All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:31:21
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #304
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*Music* I'm your host, Harry, joined today by my guest, John.
Hello, Lotus Eaters.
And today we're going to be looking at a few things, including the LA Times talking about dancing on the graves of the unvaxxed and why that's a good thing.
Always got to add that in there.
We are going to be fact-checking the fact-checkers.
And finally, we're going to be looking at the health secretary himself, Sajid Javid, getting wrecked by a doctor using science and logic.
But before we get into that, we've got a few announcements for today, so we'd like to draw your attention to a few articles, including this one, Jordan Peterson 2.0 by John Tangney, which if you scroll down a bit there, John, I think we can see we've got an audio track for our Silver Tier members.
So if you're interested in that, give it a look.
I'm not familiar with that article, but John Tangney always brings a very interesting perspective to subjects, doesn't he?
Yeah, I read it.
I don't think I agree with his take on it, but it was a very nuanced one.
Well, we want to be introducing a plurality of views to this, so anyone interested in that and his take on it, give that a look.
We've also got a, I think, new article, yes, by Simon Webb, an outside contributor who's got his own history channel on YouTube.
History Devunked.
Yes, History Debunked, talking about Britain's black history racket, which I've, once again, not read yet, but I can only assume is a deep dive into the fact that there are a number of so-called historians out there at the moment who seem to have a big interest in changing and distorting the history of the UK. Propagating misinformation in favour of a sort of Black Lives Matter history movement.
It's very strange.
Yes.
And then we've got another republished article from Hugo talking about lockdown as religion and how to fight against it, which also has a silver member audio track if you're interested in that.
Hugo's article is once again very interesting.
And just another reminder for everyone as well to follow us all on Getter.
So you can follow us at thelotuseaters.com or at lotuseaters underscore com page if you want to see some updates on what we're doing.
And if you'd like to follow us personally, then you can follow me at at HarryLotusHeater and my good colleague John at at John Wheatley.
So, with all that said, let's get into the news.
Okay.
So, it's not often that I pick up a copy of the LA Times, and I hope it's not often that you do either, because this seems to be the standard of journalism these days.
Mysteriously placed in the business section, we have this article.
Mocking anti-vaxxers' Covid deaths is ghoulish, yes, but may be necessary.
Oh, good God.
So it's necessary to be ghouls now.
That's where the left has got to.
Yes, let's justify our own terrible desires and behaviours, eh?
Yeah, it's really the total abolition of standards when you're aspiring to be ghouls.
But this isn't even the original headline.
The original headline was worse.
As we can see here.
Why shouldn't we dance on the graves of anti-vaxxers?
Why shouldn't we just be evil?
Ladies and gentlemen, the empathetic left.
So, let's get in.
This is a big reminder of what I covered yesterday with James O'Brien talking to that guy who was going, well, actually, my auntie died in the Black Lives Matter protest, and he goes, oh, that's appalling, but can you just think of something else?
Wow.
I mean, how do you get to this point?
Yeah, let's just dance on the graves of anti-vaxxers.
Why not?
That's fabulous.
And we get into the article.
It is as bad as it sounds.
Let's get into it.
Among all the ways that COVID-19 affects our lives, the pandemic confronts us with a profound moral dilemma.
How should we react to the deaths of the unvaccinated?
Sorry, how is this a moral dilemma?
Treat it the same as anyone else's death, you absolute psychopath.
So, generally, when someone dies, you exhibit a due solemnity, regardless of your opinion of their lives or achievements, because death is a human universal, it's part of the tragedy of life, and something that is to be taken seriously.
And also, once again, it's just another example of this two-tier society people are trying to build.
They're talking about the Unvaxed as if they're some kind of separate species.
How should we react to the deaths of chimpanzees?
Should we be sad or should we celebrate?
It's a lot more like, how should we react to the deaths of backsliders, reactionaries, kulaks, or ideological enemies?
Oh, yes.
Well, it's the Nazis saying, how should we react to the deaths of Jews and gypsies?
To be fair, when you bring up the kulaks, there is an interesting parallel to make there, when the Russians sent in their activists into the Ukrainian countryside and basically just got them all to, you know...
In a certain sense, genocide of the Kulaks.
There were letters written by those same activists decades later going, why did we let the government propagandise us to such a state where we were just so uncaring and unempathetic towards these people who were just people?
They listened to columnists like this by the sound of it.
This is just history repeating itself.
On one hand, a hallmark of civilised thought is the sense that every life is precious.
But on the other, those who have deliberately flouted sober medical advice by refusing a vaccine known to reduce the risk of serious disease from the virus, including the risk to others, and end up in the hospital or the grave, can be viewed as receiving their just desserts.
My god.
That's even more true of those who not only refused the vaccine for themselves, he says, but publicly advocated that others do so.
It has become common online and in social media for vaccine refusers and anti-vaccine advocates to become the target of ridicule after they come down with COVID-19, and especially if they die from it.
Witness the subreddit KermanKaneAward, which Lily Loofborough of Slate identified in September as a site for heartless and unrepentant Schadenfreude.
Yeah, let's witness that subreddit.
Let's have a look.
There are 462,000 people signed up to this subreddit that's dedicated to mocking the deaths of people who are against public health restrictions.
462,000 evil vampires!
Mm-hmm.
Just take a look at this.
And they're just gloating over the deaths of mainly Republicans and Trumpers and people who didn't get vaccinated.
And this really does fly in the face of, ah, but what if you kill Grandma?
Well, if she was unvaccinated, good!
Yeah.
Is the attitude that these people are taking.
Pretty much.
Double standards are one of my pet peeves, and I think they should be for any reasonable person, so if this doesn't infuriate you, you should probably pay a bit more attention.
Now, this site is called the Herman Cain Awards subreddit, So let's see where that name comes from, shall we?
So we go back to the article.
This site is named for the former Republican candidate for president who became one of the first political notables to succumb to the disease after publicly defying social distancing measures.
And he continues...
So, they're actually mocking the death of a black person in the name of the subreddit, which is interesting.
Herman Cain was the co-chairman of Black Voices for Trump until his death in July 2020, aged 74.
Oh, he's part of the Tea Party movement as well.
Yeah.
No, he's got a fair political background to him.
But, yeah, so he was aged 74.
He'd previously beaten stage 4 colon cancer that had metastasised to his liver as well.
So, he's not exactly a spring chicken.
I believe those are called comorbidities in the business.
Yeah, so I wonder if they would have anything to do with his untimely passing.
But back to the article, they talk about someone else's death.
So the issue of how to think about the deaths of the unvaccinated has been thrown into high relief locally by the case of Kelly Earnby, a prominent Orange County Republican and Deputy District Attorney who advocated against vaccine mandates and died of COVID around New Year's Day, unvaccinated.
Earnby's death promptly came to symbolise the rift in the social fabric caused by the ravages of Covid.
Some online commenters greeted her demise with glee, provoking her political friends to push back against what Ben Chapman, a Costa Mesa GOP official, called bigotry and hate directed towards her.
My colleague Nicholas Goldberg recently lamented eloquently the rift in the social fabric that this species of callous commentary represents.
Mocking anti-vaxxers when they get sick has become a bit of a sport.
So these people even recognise that the attitudes they're taking are causing massive social rifts between people.
This is like the Jacinda Ardern.
You're creating a two-tier society.
Yes, I am, actually.
Suck it up.
Because I'm on the top face.
Anyway, so if Goldberg's article is what passes for eloquent lamentation in left-wing circles, then they need to hire better writers.
Let's have a quick look at it.
So the article is titled, When an anti-vaxxer dies of COVID, is that cause for glib, ironic satisfaction?
No.
No, it's not.
No.
Why are you even in a position where you're having to ask that question?
You absolute maniac!
Do you not read back your own titles and headlines and articles and think to myself, have I gone too far here?
Are we the bad guys?
Now, he does have the immensely charitable take that we probably shouldn't be dancing on people's graves.
Oh, wow.
I can respect that.
Really pulling back the severity.
Thanks, guys.
But he gets there after going through a long list of reasons why people might enjoy doing so.
Oh, okay.
And he ends with this lament.
I wondered wearily, why do we live in a world where people let their politics make their decisions for them rather than relying on science or data or experts?
How have people become so untethered from reality that they believe in QAnon or that President Biden stole the 2020 election, his words, or that vaccines are a liberal scam?
How have we lost our common shared belief in facts and reality?
Now, from what we've seen of the mainstream media, our common shared belief in facts and reality is, in fact, everyone believing the narrative the media pushes.
The left is not exactly known for its strident defence of objective truth, is it?
Absolutely not.
No, that concept itself is assaulted by the post-modernism-inspired ideological movements on the left which are currently in vogue.
The idea of objective truth, if anything, is defended by the right and not the left.
Currently, absolutely yes, but I think, John, you're forgetting that trans women are women.
Of course.
How dare you?
Yes, I apologize for my thought crime.
The creation of different camps of beliefs are based on a catastrophic loss of trust in the media, I think it's fair to say.
And the media has caused this trust by blatantly lying to its viewers again and again and again and again and again and again.
Let's pull up some examples.
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, anybody?
No?
No.
How about the Russian collusion hoax that went on for the entire duration of Trump's presidency and turned out to be completely fabricated?
Or the idea that January the 6th should even be mentioned in the same breath as September the 11th and Pearl Harbor?
Probably Nagasaki and Hiroshima when it comes to it.
