Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 1, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:12

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #275

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	- Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters, 275th episode.
	I'm John, I'll be your host for today, and I'm joined by Carl.
	Hello!
	Today we'll be talking about Twitter's new boss and the new rules that he's bringing in.
	We'll be talking about leftists bailing out killers in the United States.
	We'll be talking about the vicar of science and why we should all listen to Mr.
	Anthony Fauci, or not.
	And we'll be finishing this up with a discussion of fertilizers and food shortages.
	But before we get into it, I'd like to take you through a few announcements we have of content we put up on our website.
	First of them in your screen here is the Book Club of the Communist Manifesto.
	So this is a much spoken about book, but I don't think many people have actually read it.
	So we did read it.
	And I think you and Thomas went through that, didn't you?
	We did, and it's very interesting.
	I've been waiting many years to do this, and I knew that in previous years I wasn't prepared to do this, because there was a lot I had to read in advance.
	And Thomas being an expert on this subject as well, we go through it forensically and reveal the hidden conservatism in the Communist Manifesto.
	It's going to take people by surprise, but trust me, it's there, and it's very, very interesting to go through.
	I'm looking forward to giving it a watch.
	Next, I'd like to point out an article by Hugo on the UN's dream of information control.
	As usual, on point with his thumbnails there.
	Yeah, I listened to the audio track for Silver Members and Above earlier.
	It's a really good article explaining how the UN basically is desperate to have total control of your information.
	Because, this end.
	Well, information is currency in the 21st century.
	Precisely.
	Our next article is that totalitarianism is coming to Ireland by Brian Drury, one of our guest writers.
	Yep, this also has an audio track and it's of course revolving around COVID passports, but I won't spoil it.
	And we also have a piece from Harry about the mysterious heart attacks.
	Yes, dozens and dozens and dozens of athletes are dropping dead on the field.
	Those of you who remembered Christian Eriksson last year might find this particularly interesting.
	He is literally one of literally dozens, though.
	I mean, we've got a list in there about 30, 30, 40, like, athletes in the prime of their lives, like 17 to, like, mid-20s, just dropping dead on the field.
	And everyone's like, well, I mean, it could be climate change that's causing this.
	It's like, oh, really?
	Is there an elephant in the room at all that nobody's allowed to talk about?
	And of course, we couldn't put this on YouTube, so we had to host it on the website.
	Yes, so I hope you enjoy that.
	And finally, if you like our content, if you like our stuff, feel free to follow us on Getter.
	This is our account here.
	And we post what we're doing on there, so you can stay up to date.
	Now, without further ado, let's get into it.
	You were going to talk about Twitter.
	Yes, so Twitter has a new boss, a Mr.
	Parag Agrawal, who is brand new, and the first thing he did was announce a new raft of changes to their terms of service, which would, of course, increase the amount of censorship that's going to happen on that platform.
	Here he is, pictured with Jack Dorsey, and he has been with Twitter for over a decade.
	So it's not like he's some random guy who's just been parachuted in.
	He's done his time in the trenches, he's worked his way to the top, and congratulations to him.
	And it's interesting how he's kind of part of a kind of Indian vanguard in Silicon Valley that has been conducting their own sort of long march through the social media institutions.
	And you can see a lot of Indians on Twitter posting about this.
	In fact, you get lots.
	You can see you've got the leader of, sorry, the Indian-American leaders of FedEx, COS, Global COS, I don't even know what that is, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, MasterCard, Pepsi.
	And if we go to the next one, you've got Adobe, IBM as well.
	And so there's a huge amount, as I say, serious talents coming from India, not staying in India, but it's going to California.
	Doing their, you know, due diligence, going through these institutions and rising to the top.
	Well, Indians do tend to have a very good work ethic.
	It's a stereotype, but it is also partly true.
	They absolutely do.
	And so we get to see what Silicon Valley, and Twitter particularly, is going to be like under this new regime.
	And so Twitter have, on the day after, or it might have been the same day, that Jack Dorsey resigns, expand their...
	We're updating our existing private information policy and expanding its scope to include private media.
	Under our existing policy, you can't publish phone numbers, addresses, IDs, and all that sort of thing.
	But there are growing concerns about the misuse of media information that are not available elsewhere as tools to harass, intimidate, and reveal the identities of individuals.
	So sharing personal media, such as images or videos, can potentially violate a person's privacy.
	And may lead to emotional or physical harm.
	Hmm.
	Well, that's very interesting because I, for one, can think of some quite recent revelations of personal identities which you could argue are strongly in the public good.
	Got any examples?
	Like the Walkershaw killer.
	That's a great point.
	Although I think there is an argument to be made that in the United States, if you're on trial, you become a public figure.
	Right.
	So I... Not sure about that.
	I think what they're talking about really is sort of, I mean, they do specifically say, in fact, the misuse of private media can affect everyone but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities.
	Oh, yes.
	Insert here, most affected.
	Yes.
	But I find the activists and dissidents most interesting because that is probably going to mean Antifa.
	Because...
	There are several people on Twitter, well, not necessarily all of them on Twitter now, but Project Veritas and Andy Ngo, who make a point of saying, well, these are the people who are currently burning down American cities.
	You should be aware of that, and there's no reason why that shouldn't be published.
	But this would actually prohibit that kind of reporting.
	Hmm.
	Of course, the blade of censorship only cuts one way.
	I think it's very unlikely that any people who are demonstrably politically to the left are going to be affected by this, because, in fact, they do carry on and give us the fact that if we scroll down a bit, John, you can see on here...
	They say, we recognize there are instances where account holders may share images or videos of private individuals in an effort to help someone involved in a crisis situation such as the aftermath of a violent event or part of a newsworthy event due to public interest value and this might outweigh the safety risks to a person.
	We will always try to assess the context in which the content is shared and in such cases we may allow the images or videos to remain on So we reserve the right to be completely arbitrary.
	Yes.
	That's precisely what that means.
	And so what you are going to experience is censorship that cuts in line with Twitter's and Twitter management's existing biases, which, as we know, are far to the left.
	And of course, Mr.
	Parag is not concerned about free speech, and this is something he has made explicitly clear.
	We can go to the next one.
	When this was revealed, this quote from a 2020 interview, our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, focusing less on thinking about free speech.
	Well, Stephen Crowder actually found the audio of this, and so credit to him, of course, for getting this.
	Good pause there.
	But no, Stephen's great, and he's doing great work, and so let's listen to this audio.
	Somebody in the audience is also pointing out that you're trying to combat disinformation.
	You also want to protect free speech as a core value and also in the US as the First Amendment.
	How do you balance those two?
	Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation.
	And our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.
	The kinds of things that we We do to work about this is to focus less on thinking about free speech but thinking about how the times have changed.
	One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet.
	Most people can speak.
	Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.
	Deciding who is going to get heard or which voices should get more attention is just as fraught a question as which voices should be suppressed.
	That's exactly right.
	I think the notion of centralized content moderation, centralized algorithms, is long-term really, really challenging.
	Right.
	So...
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if it's a particularly fraught thing, why move away from the First Amendment protections and just allow everyone to speak and not take that job as your own?
	Well, to be honest, it seems like one thing they're saying is, and we've seen this from social media before, it doesn't matter what you say because we get to choose who hears it.
	Well, that's exactly what he's saying.
	That's precisely what he's saying.
	And so they presumably feel they cannot be bound by First Amendment legal restrictions and can be completely arbitrary by controlling this environment.
	And technically, they're not bound by First Amendment legal restrictions.
	In fact, the First Amendment protects the social media platform's right to censor whatever they like.
	So, I mean, I view this as a particularly un-American perspective on free speech, and I find that interesting.
	It's extremely authoritarian.
	It's very insidious.
	Yes, it is.
	But again, like, the idea that they're going to now curate who is and is not heard on Twitter, I think, is...
	Deeply disturbed.
	They're going to actively create what they consider good conversations.
	Healthy conversations.
	Exactly.
	I mean, again, as if there is no inherent bias in such a thing.
	So the question is, well, who gets to decide such a thing?
	And one might say, well, Twitter users have endorsed this by signing up to Twitter, but nobody signed up to Twitter with that policy and that guy in charge.
	So this is actually an invasive...
	That's true.
	Yeah, where's that Jack Dorsey?
	I haven't seen him for a long time.
	We haven't, and so that has absolutely disappeared.
	And so the reaction from right-wing publications like The Federalist has been to expect more partisanship and censorship on partisan lines, which is totally inevitable in my opinion.
	I mean, the way the Federalist frames it is Twitter announced a new set of rules on Tuesday that effectively banned the dissemination of memes and the mockery of public figures.
	Possibly.
	But the thing is, at the end of the day, they've given themselves license to do whatever they want.
	There's just no particular limiting principle to anything they're doing.
	And so, possibly and probably, frankly.
	Fox News, of course, have pretty much the same opinion.
	Nobody's impressed with this.
	Independent thinkers beware.
	Censorship on social media is likely to get even worse.
	And what I find really interesting about this is now Jack Dorsey is like the right-wing beacon of free speech.
	Jack Dorsey deplatformed Donald Trump.
	Oh, please.
	I know!
	Why is Fox News lauding Jack Dawson?
	You know what this reminds me of?
	You know when someone dies?
	In their obituary you write all of the nice things you remember about them.
	It kind of reminds me of this.
	But it's not just right-wingers who complain about this.
	You get the centre-left criticism from Something like Michael Tracy.
	Exactly right.
	If you scroll down, he's got a thread here that basically covers the same thing we've covered, to be honest.
	And he concludes with, as usual, we're at the mercy of the context police after they issue decrees that will obviously be impossible to enforce with any consistency or neutrality.
