Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 12, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:08

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #566

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast.
	Hello Cetters for today, the 12th of January.
	I am joined by Stelios.
	Hello.
	First time we're on together.
	Fantastic.
	So I'm going to talk to Stelios today with the WEF's Farcical Fact Checks.
	He's going to put me through Jordan Peterson's persecution by the Ontario College of Psychologists.
	And then we're going to talk about how everything you love and I love is queer now.
	I guess we have to celebrate subversion.
	Before we start at three o'clock today, is it half past three, John?
	Half past three today.
	There we go.
	I've got my timings right.
	With a premium hangout for all of our premium subscribers.
	If you're still a freeloader and you haven't subscribed yet, what are you doing?
	It's Fiverr.
	Give it to us and not Netflix.
	Help us keep the light on.
	It's on our Cybertunk Dystopia Part 4.
	Fourth part in the series between Carl torturing Callum with all the dark things that are going to go on in our imminent future.
	So go check that out and leave some comments and they'll be able to interact.
	But without further ado, into the news.
	So, we're four days away from the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, and the WETH, in anticipation, have given us this helpful little doomsday clock that's ticking down.
	So it's only till Monday when evil Uncle Klaus decides to descend down your chimney and expropriate your property.
	Oh, no, wait.
	Action.
	We should have a T-minus behind the...
	Just a blaring red sound, like the...
	You know when you get a tactical nuke in Modern Warfare 2 and the entire screen goes orange?
	That, yeah.
	And it should be red.
	Yeah.
	Uncle Klaus's Moab's going to come along.
	Turns out, though, that's a conspiracy theory.
	So we've been fact-checked by the World Economic Forum, and we only want to, at the Lotus Eaters, put out accurate information, not misinformation.
	So let's go straight to the source.
	So what is Davos?
	Here's everything you need to know about this year's World Economic Forum meeting.
	Davos in Switzerland is the highest town in Europe, but ever since the World Economic Forum brought its annual meeting to the Alpine town, the name resonates with solving the biggest issues facing our world.
	You mean of highest altitude or that people there are smoking and they get very high?
	You'd have to be with come up with some of their policies, I would assume so.
	Davos has nevertheless weathered criticism as a gathering of elites in recent years.
	The forum has been targeted by disinformation campaigns.
	Now as you can see with that paragraph, it's blue, so that means there's a hyperlink.
	So I wondered what exact disinformation campaigns they'd be talking about, because the rest of this article is just sort of fluff about the history of Davos, the role they've played in making peace treaties, and the gender equity report they're going to present this year.
	It's a load of nonsense, right?
	Completely disinteresting.
	But the really interesting part is clicking on that hyperlink, and we've gone to the next article, which is how Own Nothing and Be Happy sparked a misinformation campaign that targeted the World Economic Forum.
	From the Globe and Mail.
	You will own nothing and you will be happy is apparently misinformation.
	It's a conspiracy theory.
	Let's read how.
	The guy that wrote this is Adrian Monk, who is the managing director of the World Economic Forum.
	Thank you, Mouth of Sauron, for telling us there's nothing to fear from the giant Eye.
	We will not invade you any time soon.
	Morgoth is a perfectly peaceful place.
	Own nothing and be happy.
	You may have heard the phrase.
	It started life as a screenshot culled from the internet by an anonymous anti-Semitic account on the imageboard 4chan.
	Own nothing, be happy.
	The Jew World Order 2030 said the post, which went viral among extremists.
	It's very disingenuous framing, because we know that's not where it originated.
	We're going to look at where it originated in a moment.
	We'll just keep reading this article for the time being, but don't be gaslit into thinking that some 4chan autist came up with the term.
	It was the WEF themselves.
	How did a years-old headline turn into a meme for the far right and a slogan picked up by mainstream conservative politicians?
	Right, okay, so it isn't just a meme.
	It's not just didn't start out as a screenshot.
	What did they screenshot?
	It was a headline in the first place.
	Interesting.
	I wonder who wrote that headline?
	The story begins in 2016 with a publication of an opinion piece on the World Economic Forum's Agenda website by Danish MP Ida Alkem under the headline Welcome to 2030.
	I own nothing.
	I have no privacy.
	Life has never been better.
	Right.
	It's not a conspiracy theory then.
	You bloody wrote it.
	Thank you.
	It was part of an essay series intended to spark debate, which it certainly did, about socioeconomic developments.
	Fast forward four years to 2020.
	The world looked very different.
	Again, another conspiracy theory, I'm sure.