And to tie this into some of our other segments we're going to go into as well, I think people have started to be irked by the incessant nagging of fact-checked posts which seem to be coming from a very particular ideological bent that does not necessarily seem to be looking at the facts, but more looking at my interpretation of the facts.
That's a very good point.
Now, I agree that when two halves of the population believe in different sets of facts, it is a problem.
But it's a problem that the mainstream media created.
We will never return, probably, to the slavish adherents to mainstream media narratives, and they need to get used to the idea that the power of their voice is broken.
As Tolkien said, one cannot be both tyrant and counsellor.
Yes, I do think that this is a consequence and repercussion of the internet age that we do live in.
The fact that people are much more easily able to check for themselves and access people who will look into the narrative past what the mainstream media is going into.
For most of the time that print media and mainstream media has been a thing, we don't know exactly if they've always been as honest as they have presented themselves, whereas now we have much greater access to apparatus with which we can check.
So that trust is something that's never going to be recovered.
And we can see things with our own eyeballs as well.
When a particularly controversial event happens, there are loads of videos and photos all over the internet within 24 hours before anyone has a chance to properly take them down.
And so you can actually see what's happening.
And you can see the separation in things like the Rittenhouse narrative, where as soon as that happened, the mainstream media had one very specific narrative.
They were pushing neo-Nazi white supremacist murderer fires into an open crowd of civilians at a Black Lives Matter protest, whereas within five minutes of the events happening...
What did he do?
Did he shoot two paedophiles and a wife beater or something like that?
One paedophile and one abuser and one basically Antifa member.
Yeah.
But just a crowd of ordinary civilians.
Yes, but those videos were out within five minutes of the event happening.
Everyone saw what happened.
They saw what the media said happened, and they saw, hang on a minute, we're being lied to openly, blatantly, and dishonestly.
Now, going back to the first article, not dancing on the graves of one's enemies is far too charitable for Hiltzik, the author of this piece.
I have a slightly different take, he says.
To begin with, let's stipulate that not all people unvaccinated against COVID are alike.
Some have remained unvaccinated for legitimate medical reasons.
Some rare charity here.
Oh, wow.
They may be children for whom the COVID vaccines haven't yet been officially ruled safe.
That's not going to age well, is it?
Or people with genuine medical reasons for avoiding the vaccine.
So he acknowledges they can exist.
Yes, and just to put it out there as well, we are not sticking a stake in the ground one way or the other whether you should take the vaccine or not.
No, we don't give medical advice.
Yeah, we're not questioning the efficacy.
We're simply saying that it should be your choice.
Yeah, pretty much.
It should be your choice what goes into your body fundamentally.
Yeah, my body, my choice.
You guys came up with that.
I mean, come on!
Right.
Some may have legitimately faced obstacles in getting to a vaccination site and receiving the full series of shots before becoming exposed to the disease, he continues.
Others may have refused the vaccine because they've been deceived by the misinformation and disinformation spread by the anti-vaccine crowd such as anchors on Fox News.
Now, it is true there is misinformation and disinformation out there about the vaccine.
But to say that's entirely the province of anchors at Fox News seems somewhat uncharitable.
The deaths of all those victims are truly lamentable.
You can tell he's taking a deep breath here, right?
Like, all those victims?
Yeah, that's lamentable.
But let me get my dancing shoes on, because we're about to go into the people we don't like.
Where did I leave my clogs?
So he's...
Yeah, here we go.
Finally, there are those who have voiced public opposition to his vaccines, not all of whom are unvaccinated themselves.
Some have couched their opposition in policy terms.
Interesting.
Ernie fell into that category.
She asserted opposition not to the vaccines as such, but to vaccination mandates.
Don't they understand that that means they're an anti-vaxxer nowadays?
That's a very slippery conflation, isn't it?
It seems to me that the opposition to a vaccine and the opposition to a mandate are two different things, as we shall get into later.
I don't think the government should be involved in mandating what vaccines people are taking, she said during a live-streamed town hall in November 3rd, 2019, during an unsuccessful campaign for the State Assembly.
If the government...
So that's pre-Covid.
If the government is going to mandate vaccines, what else will they mandate?
What else indeed?
That is the big question.
We have the next five to ten years to find out, guys.
Stay tuned.
That town hall predated the pandemic.
The mandate Earnby opposed then was a law tightening the immunisation rules for California schoolchildren by eliminating exemptions based on personal belief.
Well, I think that's a reasonable stance to hold, to be honest.
It should be the decision of the mothers, the parents, the guardians, and not the state, as to what your children get vaccinated with, surely.
Anyway, but Urnby made clear that her opposition extended to the COVID vaccines.
In August, she posted a statement on her Facebook page supporting Huntington Beach firefighters who were opposing a vaccine mandate.
The vaccine is not to cure COVID, she said, and mandates won't work.
It should be clear that opposing vaccine mandates as a substitute for opposing vaccination itself is a fundamentally incoherent position.
It's little more than the garden-variety-small-government-Republican ideology.
That's what it was in Irnby's hands.
Wait, what?
Like, this allegation of a fundamentally incoherent position is a fundamentally incoherent statement.
Is he really trying to say that opposing vaccine mandates is just a socially acceptable substitute for opposing vaccines?
Because that's clearly nonsense.
There are moral and ethical problems with government mandation of invasive medical interventions which have nothing to do with the quality or efficacy of the interventions themselves, right?
There's a separate ethical problem we're dealing with here.
Then, to brand that as garden-variety, small-government, republican ideology is a childish smear.
Not for nothing are mainstream journalists called dirty, dirty smear merchants.
True, but I think to myself small government ideology sounds alright to me, but that's just my personal belief.
It does indeed, but actually small government ideology is not necessary as a prerequisite to believe that the government shouldn't be able to mandate medical procedures to be done on you.
He then includes a defence of vaccine mandates on the grounds that they increase vaccination rates.
Nobody's arguing that they don't!
Right, they're arguing that the use of state coercion in medical interventions is a sinister and dystopian precedent that will create a miserable and unfree world.
Yes, you're arguing in that case that the ends justify the means, which is a very slippery slope.
And in the next graph, he takes great pleasure in pointing out that there is a correlation between Trump vote share and vaccination percentage.
I don't find this particularly surprising, personally, given that the mainstream propagandising around this issue has made the choice to get vaccinated into a partisan political issue.
But it's worth pointing out that when this was the Trump vaccine, the shoe was on the other foot, and we've collected some tweets here.
Let's have a look.
Yes, just a big shout-out here to Defiant Ls, who are an excellent collector of all of these gaffes that people on Twitter have put out.
So we've got a few that we're going to ramp up to a big one, aren't we?
So, uh...
Andrew Goss, I will never take a Trump vaccine.
Ever, ever, ever.
And then a couple of years later, if you're in the military and you refuse the vaccine, they should kick your ass out.
Interesting.
Interesting take.
It's gone 360 there.
Well, 180.
I mean, this never works out.
We've seen with vaccine mandates and other such things with police departments and fire departments that it just leads to about 10% of the forces just quitting.
Just quitting, yeah.
Which is not very good for law and order.
If you go to the next one...
Ooh!
Who's that?
Kamala Harris.
Donald Trump still doesn't have a plan to defeat coronavirus, but at Joe Biden and I do.
Breaking.
The US tops one million COVID infections in 24 hours, doubling the figure from just four days ago and setting a global record.
Again, two years is a long time, isn't it?
Or a year and a half.
Yes.
I will also point out that at the point when she put that out, they were Donald Trump's vaccines, which they were vehemently against at the time.
I'm not going to take a Trump vaccine.
Do you think I'm a fool?
But now they're Biden-Harris vaccines.
Ooh, gobble them up.
If we go to the next one.
Here from Rex Chapman, it's silly that all Americans don't have healthcare.
Sorry, I meant tragic.
And nowadays, how about we all agree that hospitals have the right to turn away unvaccinated COVID patients?
They have freedom of choice too, right?
I'm sure the unvaccinated would have no problem with that, and it would solve a lot of problems.
So he's saying that if you don't get vaccinated, you should be denied the right to healthcare.
Sorry, I don't think the hospitals and doctors have freedom of choice.
I believe that they have to swear a Hippocratic oath of some form.
Yes, to do no harm and to care for patients and things like this.
Indeed.
And then finally, we have this one.
Yes, this is the author of this article, Michael Hiltzik.
Column.
Trump is plotting a vaccine debacle for November and people will die.
Nowadays, mocking anti-vaxxers' death is ghoulish but necessary, and we must dance in their graves.
It's quite a turnaround for a couple of years, isn't it?
Yeah, it quite is shocking how a few years will do that to you, but also I can't help but feel that perhaps it's just that the initial tweet that he put out was missing, and that's a good thing, at the end of it, and perhaps he just forgot that part of the title.
Now, Hiltzik ends his noxious article thus.
The policies Earnby advocated may well have contributed to the spread of COVID and to the damaging of the public health infrastructure in her own community.
Even before this pandemic, she spoke out for measures that would threaten California schoolchildren with exposure to deadly childhood diseases.
There were no scientific or medical grounds for opposition to mandates.
There was only political ideology.
Now, mandates themselves are a representation of a political ideology.
The idea that the government has the right to tell you what to put in your body.
What happened to my body, my choice, as you said earlier?
Even for mandatory children's vaccinations, the ultimate choice rests with the parents or guardians and not with the state.
So he's trying to say that this is science and medicine on one hand versus political ideology on the other.
It's not.
It's political ideology versus moral and ethical concerns.
