did indeed.
	Which is just great memes, if you ask me.
	I mean, it must have sparked the ire of some Vice News journo.
	Oh, yeah.
	If you can even call them a journalist.
	Well, I mean, maybe.
	No.
	No.
	I mean, they're just activists in sheep's clothing, right?
	I mean, they're not even trying to hide it at this point, so...
	But the piece de resistance is this article, which is on Forbes.
	Welcome to 2030.
	I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.
	Is this an article?
	This just reads like propaganda, just on the face of it from that title.
	It's written by the World Economic Forum.
	So yes, it's propaganda.
	So yes, this is like the biggest red flag.
	You can probably see this red flag from space.
	If Davros is behind anything, just back away slowly.
	If anyone's seen that picture of Klaus Schwab where he's wearing that robe that makes him look like a Sith from Star Wars.
	He looks like the typical evil genius behind everything.
	He is Doctor Evil.
	And he's coming for your private property.
	You all own nothing.
	And the bugs.
	Yes, and the bugs, of course.
	And you'll...
	Just wait until you hear this.
	All of this World Economic Forum stuff seems tame in comparison to what they're putting forward in this article.
	Alright.
	So, this supposed utopia they're describing sounds like my idea of a dystopia.
	This is worse than 1984.
	I mean, these people always get the two mixed up, so...
	So it starts, welcome to the year 2030, welcome to my city, or should I say, our city.
	Alright, commie.
	That's just the commie meme when people online are like, oh sorry, this isn't my sandwich, this is our sandwich, and they play the Soviet national anthem behind it.
	I don't own anything.
	I don't own a car, I don't own a house, I don't own any appliances or any clothes.
	Is it a nudist commune?
	I don't understand why this is meant to be appealing.
	It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city.
	Everything you consider a product has now become a service.
	We have access to transportation, accommodation, food, all the things we need in our daily life.
	One by one, all these things became free, and so it ended up making sense for us to own...
	Well, it doesn't even make sense.
	It ended up not making sense for us to own much.
	Okay, I just misread it.
	That's why it didn't make sense.
	Your stomach cramps are infecting your vision now.
	I did actually have way too much coffee before this and I can actually feel my fingers tingling.
	He's going blind.
	Caffeine, not even once.
	Right, so it goes on to say, in our city we don't pay any rent because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it.
	My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.
	Do you want business meetings in your own living room?
	When you're not there.
	This is your brain on communism.
	This is insane.
	Do these people not understand that there's a certain sense of belonging that people want in their own private property and sense of self?
	They sort of attach meaning to the idea of home, and home is somewhere that not any random...
	So-and-so can just enter at will.
	Even communists acknowledge that there's some distinction between, like, sure you don't have proper private property, but you know you have property that is only used by...
	Personal property.
	Yeah, you have property used by you.
	But this even goes further than that.
	Is this luxury, fully automated luxury communism that I've heard so much about?
	This makes Stalin look like a centrist.
	LAUGHTER This is absurd.
	Once in a while I will choose to cook for myself.
	It is easy.
	The necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes.
	Do you not have it already?
	Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our homes.
	Why keep a pasta maker and a crepe cooker crammed in our cupboards?
	We can just order them when we need them.
	How's that going to work?
	You're just going to return some dirty cooking appliances?
	That's always the question that you ask with these sorts of things, where it's like, everything will be free, you will get everything for free, which is, well, who's going to supply them, who's going to actually perform the labour behind it?
	Well, it's a communist utopia, what they're describing, isn't it?
	It's openly communist from the world.
	So the commie fairies will drop from the sky and do everything for you, okay.
	Okay.
	Klaus Schwab will be the only one that owns property, and we'll all be slaves to him, basically.
	And he'll be about 200 years old.
	He will be a gigantic fiery eye on the top of a tower, looking down on all of us.
	It gets worse, though.
	Shopping.
	I can't remember what that is.
	For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use.
	Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me.
	What?
	You're going to have your life dictated to you by an algorithm?
	We already have enough scary algorithms out there right now.
	We don't need any more.
	It knows my tastes better than I do by now.
	What on earth is going on?
	Just in the interest of time, I think we've kind of got the point of this article.
	We need to move on to the next segment.
	Oh yeah, I didn't realise the time.
	Yeah, we need to move on to the next segment.
	But all in all, yeah, that's pretty terrifying.
	Don't let the world...
	That's your brain on World Economic Forum.
	Not even once.
	Yeah, so...
	If you read the rest of the article, it's like the ultimate dystopia.
	This is what we are fighting against.
	They want to end private property, all that sort of stuff, and this is what mainstream journalism is pushing openly now, unironically, without a pinch of irony.
	So, Black Lives Matter have been providing threats to the mayor of New York.
	They are threatening that if they return to their former policing model, that they are going to riot and burn the city down, more or less.
	So when you say mayor of New York, you mean Bill de Blasio?
	Um, well, he's like the mayor-elect, I think it is.
	I'm pretty sure he's the current mayor and the new guy, the, I forget his name, the black guy is the mayor-elect, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I'm getting mixed up here.
	It's the caffeine again, that's what he's doing.
	Um, so, just a reminder what happened with Defund the Police, um...