	Completely correct assessment, in my opinion.
	But there was an interesting point made by Axios in a particular article that I thought was actually really good.
	The point is, it's no fun being a CEO of a social media platform anymore.
	And that's a good point, because we've got to remember that all of these CEOs are nerds.
	They're not political.
	They frame it really well here, actually.
	Recent years have seen social media's public trust plummet in the US as users blame the companies for polarizing national politics Well, some people think that.
	The CEO's job has grown increasingly political.
	Rather than messing around in the world of can't win politics, most tech CEOs would rather be dreaming up new platform ideas than leading teams of developers.
	Dorsey, who has been the CEO of Square, which is an online payments company, the whole time he ran Twitter, is expected to pursue his passion for Bitcoin, crypto, and And that's a great point.
	You've got to remember that these people are just nerds who are like, hey, this is, you know, they were messing around with code.
	And then suddenly millions of people are looking at them and using their product and they're like, oh God, okay, what now?
	And this is why I've said in previous podcasts, I think Mark Zuckerberg's like a nerd riding a dragon.
	He's just suddenly magicked into existence that he doesn't know what to do with and can't bear to get off of.
	It's very mythological, isn't it?
	Well, it is.
	But, I mean, like, Zuckerberg, when he first started Facebook, he was just trying to find hot women to date.
	You know, like, again, like a nerd.
	But anyway, as a consequence of this, alternative social media platform Getter started trending on Twitter, which Jason Miller obviously was enjoying.
	Jason Miller, the CEO of Getter and good guy, was enjoying.
	And so they put out a very political but also true statement.
	I'm not going to go through it because it's basically Twitter is not for free speech anymore and this is going to be against the right wing and pro the left wing and that's an obviously true statement even if it is political and this kind of political censorship will not be happening on Getter because Getter is a First Amendment platform.
	Yeah.
	They are, you know, Jason Miller is a MAGA American, so he's deeply committed to the founding principles of the United States, and so good, frankly.
	So this is why you should go and follow us, lotuses underscore com, on Getter.
	Honestly, the platform's been growing really, really well.
	We've only been on there for a few months, already got 16,000 followers.
	My personal one's over 21,000 followers.
	So, yeah, come and follow us over there, because at some point, you're probably going to get banned from Twitter.
	Yeah.
	On that note, I think we shall segue clumsily into leftists bailing out killers in the United States.
	So I just thought I'd start by talking about Julius Jones.
	Julius Jones, I don't know if you're aware.
	I'm not aware.
	So Julius Jones was handed a life sentence and I believe a death sentence from 1999.
	And this week his execution was commuted to life imprisonment.
	So there should be a link before this, John?
	So who is Julius Jones?
	What did he do?
	So Julius Jones is accused of the murder of Paul Howell, accused and convicted of the murder of Paul Howell.
	There is a fair amount of evidence in the case.
	At the moment it seems that social media is very much not in favour of this conviction and it has been held up as an unjust conviction and an unjust application of the death penalty in leftist circles.
	However, there is a strong argument that the conviction was just and the evidence is overwhelming.
	Although this obviously...
	In non-leftist circles, this guy's guilty of this.
	In leftist circles, he did nothing wrong.
	But this side of the story is not amplified at all.
	So I just thought I'd go to...
	This website is set up by Paul Howell, who has murdered his family.
	If we can scroll down a bit, they have a quote here.
	For the past 21 years, both the state and federal judicial systems have been involved scrutinising this case.
	The courts have heard multiple appeals in multiple forms and at multiple levels from Julius Jones.
	They have found no claim which necessitated the granting of relief.
	Julius Jones' defence team's only hope now is to create such an uproar through a misinformation campaign as to put pressure on those that grant commutation or clemency.
	So for that, they turn to celebrities to help spread their misinformation.
	This wouldn't be the first time, would it?
	And as a result of this, the governor commuted his sentence.
	So the social media pressure campaigns from celebrities and influencers work?
	It was absolutely effective, yes.
	If you move to the next link...
	So Kim Kardashian was also weighing in on this.
	Oh, what's Kim Kardashian's theory on justice?
	I'm interested.
	Yeah, so if we scroll down slightly.
	So she spoke to him after his death sentence was commuted and shared a wholesome message about him.
	She's grateful that he's still alive.
	Publicly thanked Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt for commuting the sentence.
	So, did Julius Jones murder the man and his family, or was it just the man?
	As far as I'm aware, it's just the man.
	He was sitting in the front of his car, and someone came up and shot him while his family were in the back of the car.
	Well, thank God that he's still alive, because otherwise an injustice might have been committed.
	Kim.
	So this is just an interesting introduction into this subject of how, essentially, justice is being warped by social media activism.
	Yeah.
	And if we move to the next slide...
	God, can you even imagine how awful that must have been?
	Sorry, go on.
	Kamala Harris promoted the bail fund that freed six domestic abusers.
	This is a report from last year.
	If we scroll down...
	That's right, I'm a feminist.
	She was then, well, Joe Biden's running mate promoted a bail fund that helped free five convicted domestic abusers and one accused domestic abuser from jail, a report details.
	In June, as left-wing riots ravaged the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota over the death of George Floyd, Harris promoted a fund to bail out rioters called the Minnesota Freedom Fund on her Twitter.
	Interesting.
	This seems like a bit of subversion of the course of justice, doesn't it?
	Yes.
	People are able to essentially bail out criminals through crowdfunding.
	And if we scroll down to the list of six men freed by this bail fund...
	We have 28-year-old Davlin Devont Gates accused of strangling a woman.
	31-year-old Donovan Nexter Boone accused of strangling a woman in front of her minor children.
	29-year-old Matthew Owens Earl Thompson accused of breaking into a woman's home.
	53-year-old Tyrone Thomas Shields accused of punching his wife in the head and threatening to keep beating.
	29-year-old Rhys Omor Bonneville accused of assaulting his partner.
	And 40-year-old Marcus Martian Butler accused of assaulting his girlfriend.
	I think we can all agree that feminism is over.
	Well, thanks, feminism, because now all of these people are on the streets.
	Is there a racial dynamic to this?
	I have not looked into it.
	I'm going to assume there is.
	But there may well be a racial dynamic.
	We shall see.
	So, the American bail system is a bit strange, right?
	Yes.
	So, to me, it doesn't seem very sensible that you have a system whereby someone can do a crime...
	And as they stand accused, if enough money is put up, they can just wander around the neighbourhood and potentially commit more crimes.
	It seems a bit strange.
	So why do they have bail in the US? Let's go to the next slide.
	So, essentially, this system evolved from the Wehrgeld system in Anglo-Saxon Britain.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, so back in the day, if you committed a crime, if you killed someone particularly, then the family of the person you killed were entitled to kill you in response.
	Mm-hmm.
	And that way justice was settled.
	It was an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
	But this was incredibly...
	Better days, we could say.
	But this was incredibly socially destructive because after the person was killed, the family would then go and kill someone else who would then come back and kill someone else.
	And you'd end up with these long-running clan feuds which left everyone dead and miserable.
	So to settle that system, they replaced this with Wehrgeld, whereby once the crime was committed, you could essentially pay off the debt.
	I mean, we're guild literally means man payment.
	Exactly.
	But of course, a lot of the time you couldn't raise the money to start with, so it would come in lots of installments.
	And this system essentially evolved into a point where it's like the modern British or pre-modern British justice system.
	On independence, the 13 colonies inherited the British system, which was then personal sureties, whereby third parties promised to pay money if the charged person absconded.
	This is very interesting, because at that point, you didn't even need to pay money to bail them out.
	You simply came up and said, if this person goes back on his word and does something nasty or runs and evades justice, I promise I will guarantee him and I will pay the money.
	But in 1900, America began allowing commercial securities by discarding the longstanding rules against profit and indemnification at bail.
	So they required the money to be paid first.
	You could argue there's an economic argument here because it's getting money into the system to be used by the justice system, but I think it's a pretty weak argument.
	It also strikes me as a kind of perverse incentive as well because then it's like, well, look, we'll let you go if you just give us money.
	It feels like a form of institutionalized bribery.
	Yes.
	It feels very much that it's a penalty only for poor people too.
	Exactly.
	Why is it that if you set a bail of a certain amount, why is it that a rich person is fine but a poor person is not?
	It seems like there's an inbuilt injustice in the system.
	It does, yeah.
	So I'm not defending the bail system by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a system that exists and it should be respected.
	At least it should not be subverted for activism.
	If it's not going to be reformed, then you are correct.
	It should be at least respected.
	Right.
	And so this article makes the point that financial conditions in the bail process used to be unsecured financial conditions, i.e.
	the promises to pay, whereas making them cash sureties turned them into secured financial conditions, which required people to pay something prior to being released from jail.
	And this has held as an injustice, not just, I think, by the left, but also by many on the right.
	It's a strange system.
	But now let's move on to a more recent subject of the bail system.
	Daryl Brooks, who caused the Walkershaw massacre, has a $5 million bail.
	Now, why he was granted bail at all is an interesting question.
	If it were me, I would say no bail.
	But he has a bail, and it's $5 million.
	And BLM has started a GoFundMe in Milwaukee, same state as Walkershaw, for the exact amount of $5 million.
	No mention of where the money is going to when it's raised.
	They're only doing this because he's black.
	It's not interesting.
	They're only doing this because he's black.
	Okay.
	It's quite remarkable, isn't it?
	It's staggering.
	And this is not the only one because GoFundMe...
	Imagine if, like, sorry to interrupt, but, like, whatever the Norwegian equivalent of English heritage is...