	That reminds me of a slogan, a political one.
	Yeah, who is that used by?
	I think it was exclusively used by Joe Biden.
	Or was it Boris Johnson?
	It might have been Justin Trudeau?
	Or Jacinda Ardern?
	Or the Prime Minister of Denmark?
	Or the EU? Oh, I'm just sure it's a conspiracy theory to suggest they all get it from the same place.
	So that economies could emerge greener and fairer out of the pandemic.
	Codeword, poorer and more communist.
	The pandemic magnified many social eels.
	The mistrust in government and leaders that had been building before the health crisis played into the hands of both fringe groups and state-sponsored actors looking to undermine and weaken rivals.
	Both came together on the anonymous dark web in places such as 4chan's politically incorrect image board.
	The board, which is completely unmoderated, and was also used by operators of a Russian propaganda campaign.
	Totally just without sources there.
	Okay?
	For who?
	In who?
	Are we still accusing the Russian propaganda campaign that got Trump into the White House, that was funded, the Steele dossier funded by the Clinton campaign, and turned up absolutely nothing?
	Are we still pushing that narrative?
	They're victimizing themselves.
	They're just saying, well, listen, all this criticism originated in bad circles, but actually they did it.
	Yeah, and it's just so convenient as well that it happens to have originated from the exact evil people of the present, the Russians who are invading Ukraine, and Ukrainians are perfectly above reproach, the Ukrainian government rather, not the Ukrainian people.
	It's not like Ukraine has just formally partnered with BlackRock to make sure all of its war loans are secured by the World Economic Forum's partner, and that BlackRock's CEO sits on the WEF board.
	No perverse interest there whatsoever, I am sure.
	Okay, anyway.
	The intent was apparently to spread disinformation in a bid to stir far-right outrage about COVID-19 and perpetuate domestic extremism.
	This means was often via chatbots that would push far-right conspiracy theories to communities on boards such as 4chan.
	Recent analysis explains how this context brought extremists together using rhetoric that trivialised National Socialism and the Holocaust.
	Just to say, I am an Englishman, not a fan of German racial socialism, not a fan of killing people.
	Shock.
	So you can be moderate and sensible and still critique another German socialist with Klaus Schwab.
	The same far-right Holocaust denying cohort latched onto the Great Reset, claiming that the Forum was part of a group that, quote, orchestrated the pandemic to take control of the global economy.
	As we are on YouTube, we must disavow.
	We shall.
	Of course.
	A number of threads appeared in this vein.
	One such 4chan thread linked to the pandemic and the alleged nefarious control the forum exercises over the global economy with the idea that you will own nothing and you will be happy.
	It went truly viral, as opposed to fictionally viral, capturing the warts imagination of conspiracy and fringe groups.
	If you just repeat it, it's true, apparently.
	You know, just keep telling us and we'll eventually get it, I'm sure.
	One neo-Nazi and white supremacist website claimed the Great Reset was, quote, a response to the coronavirus faked crisis.
	Again, we disavow.
	And would usher in, quote, global communism, I wonder where they got that idea, to ensure, quote, no one will be able to own anything.
	Even though Reuters Fact Check, who were partnered with the World Economic Forum, And Pfizer, to get factual information about the vaccines, of course, brilliant, safe and effective, concluded in February 2021 that the World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people own nothing and be happy in 2030.
	Despite that, the trolling continues.
	Now, very clever little fact check there.
	The World Economic Forum doesn't have a goal for people to own nothing and be happy.
	Did they say it was a goal or did they say it was a prediction?
	They phrased it in terms of a prediction.
	Yeah, so we've been fact-checked.
	It's misinformation to say they really, really want it, even though they believe it's going to come true, and they advise people on policy, and they say how to get there step-by-step with algorithms and services replacing goods.
	But it's just a conspiracy theory to say that they want it.
	Okay, alright, we're on board.
	Users on Twitter and Facebook, for instance, have spread doctored content to promote the falsehood that, through the Great Reset, the forum is advancing pernicious depopulation efforts.
	These include racist conspiracy theories that claim that white people are the primary target for depopulation.
	I mean, that's not a conspiracy.
	I think when we're on YouTube, we have to disavow that.
	Okay.
	Definitely disavow it.
	Bad faith actors have also targeted the forum's coverage of the circular economy, economic systems that aim to eliminate waste by reusing more raw materials rather than disposing of them.
	You are the raw material they wish to recycle.
	Decrying it as a top-down agenda, coming from quote, unelected globalists looking to reshape the world in their image.
	Okay, are any of you appointed?