Yes, and their idea of science and medicine versus political ideology, what the left has done, and what many people have done, it's a partisan problem, a bipartisan problem, I should say, is they have combined the two and turned it into what many online are referring to as scientism, where science itself is being deified as some kind of holy law that cannot be questioned, when the whole point of science is that you question it and try and refute it and falsify it so that you can test it and see if it holds up.
He finishes with, it may be not a little ghoulish to celebrate or exalt in the deaths of vaccine opponents, and it may be proper to express sympathy and solicitude to those they leave behind, but mockery is not necessarily the wrong reaction to those who publicly mocked anti-COVID measures and encouraged others to follow suit before they perished of the disease and the dangers of which they belittled.
Nor is it wrong to deny them our sympathy and solicitude, and you don't seem to have a great reservoir of either, or to make sure it's known when their deaths are marked that they had stood fast against measures that might have protected themselves and others from the fate they succumbed to.
Ladies and gentlemen, again, the famous empathy of the left, otherwise known as smug, sneering, condescension, and a barely restrained glee in dancing on the graves of people who disagree with them.
I think that's about all.
All I can really add to that at the end is the famous quote, those who would trade freedom for a blanket of safety deserve neither safety nor freedom.
Absolutely.
Yeah, so now it's time, following on from that and the wide discussion of facts and logic and other such things, to address the fact-checkers and ask ourselves, who's fact-checking the fact-checkers?
I think that would be us, actually.
At this point, us and other such people online, because the mainstream media is not going to necessarily be doing it to themselves any time soon, so recently, in the last month, this article came out from the Daily Mail, a few outlets reported on it, that the Facebook fact-checkers could be politically, could be...
Just a little bit.
Just a hint that they could be politically biased themselves, admitted by Facebook's Vice President, Nick Clay.
And isn't it interesting, as Carl and I have discussed before, isn't it interesting how a high-level British politician ended up in a high-level private position within Facebook?
That means that there might be a little bit of political overlap between goals going on there.
It's almost like Facebook is developing itself into some kind of multinational country.
It could be, I believe, a famous political thinker, theorist almost, from the early 20th century said that private and public becomes corporatist, which could be another word to describe fascism, but that's just an offhand remark.
It doesn't mean anything.
Don't worry, guys.
So this article states, Facebook announced fact-checking measures in 2016 amid claims to its failure to remove misleading content helped to swing that year's US presidential election in favour of Donald Trump because purely having Donald Trump be elected in the first place was a sin Facebook announced fact-checking measures in 2016 amid claims to its failure to remove misleading content helped to swing And here's another question.
When they brought up this claim, did anybody fact-check that in the first place?
Reasonably speaking, because we all remember around 2016, as you said, Russian collusion, fact-checkers need to come in so that we can make sure that we're not spreading misinformation.
Did anybody check in the first place that misinformation was what caused the election of Donald Trump or just that people liked him and voted for him on the basis of his personality and policies?
But that's a different question.
The measures which allow users to alert Facebook to content they believe to be fake was applauded by many.
But critics decried the intervention, warning Facebook would rely on left-wing fact-checkers.
Since then, Facebook has been accused of suppressing legitimate stories and stifling public debate.
Not because it has.
Yes, we can see there that, as always, the soothsayers were out in force with their accurate predictions.
Oh, gosh.
Facebook Vice President Nick Clegg has admitted that the company's fact-checkers employed to root out alleged fake news from its social media platforms could be Could be biased and pursuing their own political agendas, according to a European Commission document.
Under its fact-checking scheme, Facebook uses a network of 80 organisations across the world, including three in the UK, to flag up misinformation on its platforms.
And I imagine these are probably similar networks used by other social media companies like Twitter.
Are we talking places like Hope Not Hate and that sort of thing?
Anti-defamation.
Yeah, the ADL. Probably places like that.
The sorts of places that still believe that this means white supremacy.
Stories deemed false or misleading are not removed from the site, but flagged to users via a series of warning labels.
We've all seen them.
We all may have tested how far we can push those warning labels in the past.
Naughty you.
Facebook's sophisticated algorithms...
Oh, sorry, go on.
Oh...
If you doubt that these exist as well, when you're in an alternative media company like we are and you're writing articles, stories, doing segments and clips and things like that, the amount of verbal gymnastics you have to do to avoid words which are possibly, but probably, and almost certainly, but not definitely blacklisted...
Is extremely infuriating.
And then you've got to consider, well, they may not be today, but will they next week?
Right, exactly.
When will these things be labelled verboten?
And this is the problem with having a set of laws that you have to live under where they don't actually tell you what the rules are.
They don't tell you which...
There's not a published list of words that you can't say because they'll be throttled, but you know full well if you see the statistics and the analytics that something like that is happening.
Okay.
And once again, you have to consider that there doesn't seem to be any true overhead on this.
There is no responsibility taken for when these fact-checkers end up being wrong, because these fact-checkers are humans, they are fallible, and they have their own agendas to push, which they will do.
And most of the people you find in these, when you actually look into their profiles, they're not only accidentally, possibly, occasionally biased, they are deliberate propagandists.
Oh, absolutely.
But yes, to carry on, Facebook's sophisticated algorithms can relegate such stories so far down the site that few people would ever see them again.
So, for anybody unaware, that's actually what China does.
on their social media networks.
They will not outright ban you.
They will shadow ban you so you are able to post, but no one sees it.
So you think that your posts are getting out there but just aren't getting any engagement, which is sort of a soft nudge approach, especially for a place like China, a very soft touch to try and get you to just shut up and go away.
The document shows that Clegg and Vera Jarova, vice president of the European Commission, discussed how Facebook countered disinformation during the 2020 US presidential election two weeks earlier.
I wonder which way that swung.
Was there something about a member of the Biden family in a certain dossier that got leaked around that time?
Oh, I think there might have.
The New York Post may have done a small thing about that, but not for us to say.
Cleggs also stressed that independent fact-checkers are not necessarily objective because they have their own agenda.
Former Cabinet Minister David Jones described Mr.
Cleggs' comments as deeply worrying.
He added, the admission completely destroys the credibility of Facebook's own procedures and...
You destroy your credibility on the face of it.
All you need to do is see it.
And it's completely...
Well, it is incredible.
It's probably more obvious to people in our space than in other spaces to be a little charitable.
That is fair.
Because we are more censored.
The things we are likely to talk about are more likely to be throttled.
Yes, but he continues, it offers news organisations no right of appeal when it censors them, even though it may have acted on the advice of fact-checkers who are motivated by their own agenda.
Facebook said last night, Nick never suggested there is bias in our fact-checking programme, even though he clearly and blatantly and explicitly did...
But okay, Mr.
Facebook spokesperson.
He did describe that one benefit of having a range of independent fact-checking partners is the variety of specialisms in different countries and issued areas that they bring.
Sorry, did a fact-checker write this response?
It sounds like it, doesn't it?
But this is exactly the kind of statement you would expect coming out of government when they do something wrong and they get caught in it.
Oh no, our minister absolutely did not say the thing that he said, but he did also mention this thing which is good about us.
So Facebook, more and more, is starting to seem like a public entity, like a government.
Yes, they are a public forum, they are a platform, and just to examine this, this phenomenon is not a new one, not by any means whatsoever.
Are we going back to the 20th century?
We are going back to the 20th century, to the earlier 20th century, primarily straight after the end of the First World War, where there were certain rumblings in Austria, Germany, Bavaria, certain areas of that part of Europe, about a particular individual who's stirring up some trouble, shall we say, and how the New York Times, as exposited by this book...
Which I'm currently reading.
The Grey Lady winked how the New York Times misreporting distortions and fabrications radically alter history.
Just a little bit into the first chapter.
Very interesting so far.
A little hint that I might be doing a book club on this sometime soon.
He is doing a book club on it.
Yes, I will be doing a book club on it.
We've got to throw some shills out here and there, don't we?
But talking about how in the early 20th century, the New York Times seemed to be prime fact-checkers for anybody who might have been questioning, well, is this Hitler bloke a bit of a threat, could you suggest?
Oh no.
For instance, there is this article from 1924, after Hitler was released by a prison, claiming that Hitler was tamed by prison, released on parole, he is expected to return to Austria, and to get a direct quote from that issue, you can see here, his behaviour during imprisonment convinced authorities that he was no longer to be feared.
It is believed that he will retire to private life and return to Austria, the country of his birth.
It could almost come straight from the pages of Snopes nowadays, couldn't it?
Yeah.
And there's an even more alarming one from two years before, in 1922, where the Times correspondent for Bavaria, I believe, was eager to give Hitler the benefit of the doubt.
He's credibly...
That's probably not a good idea.
Yeah, credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism.
The keynote of his propaganda, however, in writing and speaking is violent anti-Semitism.
But then...
They throw in a lovely little disclaimer after that sentence.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's antisemitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded, and that he was merely using antisemitic propaganda to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organisation is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
That take aged well.
Yes, and what dastardly political purposes those turned out to be, with immense consequences.
New York Times genuinely, legitimately running defence for Adolf Hitler.
Yes, and then during 1939, during the German invasion of Poland, they only printed the German propaganda side of the news coverage, covering that it was Poland invading Germany on the Glitschwitz, or however you're supposed to pronounce it, incident, which viewers may be aware of.
But that's just to point out that, obviously, the New York Times have an agenda.
Everyone has an agenda.
It was even written in the language that you expect to hear from fact-checkers nowadays.
Everyone has a perspective and can be wrong on the facts if they're not diligent enough.