	In New York City in particular, New York City officials agreed to a budget shift that roughly one billion from the police was moved and that resulted in a 130% increase in shootings in 2020 over 2019 and murders increased in every borough.
	So, transparently not good.
	A complete failure.
	Yes, and this is true across many other cities.
	If you go to the reading list on our site, you'll be able to find this article which goes through all of the different places which defunded their police and the implications of the crime rate.
	Obviously, every area that did it saw a spike in crime, as can be expected.
	As horrible as it is, it does sound a little bit funny.
	I need the...
	What's that?
	Behind the whole thing.
	Oh, you mean the Curb Your Enthusiasm music?
	Yeah, the Curb Your Enthusiasm, yes.
	So, in the interest of time, I'm going to skip to the New York Post article.
	I've got a few links that were talking about what they were actually asking for, but we know what they want.
	They want to defund the police, right?
	Yes, they want the Black Oasis paradise.
	So, this New York Post article titled, BLM leader threatens riots, fire and bloodshed in New York City if Eric Adams gets tough on crime.
	And I'm reading from the article here, a Black Lives Matter elected leader vowed there'll be riots, fire and bloodshed if mayor-elect Eric Adams, that's who I meant, mayor-elect, not the actual mayor.
	That's who you mean.
	Follows through with his promise to bring back plainclothes anti-crime cops to battle New York's surge in violent crime.
	And this leader is the New York's BLM co-founder, Hawk Newsome, who people may be familiar with because he comes up with some ridiculous stuff and seems to get a lot of airtime in the media, despite being a lunatic, in my opinion.
	Sounds like a typical BLM member.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, he is a good emblem of his movement in general.
	So his counter to the proposed measures to reintroduce police to combat gun crime is to threaten to burn the city down, which, you know, doesn't that just reinforce the point that you need to be tougher on this sort of thing?
	Yes, he threatened behaviour that would inherently require more police officers.
	Mm-hmm.
	Yeah.
	So this is an own goal.
	Terrible optics from Black Lives Matter.
	If you hire more police, we'll kill you.
	And what are you going to do if we don't hire more police?
	Well, probably kill you as well, but still.
	That's ridiculous.
	So Adams, of course, is a former New York Police Department captain.
	So he's obviously not going to take any of this.
	He knows how it works.
	He knows how the police work.
	Yeah, I'm aware that he was actually a Democrat candidate as well, which is quite surprising, but I'm also aware that in New York you do have to be quite tough on crime just because of the way that the city operates.
	And also it's been said that people, because of the way that the city is organised with the streets and the subways, that even if you are what you could call an establishment elite...
	Absolutely, yeah.
	So, there has been a resurgence in Black Lives Matter actually saying, well, we helped the Democrats get elected and now they've dropped us and they're angry about it.
	And this is one of those great cases where...
	This was a recurring theme immediately after the election, wasn't it?
	I mean, this is something that we were saying before even the election happened.
	It's obvious.
	Yeah, the Democrats were just using them, and as soon as they got into office, they would drop them, and look what happened.
	And BLM turned out to be the kinds of useless idiots, useful idiots that they always appeared to be.
	So, to quote Hawk Newsome, the Black Lives Matter co-founder...
	If they think they're going back to the old ways of policing, then we're going to take to the streets again.
	There will be riots, there will be fire, there will be bloodshed.
	That's the full quote which he said.
	So I'm not taking it out of context.
	That is literally what he said explicitly.
	I think that should be inciting violence, to be honest.
	Yes, that is demonstrative.
	It's amazing that he's allowed to say that, but okay.
	And he said that to ignore the history and say you're bringing it back means he's tone deaf.
	Wasn't the history that it was very successful?
	Well, yeah.
	There you go, that's his big problem.
	You put all of my best friends in jail!
	Well, what he goes on to explain is that Adams, through his campaign, promised to bring back a reinvented version of the anti-crime unit, but, you know, the unit was dissolved after the deaths of some high-profile cases of black people being killed by plainclothes police officers, and this is what they're freaking out about.
	And, uh...
	Yeah, it's ridiculous that these people are allowed to make threats openly and still, you know, run around free.
	Well, they do it in the name of the cause of racial justice, whether or not the term justice is being used correctly or not, so therefore that gives them a free pass to do and say whatever it is they want.
	However, Adams has been completely undeterred, and he has stressed that he's going to double down on his strategy of reintroducing the same policing standards that were pre-Black Lives Matter, pre-Defund the Police.
	Good.
	So at least things will get better, even though he may be a Democrat, but at least he's a police officer and understands how it works.
	There's only so much I can hope for, but maybe he'll lift the mandates in New York as well.
	We can only hope.
	Yeah, hopefully.
	So...
	What I'd like to move on to is, and I'm skipping over a few things again, is the Attorney General tells Indiana public schools to treat Black Lives Matter as a political organisation.
	Good.
	So, Indiana's public schools should be...
	Oh, it's the Yahoo article, John.
	Yeah, sorry.
	Black Lives Matter movement as a political group, the Attorney General Todd Rokita said on Thursday, potentially limiting the ability of schools and teachers to promote the Black Lives Matter message in classrooms, which is good because obviously there's been this ongoing debate about About schooling and critical race theory, and of course the gubernatorial elections were very much centred around...
	Yes, Virginia...