	Anders Breivik.
	Yeah, exactly.
	If they had created a GoFundMe for Anders Breivik just because he's Norwegian...
	It would have been unbelievable.
	As unbelievable as this, in fact.
	Absolutely.
	This is a person who, as far as I'm aware, very obviously massacred a group of people, including children, on video, like, caught red-handed.
	Deliberately, intentionally did it.
	And with premeditation.
	Yes.
	And, yeah, people think he should be bailed out, presumably because of his skin colour.
	I can't see how Black Lives Matter would argue any other way.
	That does not sound like the world that Martin Luther King wanted us to enter.
	No, it doesn't.
	But this is not the only one.
	GoFundMe had to take down a fundraiser for Daryl Brooks.
	While many were horrified that he was offered bail at all, those who launched the fundraiser claimed that that bail sum indicated that Brooks himself was a victim of a racial justice system.
	A racist justice system.
	Oh, that's rich.
	Just staggering.
	And it turns out that organising or crowdfunding to pay bails of politically sensitive criminals is not new.
	Let's take a look at the Bail Project.
	This is the Bail Project.
	If we just scroll down, I think we should get something more sensible.
	Just have a description.
	Freedom should be free.
	The Bail Project National Revolving Bail Fund is a critical tool to prevent incarceration and combat racial and economic disparities in the bail system.
	Oh!
	Sometimes incarceration is good.
	How it works.
	And if you scroll down a little bit, they have a nice animation.
	Bail is set.
	Bail is paid.
	Bail returns to fund at the end of a client's case.
	Bail money is used to free someone else.
	So it's just an organization to do that.
	Someone else being convicted criminal.
	Mm-hmm.
	Now, who set up the BLM Bail Fund?
	If we go to the next slide, we have a Bail Project employee, Holly Zoller, who works as a bail disruptor for the Bail Project.
	Oh, look at that framing!
	Holly Zoller is a left-wing activist who works as a bail disruptor for the Bail Project, a left-wing non-profit which claims to combat systemic racism by paying bail for accused suspects.
	So at least we know this is a left-wing subversive tactic.
	Yep.
	We have, in addition, she coordinates volunteers for Food Not Bombs, a group that provides fresh and shelf-stable food to a community in the centre of Louisville's food desert, and has organised around anti-fascist movements.
	I recall this anti-far food truck movement.
	Prior to joining TBP, the Bale Project, Holly owned a gardening company, worked as a sous-chef and as a professional organiser.
	Holly lives in Louisville with her three daughters.
	Her three daughters.
	Notice there's someone missing from here.
	Yes.
	So where's the father?
	And we'll find out about David Zoller and Holly Zoller.
	But before we do that, there is another link.
	If we can go to the...
	No, it's back.
	It should be between Holly Zoller, the Bail Project, and...
	Sorry, just tell us about it.
	Okay, so if you look at who's on the board, the advisors for the Bail Project, we have Sir Richard Branson.
	Blimey, that's not a name I was expecting.
	I know, right?
	Richard Branson is busy bailing out criminals.
	Apparently so.
	He's on the Board of Advisors, according to their website.
	Now, they may have just put him up here without asking, but I find that hard to believe given some of the other names on here.
	If that's the case, Richard, you might want to get in contact and get that taken down.
	Exactly, I think you should, and there's quite a few high-profile names here.
	But we also find out that since 2018, the Bail Project has received $10 million per year from the Audacious Project, a $250 million charity initiative from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Skoll Foundation and Dalio Philanthropies.
	So they're literally keeping criminals on the streets?
	Not criminals in their gated neighbourhoods, of course, or on their private islands or wherever it is.
	Philanthropy is bailing out criminals to walk the streets, apparently.
	That's what it means these days.
	That's what philanthropy means.
	I would call it misanthropy, personally.
	That's a very fair characterisation.
	Yeah, but now we look in a bit deeper into the story of Holly Zoller, because it turns out she's got a pretty long rap sheet.
	She was present at Charlottesville, and we...
	Yep, so this is a leftist write-up of the incident, but...
	Holly McGlawn-Zoller, Sean Leiter and other Louisvillians loaded up and headed to Charlottesville to counter-protest the Unite the Right rally.
	Both McGlawn-Zoller and Leiter identify as antifascist and both witnessed a nationwide tragedy, the killing of Heather Heyer by a neo-Nazi in a car.
	I mean, we should give them some credit here.
	This is the one time they've actually identified fascists in the United States.
	That's true.
	Like, this is the one time it's ever happened.
	So, in their defence, this is an accurate write-up.
	Absolutely.
	In the crowd that Saturday, McLaurin Zola was collateral damage.
	Her leg was broken as the car barrelled through the cloud.
	So, this is someone who's now bailing out a man who was caught on video killing multiple people with a vehicle, who apparently was hit by a vehicle.
	I think she didn't try and bail out this guy.
	No.
	Interesting that.
	So, she's now defending a murderer who used a vehicle as a weapon.
	Yeah, that is very ironic, isn't it?
	And it's going to be based on his skin colour.
	Now, when you look into this, however, there is a lot of speculation that she wasn't even present at Charlottesville.
	She made the whole thing up.
	She put a cast on for the cameras and took it off straight afterwards.
	Oh, really?
	Apparently she turned up the day afterwards.
	But we cannot confirm those allegations.
	Right.
	If we move on to the next one, this is just proof that she was the one behind this GoFundMe.
	She was the one who set up the GoFundMe page.
	And then this is a deep dive, which a gentleman on Twitter did, into Holly Zoller's background.
	Some of this is unconfirmed, but I've looked to find the ones which are.
	And, yeah, she...
	She essentially has set up loads of shell companies, which have taken huge amounts of money and donations.
	Here we go, nice image of Holly.
	And then basically just disappeared with outstanding debts unpaid, which they have not turned up in court for to deal with.
	Well, the grift is real.
	We have, I think, a video of her from Twitter next.
	This is...
	Ah, yes, there she is.
	There she is in the lorry.
	It's a white woman with the same build, same hair colour, same skin colour, throwing weapons out of the back of a rented U-Haul van to a load of antifarpa.
	Yeah, how interesting.
	Where's the food?
	Yeah, it's not a very nutritious snack van, is it?
	Shields and weapons.
	It looks like pepper spray and things like that.
	Very interesting.
	Yes, but despite being...
	They've already been painted up.
	Someone has organised this.
	Oh, yes, fully organised this.
	Totally prepared.
	It turns out she's a serial entrepreneur, though, if we go to the next one.
	Serial entrepreneur.
	Here we go.
	There are six Holly Zollers with six different ones, and I've verified these are all the same person.
	We have Louisville Books to Prisoners Incorporated, set up in 2017.
	I wonder how many books they've actually donated to prisoners.
	Interesting, that.
	I'm sure they're big readers.
	And if we scroll down...
	We have the Bale Project, Inc., which she's registered for.
	We have the Carmel Foundation, Victory Gardens of Kentucky, which is an anarchist gardening corporation.
	I don't think they've made many gardens.
	And if we scroll down, there should be two more at the bottom.
	Yeah, that's it.
	So, yeah, she's set up a load of things.
	She's been busy.
	And allegedly, in her divorce, which is ongoing, the net worth of the couple is estimated at millions of dollars.
	Oh, I wonder how they got that.
	Without working a day in their lives.
	It's very profitable to be an anti-fascist activist, it seems.
	Yep, and then we also have a comment from Ron DeSantis here.
	Which I think we should just listen to.
	If we can go to the start, he's got a pretty base take on this.
	Is that how it works?
	The SUVs, they just drive by themselves?
	This just kind of happened?
	And they say, oh, this was a big accident.
	You never actually hear the discussion about who committed this.
	What was the motivation?
	This guy was a career criminal, let out on, didn't really have any bail, basically.
	Should not have even been on the street, had clear anti-white animus.
	And this was an intentional act.
	And it seems like, you know, for corporate press, they're more apt to characterize a parent who goes to a school board meeting to protest bad policies as a domestic terrorist than somebody who intentionally rams an SUV into a crowd of innocent people.
	So you have at least six have died.
	Pretty sure this is my script on this.
	You have many more that have been injured than 10 people in the hospital.
	And so let's just be clear.
	This was not a car just driving in.
	This was an attack by a felon who did that, who should not have been on the street.
	And we'll see what the actual motivation was.
	It very well may have been in response to what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse.
	And you have to wonder if that's the case.
	Almost assuredly, this guy's view of Rittenhouse was colored by all these media lies.
	He brought a rifle across state lines.
	That's a lie.
	They said that the initial altercation with Jacob Blake, that Blake was unarmed.
	That's a lie.
	They covered up Blake's criminal history.
	And then they said that Rittenhouse shot, and first of all, when you're Self-defense.
	It doesn't matter, you know, kind of what race they would say that he shot.
	Most people didn't know that he shot three white people.
	People thought so.
	That's what the media has been doing.
	And they tend to point a target on law enforcement's back.
	But this is just wrong.
	And these lies have got to stop.
	And if it doesn't fit your narrative.
	Sweeping the facts under the rug is not doing the service that people deserve.
	It is what we expect, unfortunately, from a lot of these places, but it's wrong.
	And I think the way they've treated law enforcement across the board over the last two years has been an absolute disgrace.
	So let's just be clear, they are not wanting to...
	Brilliant statement from Ron DeSantis, every word true.
	It's the media's fault for amping up this whole crisis.
	But you can see how this is a three-dimensional creature.
	You've got the media creating the narrative, you've got these activists who are getting...