The problem is when an institution or news organisation advertises itself as unbiased and purely factual, despite not living up to that.
So, I would say that I agree everyone has a perspective.
I think saying everyone has an agenda is not entirely right.
I think lots of people don't have an agenda.
Perhaps that language is too strong.
I don't consider myself to have an agenda.
Well, you could even consider just the truth as a form of an agenda, but it's a much But then you can see other examples from much more recently.
From recently, we've seen Kamala Harris' ridiculous comparison from January 6th to the same as 9-11 and Pearl Harbor.
But then Snopes had something to interject here, saying that they wanted to do a little fact check for you all, saying that the claim in January 2022, Vice President Kamala Harris said that the January 6th US capital attack was worse than Pearl Harbor and or 9-11.
Yeah, I've seen some very amusing meme edits of her comparing all three as equal severity, but I've not heard...
I haven't heard anyone saying it was worse than, but thankfully, for anybody who might have, Snopes are here to tell you that that's mostly false.
What's true?
Harris cited January 6, 2021 as one of three dates that echo throughout history.
What's false?
Harris did not say or imply that the attack on the US Capitol was worse than Pearl Harbor and 9-11.
Well, that's great, because no one was saying that.
That's what these fact-checkers do.
They will change the framing, deny their falsified framing, and then move on.
And there is no accountability taken for this.
These sorts of articles and fact-checks are done specifically so that Spurgs on Twitter are able to just go, actually, it's been fact-checked.
Yeah, and you can just throw this out there, whether or not that's the argument you were making in the first place.
And there has been another very large-scale denial of something put out recently.
If we move along, you can see that AP Fact Check has recently decided to fact-check the mass formation psychosis claim that has been spreading around the internet as a result of Robert Malone's, Dr.
Robert Malone's recent interview on the Joe Rogan podcast.
There are lots of words for this as well.
Sometimes it's called psychic epidemic, sometimes it's just called mass psychosis, mass formation psychosis.
Massist.
Yeah, mass hysteria.
There are many different things for it.
They broadly describe the same thing.
But you can see from this tweet that sums it up.
Mass formation psychosis and unfounded theory spreading online suggests millions of people...
It's not unfounded theory.
I know, I know.
It's 100 years old.
...suggests millions of people have been hypnotised into believing mainstream ideas to combat COVID-19.
Psychology experts say the concept is not supported by evidence.
It absolutely is.
Oh, excuse me there.
So apologies.
Let's take a dive into the article itself, where, yeah, thank you for getting that up, John.
The term gained attention after it was floated by Dr.
Robert Malone on the Joe Rogan Experience December 31st podcast.
Malone is a scientist who once researched mRNA technology, but is now a vocal sceptic of the COVID-19 vaccines that use it.
I believe that what they're missing out there is that the mRNA vaccine technology is what he worked on.
But psychology experts say that the concept described by Malone is not supported by evidence and is similar to theories that have long been discredited.
But is it a theory that's long discredited?
No.
I don't think so.
Here's a look at the facts.
When you have a society that's become decoupled from each other and is free-floating anxiety in a sense that things don't make sense, we can't understand it, and then their attention gets focused by a leader or a series of events on one small point.
Just like hypnosis, they literally become hypnotised and can be led anywhere, Malone said.
So that's Malone's initial claim relating to mass formation psychosis, which sounds a little bit familiar.
It's a generalisation, but it's fine, yeah.
Yeah, I think it's pretty observable in the way that people have been behaving recently and have behaved for years, let's be honest.
Let me just look at Beatlemano, for example.
Oh, God, yeah.
You can even take pop culture examples.
Right, exactly.
Or K-pop, for goodness sake.
There's so many things where this frame of reference can apply.
Yeah, people literally got trampled at Rolling Stones concerts back in the day.
Women wet themselves when the Beatles came out onto stage to the point where they said it was running down the side aisles.
Oh, my God.
I know, it's disgusting, but if you don't tell me that that's not the result of some kind of mass psychosis, then I think you're a fool.
Oh, sorry.
He claimed that such people will not allow the narrative to be questioned.
Psychology experts say that there is no support for the psychosis theory described by Malone.
To my knowledge, there's no evidence whatsoever for this concept, said J. Van Bavell, an assistant professor of psychology and neural science at New York University, who recently co-authored a book on group identities.
Keep this man's name in mind when we get to the end of this segment, because it will be relevant again.
Van Bavel said that he had never encountered the phrase mass formation psychosis in his years of research, nor could he find any peer-reviewed literature.
The concept has no academic credibility.
Stephen Riker, a social psychology professor, said, wrote in an email to the Associated Press, the term does also not appear in the American Psychological Association's Dictionary of Psychology.
So all of these, it seems to be that they have very much cherry-picked their sources for who they're getting their information from.
I'm not going to make the direct comparison to the New York Times coverage of Hitler, but they also seem to be cherry-picking the sources they were getting their information from.
And the thing is, Robert Malone has been very active online.
He is very active online.
I'd recommend you give him a follow on Getter.
He's very interesting.
And he has obviously picked up on people criticizing him for this and posted this and went on GB News recently to talk about mass formation, psychosis and vaccines.
We'll be focusing on the psychological aspect of what he's talking about.
If you want to play a bit of this clip here, John.
From junior academics to do so.
And it's not my theory.
It's the theory of Professor Matthias Desmond of the University of Ghent.
He's an absolutely solid academic with over 170 publications.
He's come out with a book recently called The Psychology of Totalitarianism.
In which he describes his mass formation theories, and they are built on a large library of over 200 years of academic research into this topic of the behavior of crowds, including by some of the people that are considered foundational in 20th century Psychology, such as Hannah Arendt, a survivor of the Holocaust, in her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism.
So this comes at us, and there are all these assertions being made by the fact checkers, as usual, that aren't actually grounded in fact, as usual.
They didn't do their homework, as usual.
Oh, I do love that.
He's pretty based there, isn't he?
Just that he knows that they are trying to sucker you, basically.
But he has the references to back it up.
He talks about 200 years of psychological research going into this, but AP News said otherwise.
And he's even written a Substack article on this, which we've got access to here.
I'll just read some of the interesting parts of it.
Today in fact-checking, the fact-checkers, junior academics cited by Forbes, Associated Press, Reuters, and The Independent, so this has gone well past just the AP, a number of other publications have all decided to just, like, fact-check him.
Have just not done their homework concerning the work of Professor Dr Matthias Desmet of the University of Ghent in Belgium.
All I can say is that I hope that their naive, ignorant, grandstanding statements to the press are brought up during their future academic tenure and advancement reviews.
only corporation triggered by Joe Rogan podcast 1757, but what absolutely has been generated by all of the co-opted reactionary press and big tech titans metaphorically tripping over their shoelaces is a massive trove of real-time data validating the brilliant mass formation intellectual synthesis developed but what absolutely has been generated by all of the co-opted reactionary press and big tech titans metaphorically Well, that's the thing.
They don't even understand that in all behaving in the exact same way, with the exact same response, they are proving his point.
They're providing real empirical evidence of the hypothesis that they are putting out there.
This is excellent scientific research, I must say.
I'd have to look at Desmond's particular formulation of this hypothesis.
Well, there is something that I'm going to go on in this article.
So he talks about multiple governments have now admitted to actively using fear and mass formation-related theories as a tool for totalitarian population control during this outbreak.
But what confuses me is why the Western press is all following the same narratives of Forbes, which is now owned by a Chinese media holding company.
What a shock there, eh?
Did I also get money from Bill Gates?
Were they on the list to go with the other day?
I wouldn't be shocked, to be honest.
I don't see how people could claim that mass formation doesn't exist or has never been scientifically studied.
The term just refers, it goes without saying, to the process of the formation of a mass or crowd.
Mass formation has been studied for over 200 years, beginning with such scholars as Gustave Le Bon, Freud, McDougall, Canetti, Hannah Arendt, etc.
In the 20th century, psychologists such as Ash and Sheriff have studied mass formation, I think Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebbels are also rather interested in this particular subject.
I was going to say, Goebbels might be a name coming up again, very briefly.
Some of these scholars did explicitly use the term mass formation, others didn't, but what they studied was basically the same.
The way in which individuals' mental states is influenced by their tendency to conform to group thinking.
Once again, this is a hypothesis that has been Used to explain many different atrocities, such as the atrocities of the genocide of the Kulaks, and also the behaviour of the German people during the Nazi regime.
And here is an excerpt from Professor Matthias Desmet's new book that's coming out, The Psychology of Totalitarianism, Mass Formation, A Brief Summary.
Totalitarianism is characterised by processes of large-scale mass formation.
Four conditions are needed for large-scale mass formation.
A large amount of people must feel alone and isolated.
Locked down, for example.
Yes.
Their lives must feel pointless and meaningless.
Because all sorts of meaning, including their job, have been taken away from you.
And potentially even their business has gone down as a result.
There must be high levels of free-floating anxiety.
Due to widespread fear messaging.
Yep.
and there must be high levels of free-floating frustration and aggression caused by all of the other things compounded.
So it does sound an awful lot like the scenario that has been engineered to a certain extent by COVID responses, you could say.
And then let's take a look more specifically at the AP Fact Check and who it was they were referencing in that.
If we move along, John.
We can see here the Postmillennial have an excellent article talking about it.
New York University Assistant Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, J. Van Bavell, who co-authored a book on group identities, as brought up in that AP Fact Check, has made claims that the only way to fight COVID-19 is for everyone to change their behaviour until such time as a vaccine can come along, and how to get everyone to change.