	Yeah, that's the one.
	Virginia...
	What was his name?
	Youngkin got voted in against Terry McAuliffe, primarily it seems on the basis of...
	Even Democratic, primarily Democratic voters, worrying that what was going to happen is that their kids were being brainwashed in schools through critical race theory.
	All of the Democratic nominees and people were saying that critical race theory doesn't happen.
	That's not what goes on in the classrooms.
	And then you had people like James Lindsay pointing out on Twitter, here's a document from the Virginia school district saying that what we're teaching is influenced by critical race theory.
	So they weren't able to go back on that.
	And it got to the point where Terry McAuliffe and a number of Yeah, I mean, that's a mask-off moment, if I've ever seen it.
	But yeah, I mean, BLM are an explicitly political organisation.
	I know people have always denied it, but I don't know if they themselves have ever denied it.
	All you need to do is go onto their website and you can see pages upon pages of political demands.
	We want this, we want this, we want this.
	They are a mass lobbying group for their own political interests.
	Well, I mean, approaches to crime in general are political, aren't they?
	Oh, yeah, obviously.
	It's something in which it...
	It's a trade-off between security and freedom, and therefore it is definitely the domain of politics.
	And the fact that they're a political lobbying group in and of itself, as much as I'm not a particularly big fan of most of them, is not inherently enough to condemn them.
	It's the fact that in the process of doing so, they have encouraged violence, they've encouraged riots, and they've also perpetuated a number of hoaxes in the process of what you could call agitating for their political Oh yeah, well they faked hate crimes and stuff like that.
	I know there's a case of a guy who spray painted a swastika backwards on a wall and then pretended that there was some kind of white supremacy problem and it actually turned out it was him because they recorded it on CCTV. And BLM stood behind him the whole time going like, no, we need to protect this poor gentle soul.
	So, the final thing I wanted to mention was that Oxford University, so this is still going on in the UK as well, it's not just the States, should hand back dirty Mosley money, says Black Lives Matter.
	So, supposedly, the Telegraph revealed that Oxford University was given £6 million from a charitable trust set up by Max Mosley, who...
	What is the son of Oswald Moseley, who was the leader of the British Union of Fascists, but he is not his father.
	And he has inherited this money from his father, which he then gave to a charity.
	Oh, okay.
	So is it the charity directly who gave the money to Oxford University?
	Oxford.
	Just simply because it came from the son of someone who was a fascist.
	All of a sudden it is grounds for them to freak out and be like, well, you're accepting this money from this person as if he'd inherited his father's sins.
	I don't know much about his politics or anything, but...
	Yeah, I'm pretty sure they point out here that Max Mosley, they say that he, Max Mosley published racist and abusive election literature about the Windrush generation.
	Given the sorts of people this is coming from, I'm not going to take their word for that.
	But also there's the question of, you know, like, whether or not the money came from a particular source, the university is free to do whatever it is that they wish with that money, and they could do some very good things with it.
	Well, say he actually was a so-called racist, wouldn't it be a moral thing to take that large amount of money away from him and invest it into Oxford University where they can open educational programmes?
	Surely that would be the moral thing to do, almost.
	If bad people, as they put it, I don't know anything about the guy, if they want to donate money to the university, surely that should be encouraged because then they have less money to...
	Go about their political aims, right?
	They're all of a sudden tied to teach your beliefs.
	It's not like...
	It comes with a caveat, just like, yeah, you're destined to teach exactly what I say.
	I suppose that this is the iron law of woke projection, as James Lindsay would put it forward, that BLM are assuming that this is what Oxford are going to be tied to, primarily because if BLM were to put forward a similar amount of money for Oxford, they would do it with the express goal of only wanting them to use that money for what they wanted, rather than just going, here's money, carte blanche, do what you want with it.
	And plus, if you're on the topic of fascists, didn't the US already accept a number of Nazi scientists, like in the 1940s and 1950s, to work on experiments and other such things?
	So it's not like there's a...
	I mean, I'm sure BLM would push this as...
	Don't let them know about that, because they're going to be like, yeah, they invented, like, the TV or something.
	Yeah, throw away your TVs.
	Yeah, they're racist.
	So yeah, it just seems ridiculous.
	It seems like they're trying to stir the pot again because they've fallen out of favour, particularly in the states where the Democrats have basically disenfranchised them to the point where they feel like they have no insider influence anymore, which is a good thing, in my opinion.
	Absolutely.
	But it seems like it's kind of foreshadowing some kind of large-scale disruptions as we saw in 2020.
	Yeah.
	There we go.
	Are you feeling better now, Josh?
	I am indeed, yeah.
	You seem to have gained a bit of a pep in your step.
	Right, let's move on to the video comments then.
	So I have a question to the psychologist.
	Uh...
	How strong a coalition is there between the trend of people having their kids much later in life and the higher levels of autism that we're seeing lately, probably within the past 10-15 years or so?
	Just wondering what your thoughts are about that.
	First and foremost, cool gun.
	Yes.
	But secondly, I've only seen stuff in passing, so I can't say anything conclusively.
	But what I have seen is there's, I think, I remember off the top of my head around like a 2% age link, but it's very small.
	And I think I've only seen one study saying that, so I'm not exactly certain about that.