	Loads of money because of the narrative that the media have created because they say, well, we're going to bail out criminals, we're going to provide food to Antifa or whatever, and all of these things are all inextricably linked, going down the chain to the mobs that are rioting.
	And so the funding is introduced by the billionaires and you can see how this entire organism exists.
	Okay.
	And speaking of inextricably linked to entire organisms, you'll be stunned to find that two of the employees of the Bale Project are Soros Justice Fellows from the Open Society Foundation.
	And I've put a reference in the description to the full list of 453 past and present Soros Justice Fellows, if any of our viewers want to have a look and see if they recognise anyone.
	But that's my segment.
	I would not be surprised by any of that.
	Completely expected.
	Anyway, moving on.
	Dr.
	Anthony Fauci, the now official vicar of science upon the earth, is terribly afraid.
	Now, we've covered what's gone on with Fauci in previous podcasts, so I'm going to skip a lot of it, but if you want to know more, you can go and watch podcast 180, where we talked about how Rand Paul seems to have ferreted him out and caught him in a lie, where he was just lying about the gain-of-function research that was taking place in The Wuhan lab being funded by the EcoHealth Alliance that had received its funding from Dr.
	Fauci.
	So that's a quick summary there.
	So new documents have come out that show that, yes, Fauci definitely lied.
	He's, I mean, it was pretty much confirmed at the time, but it's even more confirmed now, as this thread from Richard H. Ebright shows, because newly released documents provide details of US-funded research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	The Intercept has obtained more than 900 pages of these documents detailing the work of EcoHealth Alliance at the Chinese lab.
	The materials show that in 2014 and 2019, NIH grants eco-health with subcontracts to WIV-funded gain-of-function research as defined in federal policies in effect between 2014 and 2017, and potential pandemic pathogen enhancement NIH grants eco-health with subcontracts to WIV-funded gain-of-function research as defined in federal policies in effect between 2014 and 2017, and
	The material confirms the grants supported the construction in Wuhan of novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses that combined a spike gene from one coronavirus with the genetic information from another coronavirus and confirmed the resulting viruses could infect human cells.
	The materials revealed that the resulting novel laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses could also infect mice engineered to display human receptors on cells, which is what they call humanized mice.
	So there we go.
	The Incept has published these documents.
	It's in black and white.
	It is proven.
	I've read these papers as well.
	They absolutely are doing gain-of-function research, and they even cite, I believe, the national funding.
	But now this is the other side of it.
	They've found the papers specifically discussing those conversations.
	Yes, exactly.
	Rand Paul had the paper trail from the American side.
	Now we have the paper trail from the other side.
	And so there is just no question of the fact that Fauci allowed this and presumably orchestrated it because he was the one who signed off on the phones.
	And of course, he began lying about this.
	So Rand Paul posted about this and said, well, surprise, surprise, Fauci lied again.
	And I was right about his agency funding novel Coronavirus Research at Wuhan.
	Yes.
	And so that means that Fauci demonstrably lied under oath to Congress.
	Isn't that a crime?
	I believe it's a federal crime.
	Do they not call that perjury or something like that?
	I think they do.
	They have some old-fashioned English term about these sort of things, because it used to be that this was wrong.
	And so Dr.
	Fauci went out and decided to try and defend himself.
	This would be good.
	It's very, very good.
	In this interview with Face the Nation that we're going to go through.
	Let's watch.
	Why do you feel so strongly about that, about staying on the job when you become, I mean you were personally, not just rhetorically, threatened your security, your safety, your family.
	How did you deal with that?
	I dealt with it by focusing on what my job is.
	From the time that I went into medicine to the right now where I am at my age, my job has been totally focused on doing what I can with the talents and the influence I have to make scientific advances to protect the health of the American public.
	So anybody who spends lies and threatens and all that theater that goes on with some of the investigations and the congressional committees and the Rand Pauls and all that other nonsense, that's noise, Margaret.
	That's noise.
	I know what my job is.
	It's all just noise.
	True noise but noise.
	And attempts to paint over any malfeasance on his part.
	The thing is, Anthony, and I'm really curious, how does creating an infectious chimeric coronavirus help the American public?
	What's the benefit there?
	I don't know.
	I did get the feeling that his smile was at its most mendacious after he said, American public.
	Yeah, but don't worry.
	It gets better.
	And, of course, he just accuses Ted Cruz and the Rand Paul of lying, even though they have literally got the evidence.
	Like, it's black and white.
	It's not a lie.
	It's demonstrably true.
	But anyway, let's continue with clip two.
	Senator Cruz told the Attorney General you should be prosecuted.
	Yeah.
	I'd have to laugh at that.
	I should be prosecuted.
	What happened on January 6th, Senator?
	Do you think that this is about making you a scapegoat to deflect from President Trump?
	Of course.
	You have to be asleep not to figure that one out.
	Well, there are a lot of Republican senators taking aim at this.
	That's okay.
	I'm just gonna do my job.
	And I'm gonna be saving lives and they're gonna be lying.
	What a softball interview for a start.
	Oh, yeah.
	But his responses are not good, are they?
	No.
	Not good at all.
	What about-ism?
	Absolutely.
	Exactly, yeah.
	Don't look at me.
	Look at that.
	Look at that.
	Exactly.
	What about January the 6th?
	Well, what did Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have to do January the 6th?
	Nothing.
	So why did you bring it up?
	And we're not saying that you're the only person in the United States who can be prosecuted for anything, Dr.
	Fauci.
	Lots of people can get prosecuted when they do things wrong.
	But I love his fake laugh.
	It's such an obvious fake laugh.
	Yeah, I have to laugh at that.
	It's like, yeah, I suppose you do, because otherwise you look even worse.
	But when he was like, you know, of course, of course, he had a very strained voice.
	You can see the tension in him.
	But this is like the Trump derangement syndrome defense at this point, where when the heat gets too much, just mention Trump.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, January 6th.
	Oh, I don't care.
	Yeah.
	You lied under oath.
	It's almost a year ago now.
	Yeah.
	Demonstrably lied under oath.
	Yeah, nearly a year ago.
	I don't care.
	But they're all liars, you see.
	Like, all of those Republicans who are concerned about the fact that he broke the law, they're just all liars.
	Fauci's not a liar.
	Even though we've got proof that he's been caught in a lie, he's not the liar.
	He's trying to defend the United States.
	He's basically the Superman of science.
	The Pope of science, if you will, as he literally claims in this next clip.
	No way.
	It seems another layer of danger to play politics around matters of life and death.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	And to me, that's unbelievably bad because all I want to do is save people's lives.
	I mean, anybody who's looking at this carefully realizes that there's a distinct anti-science flavor to this.
	So if they get up and criticize science, nobody's going to know what they're talking about.
	But if they get up and really aim their bullets at Tony Fauci, well, people could recognize there's a person there.
	So it's easy to criticize.
	But they're really criticizing science because I represent science.
	That's dangerous.
	To me, that's more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me.
	And if you damage science, you are doing something very detrimental to society long after I leave.
	Science is not fragile.
	No.
	Anthony Fauci is pretty fragile at this point.
	That's true.
	His position is incredibly fragile.
	Now, I mean, I love all of this, right?
	This wasn't playing politics.
	This is Fauci is demonstrably lying and funded a deadly disease that didn't previously exist that somehow came out...
	It seems the lab leak theory is the most...
	Likely origin of it, because the virus has not been found in the wild.
	They've been looking for this virus in bat populations.
	It has leaked into the wild since spreading all over the world.
	Yes, it has.
	But notice his framing.
	All he wants to do is save people's souls.
	I mean, lives, you know.
	Like, he just wants to save people's lives.
	But that's exactly what the Pope would say.
	And again, like, I represent science.
	Well, that's you saying your science is representative.
	Like, you're the vicar of science upon the earth, as the Pope would claim for Jesus and God.
	It's, like, unironically not even a meme.
	It's, like, literally what he's saying.
	And, yeah, so this hiding behind the good name of science is obviously a scoundrel who is attempting to cover up his lies.
	Because his lies are demonstrable, this is not in question anymore, the evidence is all out in the open.
	And so Fauci has become basically a comical liar.
	As you can see in this meme I just posted to Getter, there are loads of these going around, where it's like literally he's making the argument that the religious folks are making...
	No, no, no.
	You criticise me, you're actually criticising God, because I represent God.
	In fact, she's doing the same with science.
	And that's exactly where we've arrived at.
	And the thing is, it's made so that the Babylon Bee is incapable of producing satire about this.
	I mean, he basically did.
	The only thing missing was that.
	He actually did declare himself to be the representative of science.
	And the irony of this is that Dr.
	Rand Paul is also a medical doctor.
	Like, it's not like Rand Paul is like, yes, I'm anti-science.
	No, he's literally an ophthalmologist or something.
	So he's an eye surgeon.
	Like, sorry, if he was talking to some, you know, just MAGA hat wearing, you know, chud who was in a trailer park or something, sure, maybe that claim would have some validity.
	But no, you're talking to another scientist about this, a credentialed scientist of qualifications equal to your own.
	Like, this is unbelievable.
	But anyway, so when asked about this, did Jen Psaki have anything good to say about it?
	I'm going to bet no.
	No, she was like, apparently, according to Forbes, notable anti-science publication, Psaki dismissed these accusations in a Thursday press conference, denying that Fauci had lied to Congress about the nature of the research and emphasising that the viruses studied under the grant programme were unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 and the virus that causes COVID-19.
	They were just other bat coronaviruses from Wuhan.
	Don't worry about it.
	She's also lying.
	She's also lying to defend Fauci's lies.
	Why would she do that?
	Why would she just not make a neutral statement?
	That's a very good question.