And this is quoted from a tweet.
If you want to scroll down a bit, John, I think you can find the tweet down here.
Go down a bit further.
There we go.
Yes, until we get a vaccine, our only real tools are behavioural.
We have to think through the lens of behavioural science.
What can we do...
To nudge and encourage and cajole people and motivate people to do the right thing.
Now the use of the word nudge there is very, very interesting because nudge is an entire discipline in behavioural science about how to persuade people to manipulate them, essentially.
Yes.
I have an article series which should be coming out soon about this entire topic.
Yep.
He's talking about the explicit aim of manipulating people there.
In a Nature article in 2020, Van Bavell also posited that insights from the social and behavioural scientists can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts.
What is this, if not an attempt to push people to do what they're told?
And I think that I agree with them there, that there is certainly a seemingly concerted effort to try and align human behaviour with what the elites do.
are after.
And it's brainwashing, and the fact-checkers are getting their information from this guy, who's saying that the exact phenomenon that he is encouraging doesn't exist and there's no evidence for it.
Except for your own tweets!
That sounds like he and Goebbels are in good company, doesn't it?
Well, there's a...
If you'd like to scroll down a little bit here, you can also see a horrifying feature of cult psychology.
Go back up, go back up, jump.
Just a little bit to where we were.
Back down, just a little bit.
There we go.
You can see here that a September 30th tweet from Mr.
Van Babel in 2021 is a quote from a particular, I think you could call him, influential propagandist in the early 20th and mid-20th century.
Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident that they are acting on their own free will.
Joseph Goebbels.
So the fact-checkers are fact-checking the idea of mass formation psychosis by quoting a man who seems to be taking all of his cues from Joseph Goebbels.
I think that says it all.
There's not really much else we can go.
There's not very many places we can go now that we've quoted Goebbels, so I think that's enough for that segment.
Yeah, that's quite right.
Now, Dr Malone isn't the only one guy standing up to the narrative.
There are quite a few of them by now.
I'm sure they all believe in slightly different things and say what they say for different reasons.
But they all share one thing in common.
They challenge the narrative, which is verboten.
Let's talk about the doctor who challenged the health secretary.
On Friday last week, Dr Steve James confronted Sajid Javid during a hospital tour and gave him a piece of his mind about the NHS vaccine mandate.
Let's watch the clip.
What do you think of the new rule to require vaccination of the NHS staff?
I'm not happy about that.
So I've had Covid at some point.
I've got antibodies.
I've been working on Covid IQ since the beginning.
I have not had a vaccination.
I did not want to have a vaccination.
The vaccine is reducing transmission only for about 8 weeks with Delta.
With Omicron it's probably less.
And for that I would be dismissed if I don't have a vaccine.
The science isn't strong enough.
That's your view.
And your views?
I respect that, but there's also many...
Yeah, I agree with that.
I understand that.
And obviously we have to weigh all that up for both health and social care.
And there will always be a debate about it.
Maybe there's an opportunity to reconsider with Omicron and the changing picture or at least the nuance and allow doctors who've had antibody exposure, who've got antibodies, who haven't had the vaccination to not have it because the protection I've got from transmission is probably equivalent to someone who's vaccinated.
Yeah, but at some point that will wane as well.
But if you want to provide protection with a booster, you'd have to inject everybody every month.
If it's worn off by two months, if the protection's worn off the transmission after two months, then after a month you've still got a bit of protection.
So if you want to maintain protection, you're going to need to boost all staff members every single month, which you're not going to do.
We take advice on how much you made.
But it's not going to achieve a practical benefit.
Well, we take the very best advice that we can.
From the people that are vaccine experts.
Just to make it clear for YouTube again there, we neither endorse nor deny that doctor's statement.
No, of course not.
We don't give medical advice on this channel.
This is just newsworthy, which is why we're reporting it.
So the science isn't strong enough, he says.
He was very polite.
It was an evidence-based and solid rationale for refusing the vaccine on that doctor's behalf, one might say.
But obviously this does go against the media narrative, and so all engines of public propaganda have juddered into overdrive to rescue the narrative from facts and logic.
First of all, we have an ad hominem.
Let's go to this one.
A senior doctor has called for Dr.
Steve James' medic to be suspended.
Here we go.
Angry medics denounce unvaccinated doctor for challenging Sajid Javid over mandatory jab policy.
A quote from the article.
David Nichol, a consultant neurologist, said, If an individual like that worked for me, they would be suspended pending an investigation.
What did he say that was worthy of suspension?
How dare you engage your brain?
That's not what scientists do!
What did he say?
Did he say anything that was outrageous, that was anti-science, that was remotely inflammatory?
No, he was very calm, very polite, very evidence-based.
What has he done, David Nicol, that is worthy of suspension?
Oh, that's right.
He's questioned the narrative.
Obviously when you have over a million people working in the NHS you will invariably get some people who have crank views, but equally patients have to be able to trust their doctors to interpret data.
So hang on a minute, natural immunity is now a crank view, is it?
Yes.
Sadly.
But that's ridiculous.
Like, what is it that he said that was a crank for you?
That if you've been working in the ICU with COVID patients for two years, that if you've potentially had COVID yourself, you will have some immunity to it?
I don't think there's anything remotely controversial about that.
That strikes me as good grounds, if you're a doctor, for refusing the vaccine.
Now...
Obviously, it's not my words, it's his, and we're just reporting on it.
But there we go.
The BBC certainly thinks that this is a crank view because their fact-checking wing, called Reality Check in the Supreme Ironies, has come out in full swing.
And yes, we are rather bashing on the fact-checkers in this episode.
Because they deserve it.
We have a full contemplations coming out between myself and Josh and this weekend where we go into more detail about why the mainstream media is so awful.
But let's just run through the example here.
So, COVID. Fact-checking the doctor who challenged the health secretary.
Fact-checking seems to be the polite way of saying debunked these days, doesn't it?
So, a video clip of an unvaccinated doctor challenging the health secretary over the government's plan to make NHS staff have a mandatory COVID jab or risk losing their job has been viewed more than a million times on social media.
Making vaccination a condition of employment already applies to care home staff and from 1st April is being extended to NHS workers, about 90% of whom are already vaccinated.
In other words, about 10% of whom are not vaccinated and could leave the NHS in the middle of a national pandemic.
Which certainly won't help with all of that strain that we keep hearing it being suffering from.
No, who's going to staff all of these Nightingale hospitals if you lose 10% of your workforce over what seems like an arbitrary and tyrannical dictate?
Interesting question.
Dr Steve James, they continue, a critical care consultant who has chosen not to be vaccinated, told Sajid Javid during the Health Secretary's visit to King's College Hospital, the science isn't strong enough to support the policy.
The vaccines are reducing transmission only for about eight weeks with Delta, he said.
For Omicron, it's probably less.
But that's not exactly what the evidence shows, they continue.
They go on to look at some vaccine studies.
Yes, it does, doesn't it?
Dr James was referring to a study that found a vaccinated person with COVID was just 2% less likely than an unvaccinated person to pass it on, 12 weeks after a second Oxford AstraZeneca jab.
He acknowledges his reference to eight weeks was an error.
A citation needed.
Did he bring up a single study while he was in that discussion?
It seemed that he just had access to this information from his head.
First of all, he may well have subsequently acknowledged his reference to eight weeks was an error.
But where did he say that?
Where's your citation?
They're just throwing that out there with no reference.
You can't look up and check whether that was true or not.
I don't see any link in that paragraph.
And the BBC, like you say, is just assuming that the doctor has read one study.
That would be very unusual.
There's no citations in this section, as I say, backing up the claim that Dr James has engaged in such shallow research practices, or pointing to where he apparently acknowledged he was in error.
I would expect a scientist, doctor or researcher to scan the relevant literature, which is multiple papers, and form their own conclusions based on that variety of different studies, perhaps favouring some studies over others due to better science or better perception of science, e.g. bigger sample size, tighter methodology, more recent study, e.g. bigger sample size, tighter methodology, more recent study, etc., etc.
Dr James has been working, as I understand it, in the ICU with COVID patients since the beginning of the pandemic, For crying out loud, it'll be really to expect he's just read one study about something he's been working with for two years.
Now, the doctors I know are far more diligent.
And the same study, BBC continues, found the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, which NHS staff are likely to have had, endured better.
Vaccinated people had a 25% lower risk of infecting others than unvaccinated people after 12 weeks, according to this one study.
And this research alone doesn't tell the whole story.
The vaccines also reduce people's risk to others by stopping them catching the virus in the first place.
Which seems to be true.
One paper found those vaccinated with Pfizer 85% less likely than the unvaccinated to be infected with COVID after two weeks and 75% less likely after 12 weeks.
Vaccinated people also seem to clear the virus faster and have less of it in their system, reducing the chances of passing it on.
Now, this all appears to be true.
Like, the vaccine does work for prevention of COVID. I don't think you can argue against that.
I don't think anyone is really arguing against that, to be honest.
But I am surprised that no one seems to have been able to quantify this effect, specifically the effect of reduced transmission, given that we've had these vaccines for a while now.
Now, maybe the study is out there and I just haven't come across it, but generally I'm seeing these so-called stylised facts put across, like, vaccines reduce transmission, they reduce the chance of passing it on, blah, blah, blah.
These seem to be true.
These seem to be undeniably true, but it would be nice to have those quantified.
That's all I'm saying.
These studies all looked at the Delta variant, BBC continues, first identified in India.