	So I think that's something that I'm not going to say anything declarative about.
	But I appreciate the question.
	It's an interesting question.
	It's certainly something worth looking into.
	Well, yeah.
	And I might need to go away and look at things like that in the future.
	But thanks for submitting the comment.
	Yeah, and I myself have no real answer on that.
	This comment is for Josh.
	What in particular do you disagree with Jordan Peterson about?
	I remember you saying that you didn't agree with the chaos and order distinction that he makes.
	In my understanding he uses that as a description of the way humans perceive reality, not as a description of material reality itself.
	Although that gets to the distinction between material truth and a deeper kind of metaphysical truth.
	Well, there's obviously a lot of things I agree with Peterson on.
	I think he's very, very valuable, and I'm very happy that he's got the public-facing role he has now, where he's basically like an academic superstar, as people put it.
	And I have immense respect for him.
	I've read all of his books.
	Except 12 more rules.
	Yeah, I still need to read...
	Wait, you've read Maps of Meaning?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's very dense.
	I was going to say, I'm pretty sure he said about that himself that that's a much more academic book.
	I mean, I'm an academic psychologist, so it's right up my alley.
	Masochist.
	I agree with him on most matters of psychology, but I'm not too keen on the psychodynamic approach, the kind of Freudian, Jungian side of things.
	Sure, there's some value in it, but I think sometimes it gets overemphasised.
	And the chaos and order thing is...
	I think that the characterisation is perhaps not the best.
	It's not necessarily untrue that people think in those terms.
	That's certainly the case.
	But I think that quite often there being some kind of order, certainly to the universe or things like that, I think that's perhaps overstated.
	But...
	It's more of a pedantic, semantic thing than anything else.
	Like, if I were to have a conversation with Jordan Peterson, I would be absolutely delighted to do so.
	Tony D and Little Joan with a thank you for the contemplations from Josh and Thomas on parapsychology.
	Really enjoyed it because it was about ghosts.
	I also would love to see you guys do a video with the helmet mentioned in there where you guys each try to wear it and attempt to see God.
	Also, too, there is the 1909 incident with the Jersey Devil would make an excellent video along these lines if you ever have time to dig into it.
	I'm really glad you enjoyed it.
	I actually had your video comments in mind when I was planning that because you've always got these interesting ghost stories and legend and folklore anecdotes that I'm always happy to hear.
	It's nice to...
	Hear it from the other side of the pond because you hear it a lot here because it's one of those things like people always have a story about where they're from.
	I know I've span a yarn about my own experiences, although I'm no believer myself.
	I've seen the photos myself.
	They're not entirely convincing.
	No, I'm not convinced myself.
	It's very interesting.
	I need to give that one a listen to be perfectly honest.
	It was good fun though.
	Anyway, moving on to the next one.
	Hey, A.V. I've got a conspiracy theory for you.
	Came across this doing some investment research and I haven't heard it get much mainstreamish conspiracy coverage.
	Before Amazon, Jeff Bezos was a VP at hedge fund D.E. Shaw.
	Amazon struggled initially as e-commerce was very new.
	But brick-and-mortar retailers started going bankrupt in the late aughts.
	Many hedge funds shorted retail while supporting Amazon.
	Was this just a good bet?
	Or did they cheat?
	Naked shorting.
	Seller boxing.
	Abusing market maker exemptions.
	Not sure how provable this is, but I just don't really trust Bezos.
	I mean, he does sound like his laugh was programmed, rather than natural.
	So, yeah, I understand why you don't trust Bezos.
	He's like, Schwab does look a bit like Doctor...
	well, massively like Doctor Evil.
	Yeah.
	Especially firing off in his dick rockets.
	But that was really interesting.
	I don't know anything about that sort of thing, but it's good to know that there's some shady links there, I suppose.
	Yeah, I don't know enough about e-commerce or anything to really comment on it.
	And one more common question.
	Is this because YouTube Rewind got lots of dislikes?
	No.
	Although there are some teams internally who have learned the hard way what it feels like to get lots of dislikes.
	Oh, speaking for himself right there.
	Yes, this is something Carl and I are going to cover on the weekend, YouTube's not removing of the dislike button, removing of the public-facing dislike count that you can see on YouTube videos.
	It almost certainly has a lot to do with YouTube not liking which videos and which channels particularly are showing a massive ratio of Likes down here to dislikes up here.
	YouTube Rewind was trash.
	Always has been, as far as I'm concerned.
	And do your duty and ratio these people while you still can.
	Yeah.
	Enjoy your freedom while it lasts.
	Yeah.
	Comments are next, I swear.
	Hey, guys.
	Today I wanted to recommend a few books that have really changed the way I view the world.
	The first one is Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed, which basically lays out the cancelous mindset of our managerial elites today.
	The next one is Peter Hitchens, Rage Against God, in which he critiques what he sees as pathological atheism in the world, which led to the horrors of the 20th century.
	Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, in which he debunks the left's social constructivist nonsense.
	I like that book.
	And lastly, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State by Auburn Herbert, which is basically an appeal to the workers in his constituency to finally stop asking the government to solve their problems by coercion.
	Nice, thanks for the recommendations there.
	Yeah, those are all quite a good selection, and there are quite a few books there that I've actually been recommended already, so I'm going to have to check them out, although my reading list is getting so ridiculous now.