	Why would she not just say, well, look, I don't know anything about it.
	You know, this is a very complex issue that is going to be for the Congress and the courts to decide, blah, blah, blah.
	You know, disavow myself from getting involved in it.
	No, she has instead taken ownership of Fauci's lie and she's now, oh, no, I commit to Fauci's lie too.
	And I'm going to tell a lie of my own and hope you don't understand or don't see where this is going.
	So naturally, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are both going all in on this, which is fantastic.
	But that's not where it should end.
	Rand Paul just tweets out the absolute hubris of someone claiming they represent science.
	Again, like, science is some mystical entity that needs human representation on the Earth, or it's a method for discovering facts about the world.
	I'm not religious, so I think the latter.
	He says, It's astounding and alarming that the public health bureaucrat would even think to claim such a thing, especially one that has worked so hard to ignore the science of natural immunity.
	Thank you.
	Fair.
	But the thing is, Mr.
	Paul, he lied under oath.
	That's a crime.
	Punish him.
	He needs to be punished.
	And therefore, the people who are protecting him, like Jen Psaki and the Biden regime, need to know they are not invincible.
	They need to know there are consequences to breaking the law.
	Ted Cruz posted, Fauci testified before the Senate that he had not funded gain of research function.
	And on October, they had funded an experiment in Wu Hablan, a lab testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring coronaviruses circling in China We're capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.
	That is gain-of-function research.
	As far as I understand it, that's a correct statement.
	Fauci's statement and the NIH's October 20th letter cannot both be true.
	Correct.
	The statements are directly contradictory.
	No amount of ad hominem insults parroting Democrat talking points will get Fauci out of this contradiction.
	Correct.
	You've got him.
	You've got him exactly where you want him.
	He can't escape this.
	And so he concluded by calling on Fauci to address the substance in detail with specific factual corroboration or the DOJ should consider prosecuting him for making false statements to Congress.
	Why?
	Why give him any amount of leeway or way out here?
	Just prosecute!
	Like, whatever you can do, all the Republicans should be now speaking with one voice.
	This man lied to us under oath.
	Don't let them get away with it.
	Prosecute him.
	Unbelievable.
	This is why people keep complaining about the establishment Republicans.
	Because when they have the person literally dead to rights in the trap, they refuse to actually spring it and capture it.
	They refuse to take the win.
	Yeah.
	Take the win.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Mm-hmm.
	Anyway, we're not winning much in the future, are we?
	No, we may be looking at food shortages.
	We are certainly going to be looking at fertilizer shortages.
	And essentially, it's worth knowing that natural gas accounts for 80% of the cost of ammonia, which is an essential part of fertilizers.
	Ammonia has tripled in price this year.
	And obviously because of a European gas shortage, which we're all experiencing, particularly in Europe and the UK, it's likely that natural gas prices aren't going to go down anytime soon.
	But it's not just natural gas we have to worry about in the inputs for fertiliser.
	So, first of all, why do we need fertiliser?
	Well, we need fertiliser to put on farms to make crops.
	If we don't have fertiliser, we can't make as many crops from the same area of land, which means we get less food.
	If we have less food, that means food prices go up.
	It's fairly simple.
	You don't have to be any kind of supply chain or...
	I'm an agricultural expert to understand this.
	Yeah, and if the amount of food reduces by enough, then there isn't enough food to go round once you account for waste and people starve, and that's how you get famines.
	Who is it that said that any society is only three meals away from revolution?
	I don't know that quote.
	But that's, I think, a true quote.
	If people go without three meals, then they're going to revolt.
	I think that's true.
	Well, apparently not in the North Korean case, but we shall get into it.
	So let's discuss the other inputs into fertiliser.
	So there's things like phosphates and potash, which are also rising in price.
	The natural gas price increases and shortages affect the nitrogen-based components of farmers' fertilisers.
	But there are now also significant price increases in other principal mineral fertilisers, such as phosphate and potash, along with sulfur, the Financial Times reports.
	Europe imports most of these raw materials, along with an increasing proportion of its natural gas.
	So these are imported, not produced.
	Foreign producers, though, have been limiting exports this year to support their domestic agriculture.
	China, which is the world's largest phosphate producer, suspended or severely limited exports of phosphate-rich fertilisers starting in late July.
	These cuts are expected to last until June next year.
	Right, so China is dictating this?
	Partially.
	They are one piece of quite a...
	But a large piece, right?
	A large piece when it comes to phosphates, yes.
	But arguably one of the reasons they have to do this is because they have essentially stopped importing coal from Australia, so that's having knock-on effects on what they're using for energy.
	It's not just they stopped importing it, is it?
	The Australians sanctioned them, didn't they?
	No, I believe the Chinese sanctioned the Australians.
	Yeah, but in response, the Australians refused to send them coal or something like that.
	I believe the sanction was the coal from the Chinese side.
	I would have to.
	Well, there's a bit of a football there, because China essentially turned away these coal imports, having heard from their chiefs of economy that everything would be fine.
	because they did not have enough coal.
	So this has caused huge ramifications to China's manufacturing.
	Didn't they have blackouts and things like that?
	Yes, they had rolling blackouts in parts of the country.
	Now, China's economy is going to be fine.
	It's just if you're working in the rural outlying areas and you're having to put up with these shortages.
	But that's a whole other topic which we could go into.
	But it's not just China, though.
	Russia has announced restrictions on nitrogen and phosphate fertiliser exports for six months, effective from December 1st.
	This, in effect, subsidises domestic farms, which both reduces the domestic prices of food and supports Russia's grain exports.
	So essentially, in the face of a global shortage and shortage of inputs to fertilizer, these countries are doing the geostrategically sensible thing of securing their own food supplies first.
	And that's going to have knock-on effects for big food importers or fertilizer importers like Europe.
	This is not the end of fertiliser trade restrictions that will affect Europe.
	Up to now, EU trade sanctions on the Lukashenko regime in Belarus have not included the higher grades of potash from the mines owned by Belaruskali, Belarus' state monopoly.
	On December 8, though, delayed US sanctions on Belarus kick in, which are intended to cut off nearly all its potash exports about a fifth of the world's supply.
	Sorry, we're cutting their exports off to spite them.
	Yes.
	And this is going to create food shortages in Europe and elsewhere.
	Potentially, yes.
	God, we're stupid.
	I know.
	I know.
	But the problem is, this is a US sanction on Belarus.
	The US does not give two hoots about potash exports.
	They presumably have their own sources.
	It's a massive country.
	Of course they're going to produce their own.
	Europe, on the other hand, is quite heavily reliant on these.
	So this is one of those US sanctions which is probably worse for Europe than it is for Belarus.
	But it is going to be bad for Belarus if they can't find anywhere to smuggle their potash out of.
	Sure.
	But then once we're starving, maybe they'll just be like, so are you going to take it anyway?
	And are we going to charge you extra?
	Possibly.
	We'll see.
	I'm not sure that this is going to reach starvation in Europe.
	I'm not going quite that far.
	However, I think...
	Well, I don't know anything about it, so don't take my word for anything on this.
	So, just as a summary of that excerpt, foreign producers are limiting exports, including Russia and China, to support domestic agriculture, and fertilizer shortages will lead to lower food production, which could cause higher prices and food shortages.
	Of course, fertilizer prices have surged in the past, only to decline again.
	There have been two spikes, 2008 and 1974.
	And what happens is producers increase capacity and farmers cut back on their fertilizer use.
	Spikes similar to what we are seeing now came in early 2008, peaking a few months before the global financial crisis.
	The difference this time, particularly in Europe, is that climate policy means there is no finance available for natural gas production expansion.
	Farmers can skimp on potash and phosphate applications for a season or two, but yields will decline quickly without nitrogen fertilisers.
	The conundrum of cutting carbon emissions while maintaining food production has not been solved.
	Now, call me a backwards-looking layman, if you like.
	But I actually think there's a very simple solution to this, and it's F the carbon emissions.
	I don't care.
	Make the food.
	I think there is a strong argument for prioritising food over CO2 emissions.
	I hope that's not too controversial.
	Yeah, an ideological policy on climate change.
	That's what that is.
	Now, there have been other suggestions as to why we have lots of these inputs.
	So there's a Nature article which presumes this may be due to global...
	The phosphorus shortage may be due to Solar ocean.
	So they're trying to say basically climate change is causing the lack of the inputs rather than our response to climate change causing the lack of inputs.
	But then if you were sort of ideologically guided through the lens of every problem being climate change, then you would say something like this, wouldn't you?
	Yep.
	If we go to the Guardian article, there are also fertilizer shortages in North America, though.
	Partly this has been due to disruption from the COVID pandemic as well.
	They do have supply chain problems in America.
	Yep.
	So this is not just localized to Europe.
	There are rumblings of this all around the world.
	And as the BBC reports, poor countries, while rich countries may face higher food prices, poor countries may face famines.
	And that's a lot worse.
	That's a lot worse.
	So why don't we have any of these fertilizers?
	Well, I had to think about this, and it occurred to me that we're using a lot of fertilizers on biofuels.
	Oh, right, right!
	And so I did some research on this.
	So algae are reasonably economical in terms of fertilizer use, but would require 15 million metric tons of nitrogen and 2 million metric tons of phosphorus just to meet the needs of 5% of the US transportation fuel market.
	The use of nitrogen fertilizer amount to 100 million metric tons per year, which means that meeting only a small fraction of fuel needs in the US through biofuels would require 15% of all the fertilizer produced in a year.
	So this is again an ideological drive because of climate change.
	Biofuels are a notorious waste of time, money, and resources, although you can make arguments for them.