	No?
	Do you have a global scope?
	It's kind of implied in the word world, isn't it?
	You're not the National Economic Forum or the Community Economic Forum.
	Alright, these are just some examples among many.
	So, it's all misinformation, according to this.
	As far back as 2013, the World Economic Forum's annual Global Risks Report flagged misinformation as a concern, warning then it could spark, quote, digital wildfires in our hyper-connected world.
	Today, that warning has largely been borne out.
	Misinformation is a serious challenge for regulators, a minefield for individuals who seek facts, and a barrier to governments and organisations wanting to disseminate important information.
	So they're saying, back in 2013, we coined the term misinformation.
	We told governments this is going to be a problem.
	Years down the line, every government is regulating it and using the phrase misinformation.
	And it's a threat to governments because if you say things they don't like, they can't control the narrative.
	Exactly.
	Criticism has become, let's say, a problem now.
	And they are trying to, on the one hand...
	Portrayed as undemocratic.
	They want to portray themselves as democratic countries, but on the other hand, everyone who criticizes them is portrayed as a bad person.
	A threat to democracy.
	A threat to society.
	Where have we heard that language before?
	Maybe from the mouth of someone that also said Build Back Better.
	No, conspiracy theory, I'm sure.
	It also highlights how misinformation derails free speech.
	Are you having a laugh?
	Really?
	At the request of Ms.
	Alkin, the forum removed all media around her piece because of the online abuse and threats she had faced.
	Action to prevent lies being accepted as truth can help avoid similar situations and promote genuine free speech, allowing us all to freely exchange ideas and opinions.
	So, now that we know...
	That you will own nothing and you'll be happy as a conspiracy theorist.
	It no longer exists.
	Let's go and check the original source show.
	Oh.
	Alright.
	Okay.
	World Economic Forum contributor.
	Still up on Forbes.
	By Ida Alcom.
	Welcome to 2030.
	I own nothing.
	Have no privacy.
	Life has never been better.
	In which she says that you don't own anything.
	Your living room will be rented out for business meetings when you're not there.
	You will only shop for the fun of it, but the algorithms already know everything that you want.
	It's drone delivered to you.
	If you want to cook, they'll deliver the utensils and then pick them up at the end of the day.
	So you don't even get to keep a whisk and there's no cars anymore.
	And there are people we lost along the way to get here.
	Sometimes I think about them, but it was necessary.
	Yeah, she has this picture of AI as being implemented in society and as human beings as being just mere recipients of products and that everything is run by machines.
	So it's just the dream of a parasite.
	Yes, the dream of a parasite.
	Let's just everyone else or other people and other machines do the work for me.
	I won't have to embrace any hard work ethic.
	I will just be a mere recipient of goods.
	But interestingly, I read the article and she said at some point that sometimes I like choosing, but in other times I don't particularly like it.
	And the algorithm knows me better than I know myself.
	Yeah, so we've outsourced all of our decision-making capabilities to the computers that someone else has created, which could be founded off of all sorts of garbage data packaged in, as Josh and I went over when we were talking about Biden's AI Bill of Rights, where they implemented the executive order he signed on day one to achieve racial equity into the AI. So it's going to be biased against something they call malinformation, which is factual information shared without an appropriate context, without the fact checkers say so.
	So, God forbid we talk about crime statistics, for example, because the AI is not very tolerant then.
	So we just eliminate it, we take it out, and I'm sure that won't have any problems when the algorithm determines everything in society on our behalf.
	So they said that, and then they doubled down, in fact, because we go here, oh, yeah, Sorry, John's going to get his notification out of the way.
	It's too popular.
	They put it in a Predictions for 2030 video.
	So you made a video out of it, which they then took down because they got so much flack.
	But number one prediction, you'll know nothing, you'll be happy.
	Okay, so it's not just a conspiracy theory.
	So let's move on.
	Where would people get the idea that you wanted a top-down socialist controlled economy or global communism?
	Oh, it might be this, with the Oxford academics, whose name has slipped my mind.
	Donut economic model?
	And it says, this could help end inequality.
	If you scroll down, John, you'll just see the ring of the donut, the diagram that they have.
	So, in the centre is the shortfall, all the things that we're wasting.
	On the outside are all the things we can't control.
	And what they want to do is, by having all of those 17 sustainable development goals that the UN set for the deadline of 2030, not like every government has a 2030 deadline at the moment, just a conspiracy theory, of course, what they want to do is they want to shrink that shortfall, the whole middle of the doughnut, until it's a fixed pie, to be equitably divided up.