	My reading list is in the hundreds.
	I have read Thomas Sowell, Not the Vision of the Anointed.
	I've read Black Rednecks and White Liberals.
	Fantastic book.
	I've read, I'm currently in the middle of reading Abolition of Britain by Peter Hitchens on audiobook, which I'm honestly, sorry guys, not a particularly big fan of.
	I find him to be a miserable git.
	That's why he's good though.
	The misery is like the fun part.
	The problem that I find is he makes a lot of assertions without necessarily backing them up with particularly strong arguments as I find it.
	He brings up some very, very interesting points, but I'm not a particularly big fan of his He's kind of the personification of the GigaChad meme of comes in, says something, and leaves without explaining, as far as I've seen.
	But, there's a very important thing he does say, that the Tory party must be destroyed.
	And I am very on board with this.
	I'm not entirely against that.
	No, the thing is, hearing him speak in public, he's very articulate, he's got some great points.
	Just the one book that I am in the middle of reading, I'm not huge on.
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	Hey guys, next Christmas movie I wanted to recommend is called Fat Man.
	It's a 2020 film starring Mel Gibson as Santa Claus, who's also a retired special operator who has to pimp out the elves for a DOD contract to earn some money because Santa's broke.
	It's a totally out there movie, wild concept, and very much worth your time.
	It's a lot of fun.
	That sounds like a movie that was written over a few drinks.
	That sounds like Tarantino or something.
	I hope the term pimp out isn't being used figuratively.
	I'm hoping it just kicks the door open to the grotto.
	Right, kids?
	Whips out his pimp cane.
	Santa's broke.
	Time to earn some money.
	Hi there, Dad here.
	Let's talk browsers.
	It's no secret that Mozilla, Google, and Microsoft are interested in woking up the internet.
	Mozilla and Google have made such good browsers that even Microsoft uses the same base code for their Edge browser as Chrome today.
	These two are such good browsers, it's hard to part with them.
	But did you know that Chromium, the code which Google Chrome is based on, is open source?
	That means anyone can use it to make their own browser, sans Google.
	I recommend Brave, though there's a few others you could try.
	What you essentially get is Google Chrome without Google.
	It even has the Media Router functionality, so you can cast content from your web browser.
	Nice.
	And the worst thing about Google Chrome is that it's attached to Google, so I'm glad to see that people can use the code for nobler projects.
	Are you too f-wing to wear a poppy?
	No, I just forgot.
	That's disappointing, Callum, but I hope you were at least able to donate to the Poppy Appeal.
	Despite my accent, I live in southern Ontario and have dual citizenship.
	I always look out for a donation box each year.
	On the left here is the Canadian poppy.
	The right, obviously, is the British, and the centre is my pride.
	Bought from the Royal British Legion, a poppy pin cast from shell fragments recovered from the battlefields of the Somme.
	It's very nice.
	I mean, the symbolism of using the shell fragments as well is particularly important, I suppose.
	I mean, it's even more of a reminder than the poppy itself.
	It's a very awful thing, and obviously the Remembrance Day thing is a very important thing, and we are sorry that we didn't mention anything yesterday.
	We did do a two-minute silence, though, so don't worry.
	I made a funny video about this creepy doll thing and the climate cult.
	But it turns out Vicky and Michael have a bad allergy to copyrighted music.
	But that's not going to stop me doing some CS Cooper-level shilling.
	Go to the Bass Tape channel to watch it.
	After this, of course.
	That means you too, Leo, you're watching.
	Us Scots seem to look out for each other.
	And I helped you find a bathroom at the live event, remember?
	You owe me one.
	And I only need seven more subscribers until I reach 1,000.
	Tell your friends, tell your mum, tell everyone.
	Yeah, Bass Tape.
	I've had way too much sugar today.
	Yeah, I mean, I've pointed that thing out a few times.
	It is pure Wicker Man vibes, I get from it, to be perfectly honest.
	So thank you, Baystate, for making a video on that.
	Go check it out if you're interested.
	You know, I never taught Kuro how to play fetch.
	He just started doing it one day.
	I was playing World of Warships and he put a hair elastic on my lap and I tossed it and he put it back on my lap and I tossed it again and kept playing the video game and kept ignoring it.
	This went on for probably a half hour or more before I suddenly kicked in and I realized that I was ignoring playing fetch with a cat.
	And so it's become a fun evening pastime, playing fetch with my cat.
	That is adorable.
	That is really sweet, to be perfectly honest there.
	I'm impressed.
	Are you sure you don't just have a dog in disguise?
	But well done.
	Responding to C.S. Cooper, I still don't like fanfiction.
	There's too many things like mobile apps and websites that I think are making some money out of this, which I feel is wrong.
	But worse than that, it causes young writers to adopt the voice of a more polished writer when they should be developing their own.
	And I really don't want things like adult fanfiction of The Diary of Anne Frank.
	100% agree.
	I don't think anybody's looking for that, but then again, you never know.
	Well, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the band.
	You're not in the middle of writing anything, are you, Josh?
	No, no, no.
	The band Neutral Milk Hotel, they wrote...
	Oh, I have heard of them, yeah.