	So when you have absolute plentitude of things like fertilizer and crop growing space and all of these things...
	You can afford to waste things.
	All of these things which people are trying to persuade us that we don't have, then biofuels look like a good option.
	But when fertilizer is expensive or land usage is at a premium, biofuels look pretty bad.
	America has this renewable fuel standard, which mandates that up to 10% of commercial fuels can be renewables-derived ethanol, and they demand 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022.
	That's a lot of biofuels.
	And again, this isn't market demand or anything.
	This is an ideological imposition on the market by people who think they're doing good.
	Yeah, by politicians.
	So yeah, fuel needs to have more plants in it because it sounds green.
	Yes.
	Without realising they're creating a catastrophic knock-on effect for the rest of the global economy, which affects the food security of billions of people.
	I mean, I'm getting distinct Lysenkoist vibes here.
	We go to the Guardian article.
	This is a 2013 article, very pro-biofuels.
	Slap on a carbon tax, too.
	Why not?
	Bit of authoritarianism, and we can solve climate change.
	Job done.
	If we tax you enough, the climate will be fine.
	I believe it.
	In 2013 as well, the breakdown of land use, if we go to the next one, was about 36% for animal feed, 55% for crops, and 9% for biofuel.
	That will be significantly larger at the moment.
	So we're using at least 10% of our available land for biofuels, and at the time we may be facing global fertiliser shortages.
	That's not a good look.
	No, this is ridiculous.
	And then there's a handy visualization from the next slide, which shows that Europe, India and China have the most intensive use of nitrogen-based fertilizer in the world, along with Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia and Vietnam.
	Yes, so I'm going to make a bold prediction off the back of this.
	So I think fertiliser shortages will cause food shortages.
	It seems like a logically sound inference to make.
	I also think that you then have to interpret that through the ideological lens of the media, which is going to say that we'll have food shortages because we're using too much land for animal feed.
	And this will be used to justify reducing your meat consumption.
	Yep, this will be used to turnover land which is used for animal feed, to pure cropland which will reduce the amount of meat which will skyrocket meat prices, and within 10 years we'll all be vegetarian.
	But also if we are having nitrogen problems, as I understand it, crops need nitrogen fixing in the soil in order to be able to grow properly, and we have a nitrogen shortage anyway, then surely expanding the amount of cropland is not going to produce the amount of food they're expecting.
	Well, it depends on the...
	It's a complicated puzzle.
	There are lots of components.
	But yes, fundamentally, I think I'm making a bold prediction about how this narrative will develop and check back in a year's time to see how I'm doing.
	But I mean, just as a layman's speculation, if...
	Okay, so we're short on nitrogen, so we're going to plant more crops.
	Why not make that pasture land for animals?
	So...
	I should probably do a full podcast on this because I don't want to talk about it off the top of my head because there's a lot to go into when you're talking about food security and nutrition and crops and things.
	And finally, just to close on a classic celebrity hysteria at the end there.
	Cate Blanchett, we need to be effing scared and demand change about climate change.
	And there's a picture of her looking very upset and weepy and all sort of puffy.
	Well, I mean, if this actress has theories on the global food supply chain...
	I know you may have had opinions, but a woman is crying, Lotus Eaters.
	A pretty woman is crying.
	I mean, I just don't care about her opinion on any of this.
	Why would anyone?
	That's the world we live in.
	Why does she feel qualified to give an opinion on this?
	Quite right.
	Should we go to the video comments, John?
	Hey everybody, fellow Gold Team member here, DJ Chee.
	Just wanted to stop in and discuss a little bit about what I do.
	I do Twitch streaming remotely with a friend from San Francisco, California.
	Some of the only guys who are doing any sort of remote streaming.
	I myself, the turntable is, I do scratch techniques, pop, beat matches.
	And that's some good stuff.
	Yeah, it's not my kind of thing, but if you're into that, go check them out.
	Hey guys!
	With the Brits whining so much about their mask mandates recently, I thought I'd have to do one better and bring you the freshest news from Germany.
	So today our Supreme Court has declared both lockdowns and curfews as being totally fine and constitutional.
	Thereby giving the government license to do it again whenever they want.
	Also, our new government, consisting of Greens, Social Democrats and Liberals, is certainly not going to give us any more freedom.
	The Liberals are used to demand a Freedom Day in spring for their cooperation, but they seem to have conveniently forgotten about that as soon as they got the Finance Minister position.
	Anyone taking Covid refugees?
	I mean, we probably are, because, I mean, on the plus side, no one seems to be caring about this mask mandate.
	I've seen lots of people around the country saying, well, I just went into Tesco's and no one said anything, and the supermarkets themselves are refusing to enforce it, saying it's the police's job if they want it done.
	Yeah, I'm really interested to hear the German Supreme Court's opinion on whether camps for the unvaccinated are legal.
	Well, yeah, I mean, I'm very curious.
	Maybe they just need to wear some kind of public signifier to show that they haven't been vaccinated.
	Maybe something yellow and...
	Possibly star-shaped.
	But I saw a headline going around that said that Germany was going to mandate COVID vaccines.
	So it's going to become mandatory.
	I saw it was the same for Greece as well.
	Yeah, and Austria too, for over-60s or something like this.
	It's like, right, okay, so, I mean, the Germans just returning to old ways, is the way I look at it.
	Liberalism is dead in Germany, as if it ever took root there.
	But, yeah, not good news, frankly.
	Yeah, we got that, John.
	No, you got it wrong, right?
	Oh, it's Greece over 60.
	Austria is doing it forever.
	Right, okay.
	Sorry.
	Oh, yeah, that's right.
	They're going to fine you every month in Greece.
	Yes.
	Without doing it, yes.
	100 euros a month.
	Hmm.
	Hmm.
	What a remarkable amount of effort.
	Yeah.
	What was that?
	The Unicron variant of COVID. I take you've never watched Transformers?
	No.
	In the Transformers movie, Unicron is a giant planet-sized Transformer that eats other planets.
	And obviously it sounds like Omicron, and that's what that is.
	I see.
	Thankfully I got the reference.
	But yeah, no, fantastic.
	John, just a favor.
	Whack that in the shed, right?
	I'll put that out later.
	But that was great.
	Thanks, man.
	It's good for the next one.
	A slave is someone who essentially owns nothing.
	Not the fruits of his labor, not property, and certainly not his own body.
	Excise that definition from your minds immediately.
	Companies own the work of their employees yet are not slavers, the homeless are not slaves, and homicide denies ownership of one's body.
	Free people can choose to own nothing.
	This book contains a neat two-word definition from when 1930s UK conservative governments used anti-slavery legislation to stop Gulag timber imports.
	Slavery is compulsory labor.
	Correct.
	I agree with that.
	Time for another bus update.
	My dad's been building the cabinets inside of here.
	So that there is the framing for the countertop.
	There's some upper cabinets.
	One more goes above the window.
	The sink goes right in front of the window here.
	There's the stove.
	That cabinet there is for the microwave.
	There's going to be another cabinet above the table here, and then this one here on the left is for the fridge, and then this narrow boy is for a pantry.
	I think this is awesome.
	Yeah.
	I love watching this stuff.
	Isn't there quite, like, an American diner aesthetic to those chairs and that table as well, just there?
	There is, but also, like, it's probably necessary because space concerns.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	It's nice.
	I'm loving it.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I'm looking forward to seeing it finished.
	Here I am at LAX... Just waiting to board.
	And DJ Chai, if you want to get in touch, if you want to collaborate, you know how to get in touch with me on my website.
	There's a contacts page.
	Go and check me out there.
	I can't wait to hear from you, man.
	I'm keen to collaborate.
	.com.au.
	Sorry, I got that wrong.
	I miss flying.
	I tell you what, I don't miss going to LAX. Really?
	I'll tell you, it's an awful airport.
	It's massive and just...
	I don't know.
	It feels like a dystopia.
	It feels genuinely dystopian.
	It's so huge and so busy.
	And I just can't stand it.
	Was LAX the one where Saul Alinsky and his pals were going to block all of the toilets for 24 hours?
	Probably, yeah.
	And that would have been a f***ing nightmare.
	Gosh!
	Yeah, no, LAX is awful.
	I don't like it.
	Good morning, my fellow Lotus-Munders.
	As I'm enjoying this early morning snowy drive through Norway, I just thought about giving an answer to...
	DJ's offer from two days ago.
	And yeah, I'd love to do some kind of collaboration work with you.
	Just reach out and we can talk about what you want to do, right?
	Have a wonderful day, everybody.
	Now I'm going to enjoy this beautiful sense of traffic.
	Later.
	God, I'm glad I don't live in Norway.
	Oh, I don't know.
	I couldn't deal with the snow.
	I think it's the darkness that would get to me more if you're way up north.
	But I survived Scotland, so I might be all right.
	I like all the collaborations people do.
	Yeah.
	It's fascinating.
	It's great.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So I had a thought while driving home tonight.
	What are corporations, if not governments unto themselves, in which we have very little accountability and very little choice in who our representatives and such corporations or governments are?
	Kind of.
	Corporations, as they say, incorporated bodies for a particular purpose.
	And that purpose could be business, or it could be charity, or whatever.
	It could be anything like that.
	But there are methods of accountability.
	I mean, you know, like...
	There's quite a lot of legal structure that I had to learn about, about hiring people and the way people are treated in offices and things like that.
	And you'd be surprised at how much, I hate to just use the word accountability, surprised how accountable corporations can be held if they have done something wrong.
	But I think your complaint isn't really that they've done something wrong.
	It's the very structure of it.
	No, you don't get to democratically choose your bosses or anything like that.