Two vaccine doses appear to be less effective, blah, blah, blah.
Now, when Dr James refers to the changing picture with Omicron, he's referring to the reduced severity of Omicron compared to Delta, I believe, i.e.
the smaller proportion of Omicron cases who need hospitalisation or intensive care compared to Delta.
So when he's saying we need to take into account the changing picture with Omicron when talking about vaccinations...
That seems to be where he's going with that.
They continue.
The second part of Dr. James's argument was that he probably had had COVID, providing him with some protection without a vaccine.
I've got antibodies, he said.
I've been working on the COVID intensive care unit since the beginning.
So-called natural immunity.
I can't believe they went there.
So-called natural immunity.
Goodness me.
Okay, so I've never had chicken pox since a child when I had it originally.
I've never taken medicine or any kind of preventative measures for it.
But that's just so-called natural immunity is what you're telling me.
Maybe, let's be charitable.
Let's say they're using so-called to introduce the fact that it's a new term that you may not have heard of.
Who's not heard of natural immunity?
These days, yeah.
Having immune cells such as antibodies and T-cells in your system that recognise and fight off the virus from an infection rather than a vaccine can offer effective protection.
Yeah, of course it would, although the human race wouldn't exist.
Although it comes with the risk of becoming very ill or developing long COVID. Well, yeah, there are risks with getting COVID. I don't think anyone's arguing that.
Again, this is a classic fact-checker, fact-checking a statement which nobody is making.
But that's not what the doctor is arguing.
He's talking about someone who has already had COVID, i.e.
himself, not someone choosing whether to either A, get a vaccine, or B, infect themselves with COVID in order to get immunity.
On a certain level, they're fact-checking his lived experience.
Brilliant.
Fabulous.
But what the doctor didn't mention is that, as with his point about vaccines, this protection also wanes and may be ineffective against infection with a different variant.
I mean, yeah, and they go on to a bit more data, but again, they're just answering the wrong question most of the time.
Dominic Wilkinson, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Oxford, says doctors have a clear ethical duty to be vaccinated.
But sacking someone who is not, but can show they have had a recent infection that may provide similar protection, may be unjustifiable.
Oh, they're finally giving a little bit of wiggle room.
So he comes out with clear, unambiguous certainty that you have an ethical duty to be vaccinated, but can't allow the same certainty that it might be wrong to sack someone who has natural immunity, because they won't get chapped.
Well, to these people, these are questions of one type of moral, which is what I want, not what is moral.
Exactly.
And I would say it's debatable.
Vaccination is supposed to be an informed decision.
It's one of the pillars of medical care, especially when the vaccine is fairly new.
Some countries do mandate vaccines for health workers, but the UK hasn't not been one of them until now, as far as I'm aware.
That said, most people are very pro-vaccine.
Like, even in the office.
Everyone's pro-vaccine, to be honest.
It isn't much of an issue.
It's just this vaccine that's causing controversy.
If the vaccines completely block transmission, they continue, it would be a much simpler question.
But since they are less effective against new variants, it is no longer as clear.
Yeah.
The BBC then reaches for the final tool in its propaganda arsenal.
It's not what was actually said that's important, it's what other people do with it.
They challenge the mainstream narrative, don't you know?
And that could cause harm if idiots get hold of it.
And they run through this.
Dr James says he is not against all COVID vaccination, but he feels he was framed as such online after opposing compulsory jabs.
He describes himself as pro-choice and pro-vaccine, saying his point was specifically about the science behind the mandate and not the vaccine itself.
Again, this is the same dichotomy we had in the first segment.
It's the difference between pro and anti-mandate and pro and anti-vaccine.
They're two different things.
And there's all sorts of studies you could go down to this.
As John has brought a study up right here about the Israeli study, it's on clarkcountytoday.com, so if you want to check that out, it's discussing natural immunity and stating, and this is coming from what I can assume is an authoritative source from November of last year, that natural immunity delivers 13 times more protection than COVID vaccines, but that is them saying it, I'm just reporting it as John has brought it up for us.
The BBC then called on another NHS hospital doctor, Dr.
Minel Viz.
No more information about what she does, just that in her spare time she corrects misinformation.
So she's a professional debunker.
Exactly.
She reinforces the BBC media narrative.
She feared the clip of Dr.
James would be seized on by those who want to suggest the science for the vaccine in general was not strong enough, despite the huge weight of evidence from hundreds of independent institutions and millions of people that had prevented disease and death.
On the internet, when things go viral, people tend to cherry-pick what they want, Dr Viz said, potentially leaving people with the impression that an intensive care doctor was doubting the science of the vaccine, rather than the much narrower and more complicated point Dr James says he was making.
Ah, the classic argument.
The public are too dumb to understand nuance, so we have to talk down to them, and take away conversations that would hurt their little squishy brains.
As always, the BBC stands for Bloomin' Biased Claptrap.
Well done to Dr James for speaking his mind, shame on those for denouncing him for it, and make your own decisions about your health.
Alright, I think that's about that, all we have to say on that.
Let's get into the video comments and see what's going on.
Alright lads, is it possible you can do a talk on the bad man?
I know you might have a bit of trouble with, you know, people getting the feels and all that, but people like me, I've got no idea why he's in the situation he's in.
Everything you see is just because people are upset with him.
Thanks.
That's a great question.
I can only assume that by the bad man, he's referring to good old Robbie Tomblinson.
Yes.
And in which case, I would say it would be interesting to do a discussion on him.
It's probably much more in Callum's...
Yeah, yeah, we've got some...
John's just pointed out here.
I think we've got some old videos covering his banning on social media and other such platforms.
I think it would probably be more for Callum to discuss that sort of thing.
Yeah, and that's the sort of thing we're more likely to do as a premium video as well, isn't it?
Yeah, so if you're interested in those sorts of content where we can't really talk about some of the spicier subjects that YouTube and other platforms aren't happy with us talking about, check out our premium content and maybe give us a little bit of a subscribe.
Come on, you can do it.
Much of the recent conversation on Orcs points out that characterizing a whole species in your game as ugly, warlike, and malevolent might be harmful to real-world groups regularly mischaracterized as ugly, warlike, and malevolent.
I mean, I think Orcs are Scouse, personally, but, uh, don't happen.
Hmm.
They sound Scottish to me.
Being that I'm from near Liverpool and was there over the Christmas period, I can confirm.
laughing Yeah, no, but why did I have to be subjected to that god-awful extra credits video again?
I hate it.
It's the classic, like, when I look at orcs, I see black people.
Why are you so racist?
Good God.
Oh no, at least Carl's not on this one.
Darn, you're right.
That is a shame.
That is such a shame.
The problem is, though, this is not our culture.
This is not something we can be proud of as a culture and a nation.
And without a shared culture, there is no shared identity except for these very superficial things such as skin colour and sexuality, and that's a massive problem.
I grew two cop sizes after getting the Pfizer vaccine.
Wait, what?
Okay, that was a hell of a twist ending there.
What?
Oh, fair play.
I'm glad, to be honest, that it wasn't as much of a...
I was worried for a second it was going to go into more anime-manga discussion, and this is coming from somebody who enjoys that sort of stuff, but you make some interesting points on shared culture bringing people together.
It does.
I want to watch the anime.
Do you want to see it?
Is it?
ICHKA's EDG. ICHKA's EDG. ICHKA's EDG.
Why?
What I'm saying is it's gay and I don't want to talk about it.
Because I need the gravitas, and the crow is a whore, I've borrowed his voice for this.
Watching anime is a lot like jerking off.
It can be a lot of fun, and if you enjoy jerking off into a mirror with a thumb up your ass, that's fine.
But like watching anime, you should keep it to your goddamn self.
Exactly.
Do it shamefully in the dark on your own.
Like I do.
That was excellent.
Yeah.
That was wonderful.
Thank you very much for that, Bay State.
Performing the Lord's work as always.
To make sure that every single person in this country has access to their full rights, to health, to water, to food, to housing.
Understanding that that is essential to life and that that needs to be provided and that needs to be part of the pandemic response.
And also, through reconciliation, or I would go so far as to say decolonization, And a new approach, especially with everything that has come forward this year in understanding Canada as a colonial and genocidal state.
Decolonisation is synonymous with ethnic cleansing, by the way.
Whether you think it's good or bad, look at it throughout history, it's synonymous with ethnic cleansing.
Sorry, I hate that.
That's made me so angry.
Why did you share that to us?
I really despise the idea I recognise where it comes from.
It comes from a misplaced sense of altruism, the same way that something like a UBI would.
But at the end of the day, rights should be negative.
Rights should be my right to avoid government intrusion into my own life.
Whereas what they're talking about is kind of ironically called positive rights, which is you are entitled to the fruit of somebody else's labour purely because of the fact that you're there.
You know, somebody else has built a house, somebody else has maintained a house, somebody else has paid for that house, but you get it, because otherwise you wouldn't have a house.
Sounds good, sign me up.
No, that's not what I'm going for, dammit!
Alright, let's carry on.
I just had a thought.
What if the Great Reset is to the World Economic Forum as Goop is to Gwyneth Paltrow?
Just meaningless, platitude crap that is offered to rich people with more money than cents that Davos just pockets and they spend on lavish parties every couple of years so they can say, ooh, look at us!
See, I like the idea that it's just a big scam from good old Papa Schwab.
Unfortunately, when you look into everything that the World Economic Forum gets up to...
They do seem a bit earnest about it.