	Because they actually say social equity in there.
	So, you want a fixed pie to divide among everyone equally.
	So, who does the cutting and who does the handing out?
	Ah, it's top-down.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	I think that this is a very complex phenomenon and there are many causes about this, but I think one of the causes in Western society, especially cultural-wise, is the influence of John Rawls.
	John Rawls presented himself as a liberal, but he was actively arguing against the welfare state version of capitalism.
	So he wasn't arguing for the welfare state.
	He was arguing against it because he thought that it wasn't redistributive enough.
	So he had this idea that we constantly need to do everything for the sake of those who are least well off.
	And the weird thing which shows his influence in the matter is that he said that the two best systems are property-owning democracy, which he didn't specify enough on the one hand, and liberal socialism on the other, which is a form of market socialism.
	Which is an oxymoron in and of itself.
	Yes, but I think that this is the kind of social democratic vision that people have, that let us accept classless society as being the goal towards which we want society to move towards, but not with a revolution.
	Let us do it with other means.
	Yeah.
	It's the softy, softy, catchy monkey version of taking all of your property and making you miserable.
	Owe nothing and be happy is precisely the idea that, you know, if we reject private property, there won't be any fuss between people and people will be happy.
	Yeah, and the algorithmic determination of everything, which means that we are permanently satiated with material goods, is the end-of-history utopia that the communists envision.
	A static way of existing will be permanently satiated forever.
	That's why, I don't know if it was Paul Krugman, but I remember there was a New York Times article that was...
	Unironically called, fully automated luxury communism.
	And it envisioned like Star Trek levels of material abundance, algorithmically determined to all of us, so we can just be fat people in wally chairs, floating and consuming forever.
	It sounds like Paul Krugman, because I think after he got his Nobel in economics, he felt entitled to comment about everything.
	Like gardening, cooking, you know, how to mow the lawn.
	Yeah, he also appeased China at one point.
	Really upstanding guy.
	Just like Klaus Schwab, who said, and Justin Trudeau, you know, Canada, the most penetrated cabinet, according to Klaus Schwab, both said they admire the way the Chinese model works because they get things done quickly.
	Despite all the dead protesters, of course.
	Now, I'm glad you brought up Marxism, specifically, because it seems like the World Economic Forum agree with you.
	It's not just a conspiracy theory, because we have this next article from a while ago, I think it was 2014, no, 2016.
	Does capitalism need some Marxism to survive the fourth Industrial Revolution?
	This is on the World Economic Forum's website.
	So, bugger.
	Not conspiracy theory, then.
	The concluding paragraph is...
	And what I think they've done in buying into the Rawlsian conception of justice and Marx's conception of capitalism...
	rather than gone through the revolution, they've gone the vanguardist approach of where from the top, they're going to shepherd society from the free exchange of goods and services, which is our right inamiably to work and trade as individuals, to Marx's conception of capitalism, which is a few people manipulating markets to Marx's conception of capitalism, which is a few people manipulating markets in order to extract wealth by money printing, by consolidating wealth themselves, by sharing among themselves with a social credit system like ESGs, so that they create and consolidate all the wealth in
	And when they have the control, then they just transition into socialism overnight.
	It's almost like a Great Reset.
	This is what we are fed.
	Because it's no classless society.
	It's a state that won't wither away.
	Well, this is the point that Michael Buchanan once made about the dictatorship of the proletariat.
	If the proletariat, as a class, because they aren't corrupted by property, as Marx and Engels said, are innately virtuous, why, if they took over society and made a dictatorship, would you need to dismantle the dictatorship to make it utopia?
	Aren't we just being governed by all of the good proletariat?
	So, therefore, either it's a dictatorship over the proletariat, and therefore it's immoral, or it's a good totalitarian government that we all have to abide by forever and ever.
	And that's how they see themselves.
	They see themselves as super virtuous.
	They're doing the right thing, guys.
	Don't worry, you'll own nothing and you'll be happy.
	This shows a really schizoid approach to power.
	On the one hand, they say that they don't like power.
	It's inherently corrupting.
	And we need the very virtuous people who are going to be like Frodo and the ring.
	Yes.
	Yeah, exactly.
	That Frodo is going to throw the ring to Mordor.
	But I think that Lord Acton said that absolute power corrupts.
	Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts.
	Absolutely.
	It's not a ring that we just throw it and get done with it.
	Yeah, Klaus Schwab also does look like Gothmog, the weird orc that leads the assault on Osgiliath, and then Minas Tirith as well, with a big puffy face.