	Because they're owned.
	They're property.
	Someone owns it and they get to dispose of it.
	But there are a series of rules and regulations they have to follow.
	And because it's self-association, you can always just leave at any time.
	They've got literally no power to compel you with anything.
	So, you know, honestly, I think A better method than having compulsive power over the individual, to be honest.
	And you can always set up your own business or own corporation and work as a sole trader.
	So it actually is just a part of life that I don't terribly object to.
	But I don't like the fact that governments often give large corporations massive breaks and say, shut down all of their competition in a sudden lockdown because of a panic over a disease that's going around and things like that.
	So, yeah.
	Yeah, so, I mean, Josh and I just recorded a section on Korea this morning, and we were talking about the corporations in Korea, which more than any Western country make up a huge proportion of the economy.
	The corporations are the economy, basically.
	And it is a difficult question, because this is not a good thing, but it's not the worst thing ever, either.
	Absolutely.
	They get to get together and write the rules that the government then puts into law and all of this.
	So, yeah, it's a bad system, but it's one of those things where there are worse things out there.
	Yeah.
	And the problem isn't necessarily the ideas behind the system, because they are actually really productive and they do facilitate a high quality of living.
	The problem is corruption, frankly, within the system and the fact that politicians get bought out by them.
	You've seen the memes going around where they're like, well, politicians should show who they're sponsored by, like race car drivers.
	I actually think that's a great idea.
	Absolutely.
	I would love to see that.
	But good point about the majority of the economy as well, because before the coronavirus pandemic, in America and England, roughly half of the companies were small businesses, probably owned small businesses.
	And this is why Napoleon called England a nation of shopkeepers, as if that was something bad.
	It's like, no, that's great.
	That's what makes this a country.
	That's what makes a free country, in fact.
	And the fact that the government decided, well, we're going to penalize small businesses and keep major corporations open...
	Is one of those things I'm very, very annoyed about.
	Yeah, but it's also the power of corporations that has allowed the DIE, diversity, inclusion and equity ideology, to spread so powerfully and unrestrainedly through our societies.
	That's absolutely true.
	Again, I would suggest that's a form of corruption.
	But again, I'm not even against...
	I'm not even for mega-corporations or anything like that.
	I think there is a conservative argument that suggests that, well...
	If a corporation isn't based in your country, if the headquarters aren't in your country, then they don't have to be allowed to operate in your country.
	Foreigners don't necessarily have to be allowed to buy land or operate businesses in countries in which they don't live.
	Well, Roger Scruton makes this point, doesn't he?
	He does, yeah.
	Before Thatcher, about 50 years ago, that was just standard practice.
	That was just normal, before Reagan and Thatcher.
	Yeah.
	That was just what happened.
	You could quite accurately, without any hint of conspiracy, describe this as a globalist agenda, that these borders have all been opened to foreign investors and operators.
	I don't know how else you would describe it other than a globalist agenda, because that's exactly what it is.
	Yeah, it's globalising the economy, and there are bad effects of that.
	Yeah, and you are totally entitled to use state power to resist that.
	It's not oppressive.
	It doesn't prevent people from operating in your country.
	What it prevents is exploitation from foreigners.
	I mean, large amounts of London are bought up by like Russian and Saudi billionaires.
	And Chinese billionaires.
	And Chinese billionaires.
	People who acquire...
	They're just speculating on the property market like it's a stock in their portfolio.
	But instead of being something intangible, it's something very tangible.
	That has a knock-on effect to the native population of the countries in which they're speculating.
	And you might say, well, okay, but why is that unfair?
	Well, how did they get their wealth?
	It wasn't through fair and honest dealing.
	It wasn't through hard graft.
	Do we want to go through the crimes of Russian oligarchs in the 1990s?
	Exactly!
	You know, so it's like, you know, it's totally reasonable to use the state to have a kind of protective barrier between international exploitation and the working people of your country, I think.
	But anyway, let's go on to the comments.
	Clayton says, we want to be, quote, we want to focus on facilitating healthy dialogue.
	Doesn't sound too bad until you remember that these people think that healthy dialogue means agree with everything I say without question.
	Yeah.
	No, that's not true.
	That's not fair, right?
	What it actually means is if you say anything outside of a very narrowly prescribed boundary of things, then everything is removed.
	And they are literally going to get to choose who gets to be heard, as they said.
	So it's not quite that bad, but it's still very, very narrow.
	And I'm surprised that it was the resignation of Jack Dorsey that made conservatives go like, oh, I can't use Twitter now.
	Oh yeah, Jack Dawson was a real champion of free speech when he was departing from Trump, wasn't he?
	But you just have to swap that adjective healthy for any religious term and you see where they're going.
	That's correct.
	Moral dialogue, sacred dialogue, holy dialogue, Christian dialogue.
	Yeah, yeah, that's absolutely right.
	Except for, in their case, it's intersectional dialogue at the moment.
	Russ says, as soon as I heard Jack was resigning from Twitter, my first thought was, what screeching maniac will replace him?
	I'm sure Parag Agrawal will love his new position of tyranny and continue Twitter's long war with reality vehemently.
	Twitter's long war with free speech.
	That's what this is going to be.
	Because it's going to be people saying things to other people on the internet that he is trying to curate and sort of polish.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I remember when we heard Jack Dorsey was stepping down, my first thought was, who will be the Stalin to Jack Dorsey's Lenin?
	And I think we're going to see that with Parag.
	Well, I mean, he seems to be openly saying it.
	I don't know anything about the man.
	All I have is those statements from him.
	But they're quite concerning statements.
	We had some more spicy statements as well, which we didn't put in the podcast.
	I wanted to focus on his views on free speech and not on anything else.
	But specifically speaking to the subject of free speech, I'm not very encouraged by his position of, we want to move away from free speech and the First Amendment.
	Yeah, what are we moving towards then?
	Yes.
	What are we moving towards?
	Exactly.
	George says, the problem with platforms like Twitter isn't the CEO, rather all the bureaucrats working at every level who have the same censorious mindset.
	Our old friend Anith Sarkeesian was on the Trust and Safety Council for years, along with more vile feminists.
	That's a very good point.
	It is, but there is an argument, I think, to be made that the CEO sets the tone and hires the managers who hire the workers...
	and they hire in a particular direction, and you're recruiting from San Francisco, like they're locals to San Francisco, and if there's one thing that San Francisco is famous for, it's the Bay Area progressive culture.
	So you've not got really much choice in who you recruit, because they're all gonna be basically swimming in the same sea. - But it's like, I think a good way to think about CEOs is thinking about monarchies, when you have a king, and you have their various ministers and things, And the ministers are all the keys to power for the ruler in charge.
	And depending on the monarch, you could have a very strong monarch who does what he wants and he might turn over his ministers quite quickly as Stalin did.
	Or you could have a weak CEO who just lets himself be controlled by his ministers and so on.
	So I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all interpretation of this, but there's lots of different ways that these high corporate structures can go.
	That's a really good point.
	But at the end of the day, I do think that the buck needs to stop with the CEO. Well, corporations are...
	The invention of corporation was to get rid of responsibility, in a sense.
	And they've kind of mastered that in the modern era.
	Paul says, When I went to live in Russia in 1999, I discovered that people had internal passports, a relic of the Soviet system.
	It defined where a citizen could go or live, among other things.
	The vaccine passports and the introduction of internal passports by the West are only higher resolution and all-encompassing.
	Your life will be entirely from the leave of the state.
	Good point, but that's under the Twitter comments, so I don't know how to do that.
	But good point, and this is one reason why I oppose vaccine passports.
	Did he?
	Did he?
	Correct.
	The second biggest problem is even if you could perfectly enforce a prohibition on spreading misinformation, you can't change the minds of people who have incorrect information by shutting them up.
	You sure as hell won't stop them from seeking other means to spread it.
	But more importantly, why don't I have a right to say something I don't think is true?
	Why not?
	Literally, it's my free speech.
	If I think something's not true, for example, anything in fiction, anything at all, like most speech, or at least a large portion of speech, isn't actually about transmitting true information.
	It's often about transmitting thoughts, feelings, requests, or speculations on things that aren't real.
	So if you said something like, Dumbledore wasn't gay, for example, what does that mean?
	Is that true?
	Well, what does it even mean?
	Exactly.
	You know, we don't know.
	And so it's like, is that misinformation?
	Is that to be censored?
	Is that a reflection of reality, even though it's a fictional character?
	Or, you know, I don't like cheese.
	Is that true or false?
	Or is that just an opinion?
	Is that, you know, is that a real statement about reality?
	It can be objectively measured?
	Or, I mean, it's not true.
	I love cheese.
	But, like, you know, like, what does it mean?
	Is it misinformation then?
	Because have I told a falsehood about my preferences?
	Who can confirm that?
	I'll deny that.
	Like, this boogeyman about misinformation is nonsense, in my opinion.
	But moreover, the idea of misinformation implies that there is literally just one categoric interpretation of the facts, and in almost no cases is that true.
	People approach any subject with their ideological biases, and this gives people different and legitimate interpretations of what has happened.
	Yes, but I do think there is such a thing as misinformation that does exist.
	There is.
	There are deliberate outright and objective falsehoods.
	So, for example, someone could come to you, if you're a child learning how to play chess, some old dude could come up and say, hey, that's not how knights move.
	Knights move like this, and it's just misinformation.
	But there is an objective standard against which it has to be judged to determine that.
	But moreover, I might have a reason for saying something that's false.
	It might not be actually to misinform you.
	It might be to get you to think about why you know what you know.
	And so it's actually part of a process of learning for you is to know the thing that's not true.