	Yeah, they wrote an entire album which is basically fan fiction about Anne Frank's diary.
	I'll have to give that a listen.
	Hey guys, this is going to be my last video for a while since I'm currently at the college studying gender studies.
	No, I'm joking, of course, I'm doing IT. There's been a question that's been burning my mind in the last couple of months and I wanted to ask you guys about it.
	Is there a person or YouTube channel that is left-wing that you guys support?
	I asked this because I've been recently watching a lot of Russell Brandt of all people.
	And despite being left-wing, I actually agree with a lot of what he says.
	Yeah, he would have been the example I would have actually given, to be honest, because I've seen a few of his videos, and he's willing to admit that sometimes the right has a point and that actually...
	Yeah, he seems to be somebody, unlike many on the left, who actually does have principles which he holds himself to, and he seems very legitimate and authentic in his sort of anti-establishment stance.
	I've not really watched enough of him, but I have seen enough of him to sort of have got that feeling.
	Some of his most recent videos.
	I think he did one which was Trump was right.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	And then another one exposing Nancy Pelosi for her supposed insider trading.
	So, you know, he's...
	He's not...
	Picked aside and remained loyal.
	He's trying to, you know, actually get to the heart of issues, which is good.
	And I remember back in the day when he was just a...
	Comedian.
	Yeah, like a bit of a degenerate.
	But now he's...
	The transformation in the public eye is one of the...
	Quite impressive, to be fair.
	Any other suggestions for left-wing YouTube channels that you watch?
	Because obviously he's already watching that one.
	Because honestly, off the top of my head, I can't think of any...
	No, me neither.
	I was living in a bit of an echo chamber.
	I mean, I read enough leftist articles and stuff in the day.
	We're exposed to enough of it.
	Shamefully, back in the day, I used to watch HBomberguy primarily for the media coverage, but I would not go near his channel with a 10-foot pole now.
	I don't want to black pill myself too much because it's one of those things where I already read this stuff day in, day out and if I go home and watch YouTube as well I'm just going to be miserable.
	We absorb enough misery.
	Dead Redemption 2 is no longer the wokest game I've ever played.
	That award now goes to Spider-Man Miles Morales for the PlayStation 5.
	Is it because the black hero is replacing the white one?
	Is it because the bad guy is a white blonde with blue eyes fighting against oppressed minorities?
	Is it the race, age, and gender swapping for a classic Spider-Man foe?
	Is it the mention of Jane Eyre?
	Is it because of the scene where they manage to have a black Latino, an Asian, a Mexican, an interracial lesbian couple, and a black deaf person who are all voting for a female politician?
	Is it because of the collectible item as a copy of America's Untold Truths seen beneath the veil of nationalism?
	No, it's the Black Lives Matter suit!
	Oh, no, I've not played that.
	They've not actually put a BLM suit in it, have they?
	Good God.
	And I actually enjoyed the first Spider-Man PlayStation 4 one that they released.
	I never played it.
	I had an Xbox, I'm afraid, and a PC now.
	Oh, fair.
	I am proud to announce that I have finally begun work on my third novel, a sequel to this one, Perhaspura Ad Astra, the Starship Halcyon series.
	There's going to be consequences and revelations.
	Nice.
	Good luck with the novel.
	It's always good to see that our audiences have got lots of creative outlets.
	Yes, we do.
	I mean, doing this sort of thing is very important, and, I mean, just following politics can be a bit depressing, so I encourage everyone to...
	Yeah.
	We've got a shockingly talented audience out there.
	I know.
	It makes me feel quite inadequate.
	I mean, I can't even do a podcast without drinking too much caffeine, so...
	I'm over here with my liberal arts degree, so I feel majorly intellectually inferior to most people.
	But it's fine.
	I get on with it anyway.
	So let's move on to the written comments here.
	So for Rittenhouse, we've got Anthony S. Kyle made ten moves in under a second that kept him both alive and innocent.
	Yeah, that's a good point.
	point.
	He had an immense level of control and restraint in his deterrence, shall we say, towards any potential threats coming towards him.
	So props to him for that.
	Joseph Smith, I'm really enjoying watching the prosecution bungle their own case and getting yelled at by the judge.
	I saw something interesting because for some reason I was looking at the politics threads on Reddit.
	Oh, God, why?
	I just hate myself.
	Josh, this is why you're so black-pilled.
	Yeah, well, apparently I was in for a pleasant surprise, because lots of them were coming out in defence of Kyle, just like, yeah, the prosecution are making a mess of this, obviously Kyle's innocent.
	I suppose there's plenty of Destiny fans on Reddit, so that may be where they've got that from.
	But I was shocked that even left-wingers are just like, yes, innocent.
	Yes.
	It's somewhat promising, actually, that they can recognise it.
	It's not just Twitter stirring the pot.
	There are places where it's not as bad, it seems, although I'm sure there was the fair share.
	And I know that Reddit also were threatening to remove people that were even talking about it on some threads, because it's Reddit.
	Yeah.
	S.H. Silver, Kyle going up on the stand was a massive risk, so it's amazing he kept his composure on cross and answered most everything the best he could, defending himself far better than his limp defense team could.
	At least it allowed for the judge to admonish Binger's sleazy and corrupt character.
	If the defense doesn't go through with a motion for dismissal due to the prosecutor...