Yes, and all of the many, many pies that they have fingers in, all you need to do is look into the involvement between BlackRock and the World Economic Forum and how BlackRock's implementation of things like ESG scores really do work along with the entire global economy.
Yes, and they play right into Klaus Schwab's idea of stakeholder capitalism and his ideas of companies that should have some kind of vision for the world, which is, of course, ridiculous.
And you're working on BlackRock.
I have been looking into them for a while.
It's a massive rabbit hole that has many tangents that you can go down, so I kind of need to focus on tightening it up and focusing straight on the BlackRock ESG WEF involvement.
So look out for that sometime in the near future, I hope.
A cheeky second video comment.
Joshua, thank you for your service.
Oh, that was really nice.
Thank you very much for your service, Joshua.
Here we go.
Let's start off with our protagonist, Izuku.
It's gay, and I don't want to talk about it, right?
Yes, it is gay.
Very gay.
As a matter of fact, it's so gay it has every single stupid anime stereotype, including, for some reason, a f***able frog.
That being said, I don't understand the whole debate between anime fans and anime haters.
As any type of media, it mostly produces garbage, and sometimes produces some really good stuff.
Like Pool Metal Alchemist, which, if you like Avatar, I would highly recommend.
You know what?
I agree.
I watched Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood last year.
It was an excellent series.
But, once again, I just don't enjoy it because it presents so many different headaches within the office and with Carl discussing it because he's so vehemently hateful I don't know.
When people talk about anime, they're generally focusing on the TV series, and I think that a much better introduction is movies like the Studio Ghibli films, because even though they have the usual incomprehensibilities of most Japanese fiction, they are at least self-contained.
So you know that you're not sitting down to weeks and weeks of cartoon...
I know I need to give Grave of the Fireflies a watch, primarily because that's a harrowing and depressing vision of...
Is it Hiroshima?
I need to watch that.
It's more just Japan in 1945.
Okay, fair play.
Let's carry on.
with another legend of the pines Seabreeze, New Jersey once a popular tourist destination in the late 1800s back when steamboat ferries were a thing it fell into disrepair and started to go downhill in the early 1900s culminating with the burning down of the hotel in the 1940s New Jersey once a popular tourist destination in the late it's mainly just been reclaimed by the ocean and the marshlands a few ruined buildings and a few empty docks is all that's left of Seabreeze, New Jersey
Thank you very much.
I really like that shirt you're wearing as well, by the way.
Socialist distancing.
It's very clever.
I like it.
Hey Lotus Eaters, just using my first video to comment to say howdy and to thank you guys for the amazing content over the years.
Today's my 23rd birthday.
I've been watching Sargon ever since I was around 16 maybe.
Anyways, I really like the new website.
Really digging it.
The hosts are all great.
They have great energy.
They remind me of some of my friends even.
Yeah, so Happy New Year to everyone and see you guys next time.
Well, thank you very much.
Happy New Year and happy birthday.
And also, at the sight of the American flag, I feel an overwhelming compulsion to salute.
Don't do it.
All right, here's another one of my junk piles.
Right here a little more closer detail since I figured that might work out better.
And this is essentially how I play my tabletop game with the kids because they're still kind of a little struggling with the rules.
So I have this board, I have these little kick counter cards, simple to the point, and then when I use the train to create a little side issues on the board and then we play that out.
Sometimes it pans out, sometimes it doesn't, but hey kids, No, that's really cool.
That looks awesome, yeah.
Yeah, I really like that sort of stuff.
I think you've put a wonderful amount of detail into all of your scenery that you've got there.
It looks great.
Oh, I think that's all the video comments, so it's time to get onto the written comments if you would like to read yours out.
Yes, so on the Dancing on the Graves of the Unvaxxed, we have Freewheel2112.
Oh, the scenery was a Gundam.
Oh yeah, it was actually, wasn't it?
That's pretty cool.
Thanks, John.
You great big nerds.
The LA Times is simply telegraphing what they wish they could say out in the open.
The hard left have no empathy and many of them would love to use camps as a solution to their political enemies.
They have a track record of this and nothing has changed.
Demonisation is the first step in the path to genocide.
Yes, that's absolutely true.
Yeah, there is a well...
Well-documented history of it at this point, all throughout the 20th century.
Small L libertarian, how should we react to the deaths of fat people who have rejected sound medical advice, etc, etc, etc.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, you could make an argument for a similar reaction to the one that they're recommending right there.
Free Will 2112 again.
They are appealing to the dark side of human nature, and their claim to be the caring, compassionate people with a kinder, gentler politics is nonsense.
They are appealing to evil.
Yes, once again, intersectionality, wokeness, all these things are just a mask that you can wear to try and hide your true intentions and your true feelings, I would say.
Yeah, a student of history says, even the church didn't look at all who were unbaptized and say, well, I guess they should just burn in hell for eternity.
These media creatures are evil.
Yeah, again, it's the lack of any route to redemption in leftist philosophy, which I think will be its undoing.
Alex Feit, or Alex Feit, pronounced Feit, No consequences.
How is it any of my business?
I agree.
Yeah, and if someone does an extreme sport, for example, like, I don't know, base jumping or something like that, and they happen to die doing it, do you then jump up and down and say, ah, I told you it would kill you, and then it finally did?
The situation that Michael Schumacher's in was due to an accident that he had racing, or skiing, was it?
Should I be happy about that?
Should I go to whatever hospital or home that he's being held in at the moment and go and point and laugh at him?
Serves him right for doing extreme sports.
What a loser.
No, absolutely not.
Yeah, these are unapplicable standards to anything other than the fact that I see you as pure enemy.
I don't see you as a human being with your own thoughts and your own rational feelings or anything.
You're just evil.
Student of History says, if they're going to dance in the graves of the unvaxxed, then when they follow Chomsky in and can't get food because they excommunicated farmers and truckers for heresy, they shouldn't be surprised when people dance at the news of their empty stomachs and buyers' remorse.
Just calling it now.
To be honest, their empty stomachs are going to last for a long time, looking at the size of some of them.
That's true.
Baron von Warhawk says, It was never about health, it was about control.
They've decided that the unvaccinated will not simply follow any order given to them, and this act of defiance is unforgivable to these tyrants and worthy of death.
Besides, from what I hear, I have a better chance of dying from the vaccine than Omicron.
Probably not.
Well...
Omicron, other variants I wouldn't be able to give much advice on, but if you want to look more into potential side effects of taking the vaccine that obviously we don't normally talk about on the podcast, it's more of our premium stuff, check out the premium podcast that Carl and I did on where are all these heart attacks coming from because there are some very interesting facts and very interesting details that you can find in that podcast that it would take far too long to go into any real detail here.
Grant Gibson says, best part, there was a smaller subreddit mocking the strangely timed deaths of people who had taken a vaccine, starting with a cardiologist who would have been a big fan of Herman Cain and died 48 hours after his dose.
That subreddit was banned.
Well, of course, there's the application of varying standards for the same thing, although at the same time I would say I also condemn people who are...
Pointing and laughing at other people who are dying after they've taken the vaccine, potentially due to vaccine-related side effects.
Because the fact of the matter is that most people, over the course of our lifetimes, have been trained to unerringly trust what they refer to as the science trademark.
And most people are just going to go into it with the thought process of, oh, well, this is good for me.
And I don't think they deserve to be mocked if they die because of that.
X-Y-N-Z-E says, these are the same people who asked the question of, is punching Nazis okay?
Good point.
On to the fact-checker comments now.
Edward of Woodstock says, anime is a bastion of dadist principles and traditional values, and you should watch My Hero Academia as evidence of this.
Fact-checked by the Lotus Eaters.
No, it's gay.
I can't find many things to argue with in that on both sides, to be perfectly honest.
One of my first segments I did for us was talking about the death of Western comics and Western media as a whole, and you can see that in such filth as being produced like He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, which turned She-Ra into the main character and became a feminist character.
Feminist Scribe.
Was it Teela?
I don't remember, but it turned one of the women into the main character of He-Man.
Repeat, He-Man.
And then, you know, you've got stuff like Santa Incorporated, the adaptation of...
What was it?
The adaptation of...
I don't know.
Yeah, but there's something in when Sophie was talking earlier about culture and sort of having a shared nation, a shared moral outlook in which to bring everything together.
There is a sense where that's true, but then also if you're just telling good stories, that brings everyone together because good stories are universal.
They speak to the human condition regardless of your nation or culture or language.
It's why Greek myths have persisted for thousands of years.
Right, exactly.
It's why people quote proverbs when they're not remotely Christian, things like that.
And so, yeah, you could argue there's something culturally valuable, even in the cultural products of a completely different culture, if they just tell a good story.
Yeah.
Freeborn JJHW says, Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire.
Now, I believe this is a famous misattribution.
Oh, is it?
I believe so.
There's so many like these.
Do you have any idea?
Do you know who it came from?
No, I don't.
Ah, fair play then.
But yes, it's a very good quote, regardless of who said it.
There is a tendency generally with witty aphorisms like this that people come up with, nobody's come up with them, maybe some smart guy who no one else has ever heard of, and then to give it more weight it gets attributed to someone who everyone has heard of as a noted wit.
So classic ones are, for example, Voltaire, Churchill, Oscar Wilde and so on.
Yeah, I've heard the nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program attributed to Churchill, attributed to Hamilton and Washington and many other different people.
So I think you've got a point there.
Alex Hiley, BBC Radio 4.
Thought for the Tay this morning was a reverend saying that science regarding vaccine and climate change needs to apply the same approach as religion.