	So me telling you the not true thing in that process is part of your learning process, so it's not misinformation.
	So it's contextual as well.
	Exactly, it's contextual.
	But fundamentally, I think that people should have the right to say false things.
	I don't agree with lying, but they should be free to do it, and that's where our moral judgments come in.
	The natural sort of response from society to morally shame.
	This is what these things are for.
	I don't think that a centralized body should say, we're going to police misinformation.
	Yeah, saying things like, for example, the sun revolves around the earth, which was the truth, to which all other things were misinformation for a while.
	And that was misinformation, yes, exactly.
	So I think that the very notion that we should care about misinformation is...
	A bit concerning, frankly, and it should be down to the great public debate.
	I agree, and I know I'm harping on about this one particularly, but there is an aspect to it which is often called disinformation.
	So there's the idea that this miss or disinformation that's being spread is being spread deliberately, knowingly, for a nefarious purpose by an organisation with a murky intent.
	These sorts of things.
	Wow, there are going to be a lot of people...
	Yeah, but that's the tenor which they put on these proclamations about stopping misinformation.
	It's like they're trying to stamp out a conspiracy from evil Satanists or something like that.
	It does feel the more I look into it, the more leftist ideology, especially mainstream ideology, is just conspiracy theories.
	A huge amount of it actually is.
	And the way you can describe and identify conspiracy theory from any other kind of theory is whether it's imbued with an evil will, whether it's being done deliberately by a shady group of people in order to come to a nefarious conclusion.
	If that will isn't there, like when we were saying about the globalist nature of the Thatcher-Reagan era, that wasn't a conspiracy.
	There wasn't an evil will there.
	They were just people operating as a movement.
	They thought this was the right thing to do.
	So it wasn't a conspiracy.
	Yeah.
	But anyway, Henry says, Yes, exactly.
	And it seems that Mr Agrawal, however it's pronounced, seems to have that in mind, actually.
	In essence, the nerd accidentally summoned a dragon and now the supervillains are starting to queue up to take over the reins.
	Brilliant.
	Really well written.
	Yeah, I agree.
	And this is how I felt about Zuckerberg for quite some time, and Dorsey as well, because Twitter is important politically because for some reason all of our politicians use it and get their policies from it.
	And so it's like, okay, why would you do that?
	And now you've given the power of control of this information to...
	A nerd in Silicon Valley.
	And so it's no wonder that, like, none of them use their own platforms.
	Like, none of them use their own platforms.
	And they forbid their children from using their platforms and say, right, that should tell you something, right?
	If the people who made them don't use them.
	Well, I think our children are going to, if they grow up at all, will grow up understanding that social media is more dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes.
	Yes.
	And this is what I'm embedding in my own children's head.
	In fact, in my daughter's school, right, she's 12, one of the boys in the school has recently been suspended for sharing about naked photos of his classmates, because obviously someone had sent some to the others.
	And this is a crime.
	This is distribution of child pornography by two children, because they've taken their own photos and shared them.
	It's like...
	Oh my god, you know.
	So, like, I'm chomping at the bit to take her phone away forever.
	Like, my wife's like, no, no, no, they all have them.
	It's like, yeah, okay, that's great.
	They're all addicted to heroin, darling.
	You can't do heroin, darling.
	It's like, sorry, no.
	She doesn't watch the podcast, does she?
	No, of course not.
	And the thing is, whenever she's in trouble and I take her phone away for like a day or two, It's like an addict being denied drugs.
	And I don't like them having these phones.
	Anyway, Speak One's Mind says, BLM, Brooks is a victim of the racist justice system for his $5 million bail.
	People of the brain, no, that bail is set at $5 million because he killed multiple people on purpose and has been convicted multiple times for the Christmas parade accident.
	He'd also previously run someone down as well.
	So it's not like he didn't have a history of doing this.
	But I agree.
	I don't think he should have got any bail at all.
	Anyway, Lord Nerevar says, What?
	Leftists sympathizing with murderers and rapists?
	It's almost like the spawn of brutalist regimes.
	M1Ping says, Nice to see calling Fauci the vicar of science is catching on.
	He's literally the vicar of Christ on Earth.
	Barron Von Warhawk says, is it really any surprise that the party of rioters, arsonists, pedo defenders and killers are doing anything they can to bail out their criminal pals to stir up chaos?
	Remember the sideshow Bob quote, you can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever, and when they get back in, I'm back on the streets with all my criminal buddies!
	Prescient.
	Aren't they called the lumpenproletariat criminals in communist theory?
	Yes, they are.
	Yes, that's exactly how Marx described them in the Communist Manifestment.
	So they're a constituency of minorities for the revolution.
	Criminal minorities.
	Yes, but not proper criminal minorities, i.e.
	thought criminals, who are worse.
	Yeah, no, not Nazis.
	No, no, but that's interesting, actually, because in the Communist Manifesto, Marx doesn't think that they are going to be the vanguard of the communist movement, right?
	He expects the workers themselves are non-criminals.
	You know, the industrial workers of the world, they're going to unite, rationally understanding that the future of communism is inevitable, and overthrow their bourgeois oppressors, right?
	But it's Lenin who ends up weaponizing the lumpenproletariat into the vanguard, and that's why the people who took over Russia were just scum.
	Absolute scum.
	And you can see this going on with Antifa now, and Carl Rittenhouse.
	Like, every single left-wing martyr at the moment is just...
	You get pedophile, white feet, white feet, pedophile.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Attempted murderer, you know?
	Like, look at these scum.
	And, you know, George Floyd.
	Like, this...
	What's his name?
	Brooks.
	Like, they're all just scum.
	These are the lumpenproletariat that they're talking about.
	Anyway, Callum says, I'm guessing that all six of these bailed criminals also vote Democrat as well.
	What are the odds?
	They're not Trump voters, are they?
	Robert Miller says, Leftist bailing out killers.
	Celebrity covereth a multitude of sins.
	Historically just their own, but now also of their pet projects.
	It's terrible, isn't it?
	It's absolutely terrible.
	Anyway, Student of History says, Attacking me is attacking the science.
	Fauci in Palpatine's voice, I am the science.
	Yeah, I know, it's amazing, isn't it?
	Like, this attack on the science has left me scarred and deformed.
	It's unbelievable he'd have the hubris to say it.
	Yeah.
	And the thing is, it's such an obvious and transparent dodge as well.
	He's just trying to hide.
	No, no, no.
	If you attack me, you're attacking the science.
	It's like, yeah, but you know you lied.
	Everyone can see that you lied.
	You've been publicly in front of millions of people.
	I'll tell you, the science we are attacking is the science you funded into gain of attention research.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You can be the vicar of that science all you like.
	As if science isn't a constantly corrective process by which science is attacked by new science, continuing on.
	That's true, that's true.
	It's wild, isn't it?
	Like, the idea that once the science is, you know, the foundations are set down, that's it forever.
	Elvis says, yeah, but we know that Fauci will get away with it unless the swamp decides he's become too much of a liability.
	Well, this is what I mean about the Republicans.
	You've got to just...
	Like, all of the Republicans now have to pressure the Department of Justice to do something.
	And there has to be consequences.
	So, for example, I don't know what exactly they can do legally, but morally, I mean, you can have, like, a sort of secession.
	Like, every Republican just leaves and sits outside and says, look, we're not going in until you do the right thing.
	He has been caught in a lie.
	Make your voices heard.
	You can actually kind of unionize over this.
	Bring the government to a halt.
	Nothing's going to get passed.
	Nothing goes through.
	We're not going to cooperate until you do the right thing.
	Anyway, Michael says, how many new jets and yachts will big pharmacy CEOs be buying this Christmas?
	I don't think you can really accurately put a number on it.
	It's going to be somewhere in the thousands, I imagine.
	Catastrophic regression threshold says, not sure Fauci is wise and appealing to focusing on his job.
	Yeah, since that was the thing that he's being in trouble for.
	If you believe the current narrative, the country is drowning in COVID cases, which would mean he's been doing an abysmal job.
	So real big brain tactics right there.
	Apart from in Florida where they banned all of the mandates.
	Uh, Charles says COVID has still not been isolated, meaning that it has not been identified or seen.
	Plus jabs kill, a jab, kills hard out.
	Great reset.
	F Davos, F the who, F the CDC, see them all.
	Um, I don't know about the veracity of that.
	So moving on, George says, You may have to ask Josh to confirm this, but as I'm not versed in psychology as he is, but my feeling on Fauci after watching that he is a psychopath.
	He's clearly taking pleasure in obfuscating the issue, and he knows damn well he's responsible for a lot of death.
	Time for a new hashtag, Fauci lying and people died.
	See, I didn't get that feeling.
	I got the feeling that Fauci was basically trapped and afraid.
	I don't understand it particularly well, but he does remind me of an old school mob boss in a way.
	Maybe it's just the accent, but he does have this sort of...
	Well, it is the sort of New York Italian accent, isn't it?
	It'll be a shame if your business got locked down.
	That sort of vibe.
	He seems to be a massive egotist to me, and like this giant edifice he's built up is in dire danger of toppling.
	And again, Republicans...
	I don't think he's sleeping very well at night.
	Right, yeah, exactly.
	He's probably saying that lots of people are going, yeah, okay, this is getting a bit hairy now.
	M1Ping says, to get your booster, you probably have to accept Fauci as your scientific lord and saviour and be in a state of grace with Pfizer.
	That's well put, but I think we're out of time there.
	Well, thank you very much for tuning in today.
	It's been a pleasure talking about these things, and thank you for your comments and your video comments.
	As always, we'll be back same time tomorrow, so I'll see you then.

▲