	I think they already have actually applied for a mistrial with prejudice, with the with prejudice being an important aspect of it, because if that did pass through, then it would mean that Binger wouldn't be able to bring this up for a retrial any time in the future.
	He would just be off.
	I think one of the reasons that I don't necessarily know if that would be best, even though it would point out Binger's, as you say, sleazy behaviour, is purely because of the fact that the media would...
	Absolutely go to have a field day with that knowledge that, oh, he was never convicted as guilty or innocent.
	The judge just let him off with it.
	Just another example of the judge's white supremacy.
	So I feel like a full not guilty verdict would be...
	It will be best case scenario.
	We'll have to see how it goes.
	But I think that would be better than mistrial with prejudice.
	Whether it actually happens that way, we'll just have to see.
	"Student of History: I've watched every day of the trial so far.
	Two things I've learned: 1.
	Kyle should absolutely be let free.
	Completely agree.
	2. That DAA's office needs a serious ethics complaint against them and some severe housecleaning." Absolutely.
	If Binger isn't disbarred for his behaviour during this, I mean, they had a witness admit that, "Oh yeah, the prosecution tried to get me to change my statement and falsify my statement." I mean, if that isn't an example of corruption at its core right there, I don't know what it could be.
	But sadly, the bad guys never seem to get the consequences they deserve nowadays.
	Well, a few of them did.
	Oh yeah, a few.
	Two of them.
	Well, three of them specifically, yes.
	Chad Kowala, given what peaceful protests look like, it'll be interesting to see what actual riots, fire and bloodshed amount to...
	Interesting, that's a crossover with your segment there.
	Sardock spamfish, Kyle's reaction looks like real PTSD as opposed to PTSD caused by being called the wrong pronoun.
	Yeah, that's why I was struggling to watch it.
	I had to look away because I felt so bad for the kid.
	I think people forget that he's a young man.
	He was 17 when it happened.
	So demonised in the media, it could have the potential to ruin his life.
	I mean, honestly, you look at some of the images of him from the trial, I know he's 18 years old, but out of context, he looks like a 13-year-old, so that's obviously not a comment on his character, but it's just a demonstration of how young he really is.
	Sardonic Spamfish, they keep asking Kyle why he was in Kenosha, but don't seem very interested in why the three poor victims were there.
	Yes, they are.
	that might be put forward as to why all of the rioters were there.
	I'm sure it was just to peacefully protest.
	Jimbo G, a lot of my friends think Rittenhouse deserves to be jailed just because he was open carrying a rifle.
	They don't care that it was self-defense.
	They seem to think that him exercising his rights as an American means that he is the guilty party.
	Some people in the UK are so adverse to gun culture that the legal principle of the matter seems to escape them.
	Yes, that is a problem I would say that we have over in the UK is that people really just think of guns and think, ooh, scary, oh, we're so much above guns over here in the UK.
	But my statement to that would be, look what happened to Australia. - Yeah.
	After enough time had passed, when they got their guns taken off them, didn't seem to be such a good move now, does it?
	Paul Nober, Binger is the perfect example of why we needed all those rights, and I would also agree with that and say that he's the perfect example of the sleazy, underhanded lawyer.
	He is the perfect stereotype of it.
	Kathy Dracic, I'm not convinced Kyle is going to get a fair verdict from the jury based on the threats and intimidation that they are getting.
	This poor kid is a pawn in the BLM and Antifa hate game.
	Well, I certainly hope that he gets justice.
	I mean, justice would not have been taken to trial in the first place, but hopefully he can get what little justice is available to him.
	But I do agree we've had George Floyd's nephew making threats on social media because that family is full of virtuous angels, as we all already knew.
	So we'll just see how it goes.
	Robert Longshore, Kyle, the 17-year-old, wasn't voluntarily trying to get bummed.
	Nor voluntarily trying to catch a flying kick or skateboard with his head, nor voluntarily trying to catch a 9mm from a Glock either.
	F around and find out.
	Oh yeah, get bummed because Rosenbaum was a pedo.
	Yeah, F around and find out.
	I guess they found out.
	Let's go on to your comments.
	Would it be alright if you read these?
	Oh, yes.
	Still a bit tense, are you?
	Yeah, unfortunately.
	Yeah, on the corporate press, we have Sardock Spamfish.
	Ah, Washington Compost.
	That explains a few things.
	Yeah, I mean, they're a rag.
	Robert Longshore, independence from the Nazis.
	Why would the fascists celebrate this?
	Well, I mean, it was World War I independence, but obviously they did get invaded again by the Nazis and the Soviets as well.
	But I think the actual 11th of November date is from World War I and the armistice, isn't it?
	But yeah, I mean, I think it all rolls into one eventually, doesn't it?
	Yeah.
	Kevin Fox, Polish anti-racist groups, is that mainstream media speak for immigrant slash Islamist?
	No doubt.
	Almost certainly.
	Callum Dayton, can I just punch this world economic writer, please?
	I'm thinking more and more that we should just give the whole bunch of commies their own island or territory, fling them onto or into the territory, and just let them sort themselves out once again.
	Document the failures of socialism and see despotism yet again.
	Yeah, I think a Lord of the Flies situation might be quite illuminating.