In that we need to have faith in science.
That's basically the opposite of science.
I mean, I don't think they need to recommend that scientists and people start to do that, because I think we're already well into that position where people are treating science as a religion.
When did the Church of England become the Church of the Eternal Lockdown, I say?
When did they start parroting this sort of narrative?
Who gave this reverend a degree?
But, Free Will 2112, a lot of these politicians are rewarded by the establishment for services...
Having said that, sorry to butt in, I had a friend who did a religious studies degree and quit after he bumped into his lecturers in a gay bar.
Really?
Oh, fair play.
Free Will says a lot of these politicians are rewarded by the establishment for services rendered.
Tony Blair was appointed as a Middle East peace envoy.
That is quite hilarious.
That is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house and is almost as if the powers that be are laughing at us.
which, when you've got fact-checks being provided by men quoting Goebbels, they absolutely are.
Baron von Warhawk, fact-checker has become a code for the propagandist, although it must be extremely difficult for even the most skilled fact-checker to convince the public that Biden is a great and healthy leader.
Yeah, try and find any photos of Biden that show his bald spot.
All right.
That's a good point, actually.
But yeah, that is a good point, that most people are kind of being told to disbelieve what they can see with their very own eyes.
You know, it doesn't take much to actually just keep a mental note of certain things.
Oh, I like this comment here by Bob Bobson at the end.
He's basically rewritten fact-checking in software code speech so that you too can fact-check at home.
Oh, wonderful.
Or even a machine.
Bob Bobson, in that case, I'll read it out and you can explain it to me in nerd talk.
I think it's pretty obvious.
Okay.
Fact check.
Concept is over-exaggeration or mis-framing.
Last week, social pariah spoke about concept in alternative media.
Social pariah is a poisoned well and his ideas have been supported by out-group and other undesirables.
Selected establishment experts say very carefully worded statement about concept that is technically true.
That is like an algorithm, right?
Yeah, that is the fact-checking algorithm right there.
Tell you what, Bob, you should take that, you should write your own fact-checking website that's completely automated and see what comes of it.
You should sell that, is what I'm saying.
Get that free market in action and make some money.
On science and medicine, Henry says, It's getting to the point now where I treat people who refer to the science with the same disdain I have for people who refer to websites as the Google or the Facebook.
People still do that?
Older people.
There is no the science.
Science is a methodology, not a definitive statement of fact.
Correct.
Scientific consensus is not a definitive proof that a thing is true or not.
The best you can do is say that this is the best understanding of the world we have right now that can be treated as true to almost all intents and purposes, but is still subject to change if and slash when new data is presented.
Yes, that's absolutely correct.
And I've got an article coming out more about the...
About science and where it becomes a belief system.
Yeah, I do believe referring to it as scientism, as niche a certain term as it may be within certain internet circles, if we can get that out there, it'll help people understand what we're referring to.
Yeah, I think you're probably right.
Supreme Duck says, My pregnant fiancé is told to take the vaccine.
I thought we were told not to take the vaccine during pregnancy at first, but now they are trying to get her to take it anyway.
I don't know what to do.
It seems more like we are bombarded with propaganda than actual science.
Yeah, we are.
You are absolutely right there, Supreme Dirk.
We have always been bombarded by propaganda.
From the moment we were born, propaganda existed probably a hundred years before it.
Propaganda's been around for a very long time.
It's just now that we have the systems and apparatus necessary...
Now we can actually talk to each other on the internet.
We can sort of work our way around it and work out where it's happening.
But it's still happening.
As terrible as some of the effects of smartphones may have been, the ability to easily share, well, easily and fastly, that's a stupid word, share video content with one another online has been one of the major benefits of it.
It is, that's true.
And, well, at least you don't live in Scotland and trying to get a baby via IVF, in which case if you hadn't been vaccinated you would be immediately denied the treatment.
Oh yes, you're not allowed babies if you're unvaccinated in Scotland.
We covered that a while ago, and Dankula recently put a video out about it where he went through a bit more detail and brought out some examples, because it's really harrowing.
People who are well into their treatment, and suddenly they've just had the rug pulled under them on Christmas Eve.
Dank and his wife went through IVS, didn't they?
So he's got some inside knowledge.
Yeah, I can only assume how heartbreaking it would have been for them if they'd been trying to go through it now.
But I think they went private, so they might be alright.
That's true.
They didn't go through the NHS. CarbohydrateCrusader says, Hey guys, resident epileptic nurse here.
Had another fit today?
The stress of potentially losing my job at the end of the month hasn't been great for my brain, been having fits more regularly.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Watching that doctor put Javid in his place was cathartic, hoping it may have some sort of effect on a potential U-turn on the policy, but I don't know.
Do you think they'll change it?
I'll go barrelling ahead out of pride.
Hope you're good.
Thanks for the entertainment.
All the best, gents.
Yeah, and hope you're good too.
Sorry to hear about the fits.
I can only hope that the situation can get better.
Yeah.
What do you reckon?
Do you think the mandate policy will go ahead or not?
I think it would be foolish to a certain extent, especially after the protests that were going on in December where people were literally outside of number 10 throwing stuff at people and And then all of a sudden they've been saying this whole time that it's been for the good of the NHS so that we can get rid of the strains that are on the NHS, then they can just so flippantly get rid of a potential 10% of the entire staff.
I think that would be eye-opening to some people.
But at the same time, there are very many people like the sorts of people who will have read that LA Times article and gone, seems reasonable to me, who would probably go, well, it serves them right.
They're putting other people at risk.
They're endangering people through their free choice.
Yeah, I can see that.
I've spoken to doctors in other countries who were sort of the attitude, well, we had to get it.
Of course you have to.
If you work in medicine or patient-facing, you have to get it.
It's just obvious.
Yeah.
Yeah, we, I think, have a different attitude about that here, or I hope we do, which, if I were to wax lyrical about it, I would say springs from our freeborn English attitudes.
Our traditional British attitudes towards liberty.
Indeed.
An Englishman's home is his castle, but his body apparently is the state's property.
Interesting.
Sounds French to me.
Freewill2112 says, Boris takes the best advice to make sure his parties are swinging.
LAUGHTER Yep.
Can't deny that.
Chet Chisholm says, much like the mocking of the deaths of those unvaccinated, there is also the complete denial of the existence of those of us who have been injured.
If you so much as mention your injury, you will be mocked, ridiculed, and attacked for not following the science.
It's a pretty dystopian turn, isn't it?
Yes, I mean, you can see that from the first segment, the article that we were going through.
After pointing out changes on my EKG, electrocardiogram, that point directly to myopericarditis, I've promptly been told to shut up and that I have no training in reading EKGs.
As you know, I am not a lay person and reading and interpreting EKGs is a very important part of my job as a paramedic.
Interesting.
Here in Nova Scotia, there have been only 18 medical exemptions granted for the vaccine.
Really?
Wow, that's nuts.
Yeah.
Yeah.
There are three cases of myocarditis, two cases of menstrual issues, and one case of severe blood clots, all in my hometown of 20,000 people that I know of personally.
Step outside of town, and I know of more.
Being sick and injured is one thing, being completely dehumanized is another.
Yes.
There are many examples that you can find that, once again, I've covered in the Premium Podcast.
There is another one that I can think of off the top of my head.
I forget her name, but there was a BBC presenter who passed away last May, I believe, of a blood clot that the coroner concluded was in her brain directly as a cause of her vaccination, and it was swept under the rug immediately.
There was one article I saw about it and then never mentioned again.
Now, it is difficult to judge these because you have to accept that there is going to be a baseline for these cases, and it is going to be the case that some of these medical conditions that occur post-vaccination or are discovered post-vaccination are not caused by the vaccine.
So that is also possible, and we have to take that into account.
Generally, if we were a bit more transparent and honest with the data, we would be able to use that to get a clear picture of what's going on, but we don't.
It's the very fact that you can't.
Look into it.
At all.
On any large scale.
Lord Nerevar says, we need more people like Dr.
Steve James.
Unfortunately, Saj is about to fire them all.
Yes, he is.
I'd be interested to see what Steve James' current employment status is.
Yeah, well if they do get suspended or fired, what they should do is set up their own private health service because we seem to be needing one more and more each day.
Robert Longshaw, if that doctor is working all day every day around people who have COVID, surely he's exposed almost every day.
Continuous exposure will mean his immune system will be topped up all the time.
I would believe so.
Shh, you're not allowed to say things like that.
Now, some of the honourable mentions.
I'll read this so you don't feel like you're fellating yourself too much.
Adrian of the Fountain says, just checked Jon's video on Saruman.
And I have to say, terrific work.
Thank you very much.
I very much enjoyed putting that all together.
I hope to bring more Lord of the Rings content to you.
And if you haven't seen that video yet, definitely give it a look.
It's on our website and on our YouTube channel.
Jon's got loads of other ideas for topics related to Lord of the Rings that he can look into.
So, look forward to that.
And finally, just the last comment I'll read out.
E2B's...
It says, Certainly some parallels, yeah.
Yes, and I do agree that it is not entirely the left who are guilty of this.
There is people on the right as well.
It is definitely a bypassing issue.
But on that cheery note, I think that's about all we've got time for.
Thank you for tuning in today.
Yes, thank you very much for tuning in to this episode of the podcast, The Low Diseases.
Tune in again tomorrow at 1pm if you want some more content from us.
Once again, thank you for tuning in.
Have a great afternoon.
▲
Export Selection