	I don't even think they deserve it.
	They should have to pay for it.
	We're going to give them their own aisle and they'll have to pay for it.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Harry T. No, they don't realise people want to be left alone at home and you have to be human for that.
	I mean, that is true.
	Klaus Schwab does strike me as the lizard man a little bit.
	And a number of other World Economic Forum alumni.
	Well, I mean...
	His slogan is, you will own nothing and you will be happy.
	Yes.
	If that doesn't imply that he's inherently evil, I don't know what does.
	I know.
	Omar Awad, the great reset is a dream sold to people who have nothing by people who have everything and aim to keep it that way.
	Absolutely.
	Yep.
	Angel Brain, the World Economic Forum, 100% no soul guaranteed.
	Yeah.
	I wouldn't be surprised if Klaus Schwab is working on some kind of Machinery to extract the souls from others, to be perfectly honest.
	You don't need a soul to live?
	Once again, he does look like Dr.
	Evil, so maybe he's going to start putting lasers on people.
	It is also worth emphasising that all of the world leaders meet at the World Economic Forum and get instruction from this guy.
	He's not a nobody.
	He's where Build Back Better came from.
	Yes.
	All of the campaign slogans in the UK-US seem to stem from him.
	Yeah.
	Which is scary.
	A little bit, yeah.
	BLM Spudroom to Rapiers says, BLM threatening to write if they don't get the verdict they want is enough to label them a terrorist organisation in a country ruled entirely by law.
	For how is a jury tampering any different than treason in a country ruled by its courts?
	Short drop, sudden stop seems an apt solution.
	Yes.
	Robert Longshore: "OK Google, define terrorism.
	It will read the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims, i.e. BLM in its conversations with the mayor-elect of NYC." Yes.
	Lord Nerevar: "Watching BLM get abandoned by the Dems immediately after the election was so effing funny.
	Looks like they're still deluded in their ideology, though.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't think there's going to be anything that can really convince them out of the positions that they hold currently, sadly.
	But we can just make sure to keep them as far away from any real power as possible.
	I remember when Biden got elected, and...
	They were just like, yes, Biden's been in office for a week and he still hasn't contacted us.
	This is alarming.
	This is very alarming.
	Who could have seen this coming?
	And then eventually you could kind of trace it to the point where they just realise, yeah, they're not talking to us anymore.
	I don't think Joe's picking up our calls anymore, guys.
	Got ghosted.
	You get what you deserve.
	Get ghosted.
	Omar Awad, I think Callum made the point yesterday that if you defund the police and move to community policing, the ideal result is an entire community police force of Kyle Rittenhouse's.
	Yes, this was actually my point, because I made that segment and he stole it from me.
	Never thought I'd find myself coming down on the abolish the police side of the argument, but then we'd probably end up with CHAZ slash CHOP standards of security rather than responsible and professional conduct with accountability.
	Yeah, that sounds fair to me.
	Honourable mentions, George Windsor.
	Good gods, Josh, I'd love to see you drink if caffeine messes you up this much.
	Yeah, I'm particularly sensitive to caffeine for some reason, and because I was doing two segments and I haven't done the podcast in a while...
	I had a lot of caffeine to get me through it, and this was like a poisoned...
	It was a mistake.
	It was a poisoned chalice, because I finished my segments really quickly, but at the same time I felt like death, like I was going to be sick for the first 20 minutes, and I just didn't want to interrupt.
	I was wondering why I was going through my whole segment looking over and you just...
	shifting about awkwardly.
	I felt like it would be really insulting if in the middle of your segment I just threw up everywhere.
	LAUGHTER Great for some great viewing, though, isn't it?
	He's just been so overwhelmed by this miscarriage of justice.
	Yeah, this case makes me sick.
	David Shipton, just wondering, are we going to see the Lotus Eaters action figures?
	Good to see the limited edition Josh back with us today.
	Yes, it may not feel that great for you to have been back on today, but I'm sure there are plenty who are...
	Yeah, well, I'm on the website every weekend.
	You can't get rid of me there, and I'm doing a lot of writing, but...
	Contemplation is basically going to have me on every time now.
	Yes, it's your show.
	You're stuck with me now, I'm afraid.
	Oh dear.
	Alex Bradbury, this is a combo I've been waiting to see and it has not disappointed.
	Looking forward to seeing more Josh and Harry podcasts.
	That's very kind of you.
	Thank you.
	Hopefully Josh will be in a bit better shape next time.
	Almost certainly.
	But yes, hopefully you might appear on the podcast a little bit more often than you have.
	And if you're looking for more content of the two of us, check out our contemplations we did on why people are attracted to evil people.
	How bad people can be popular, I think the name of it is.
	That was a very interesting discussion.
	Rob Toll.
	Rock has always been left-wing, but now is pro-authoritarian progressive.
	P.S. I'll go to the article after the show.
	Thank you very much.
	Hope you enjoy it.
	Dick Cheesehead.
	Great name.
	You'll know nothing and feel crappy.
	Absolutely.
	Yes.
	And on that bombshell, I think it's time we end the show.
	So thank you very, very much for tuning in, and we will be returning at 1 o'clock on Monday afternoon, so tune in then for more great content.
	Till then, I've been Harry with Josh.

▲