	So does Greta Thunberg, funny enough.
	Anyway, moving on.
	So, where did we get the idea they wanted population control?
	Where would that conspiracy theory go on, right?
	So, they did a fact-check to Elon Musk and Wall Street Silver.
	So, if we scroll up, please.
	Wall Street Silver tweeted out the World Economic Forum's depopulation agenda.
	Quote, all problems would go away if population went back to where it was 500 years ago.
	And they're referencing Jane Goodall, the primatologist who was at the World Economic Forum a couple of years ago.
	Let's just listen to the clip, shall we?
	We cannot hide away from human population growth.
	Because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems.
	All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there was the size of population growth.
	Okay, so where are all those people going to go that have come about in the last 500 years?
	Interesting question.
	You first, love, you look like you're on death's door.
	So then Elon Musk replied to this, saying, this is the philosophy of the death of humanity.
	Fact check, true.
	It's misanthropic.
	And the World Economic Forum's Twitter account replied to Elon Musk saying, you might want to read this before reacting to something that's been circulated widely by pandemic conspiracy theorists.
	How interesting is that framing, again, of the fact check?
	It's very disingenuous.
	Because if we go to the PolitiFact article, it says, Jane Goodall's comment about population growth at the World Economic Forum show COVID-19 pandemic was planned.
	And that says, pants on fire.
	Fact check, untrue.
	Where did anyone in the original video or the tweets say that Jane Goodall had accused or betrayed the true agenda behind the World Economic Forum as creating COVID to depopulate the planet?
	She didn't.
	Because they didn't.
	Remember YouTube?
	We aren't saying that.
	It's a conspiracy theory.
	But she did say she wanted less people.
	So they're jumping in with a disingenuous fact check, like in the original article, to stigmatize you with the worst kind of straw man so they can dismantle you.
	But what she actually said was she wanted less people on the planet.
	So they're trying to gaslight you into thinking they don't have dark designs for you.
	So where is all this going?
	Let's wrap this up, shall we?
	So if you want to go and take a look at what ESGs do, their social credit system for scoring businesses, and their consumers for icing you out, if you want to look at what Blackrop's up to, if you want to look at how our entire economy is founded on debt, ideological promises, and pointless jobs in HR that make childless millennials feel happy, you can watch this free video on the website that came out yesterday, which is our Wiley Coyote Economy.
	The analogy is basically that we, at the moment, are like when Wile E. Coyote runs off the cliff, and the roadrunner's going like this, and then he doesn't realize that he needs to fall down until he looks down, because most people have not noticed there's going to be a great collapse yet.
	And I think they're right.
	There is going to be a great reset, but we need to wield it to our own advantage.
	And part of this, as we said before, is the ability to have everything equitable, everything divisible, everything renewable.
	And there's the ideology obsessed with extricating human activity from the planet in order to maximally consume but have minimal resource expenditure.
	So you don't feel guilty, you don't have this guilt complex about damaging the planet, but you can satiate all the urges you want, completely material, void of responsibilities and transcendence and things like that.
	And their favourite pop anthropologist, terrible historian, Yuval Nova Harari, has said that human beings are going to need to learn to walk again because of how long we spent time plugged into the metaverse.
	Now, just to round off on the idea that the World Economic Forum are global communists, or they want to depopulate or anything, or they want to take your property, Yuval Nova Harari said in 2020 in his opening speech at the WEF that there is no shortage for candidates for the new digital Stalinist.
	And he's saying we're going to spend so much time plugged into that matrix that we're going to forget to learn how to walk.
	So I wouldn't be gaslit if I were you when the agenda comes up this week.
	You're going to see a lot of articles coming out pretending they're going to be benign.
	Don't be tricked into being subdued as some sort of materially satiated, infantilized adult.
	Push back.
	They are the enemy.
	And we'll keep the updates coming as their conference goes on.
	Okay, let's move to our next topic.
	For about 20 years before he became famous, Jordan Peterson was a practicing clinical psychologist.
	No one complained against him.
	His record of professional conduct was and remains unblemished.
	But ever since he rose to prominence, many accusations have been levered against him and many have tried to silence him.
	And we may say that it is obviously political.
	Now lately he was asked by the OCP, the Ontario College of Psychologists to undergo media re-education training.
	Now, what is at stake here?
	If Peterson does not undergo social media re-education training, he risks losing his license.
	But before we say more about this, why not visit our website, lotuseeaters.com, and check out the latest video of the Contemplation series, number 106, called Developments that Benefit Humanity.
	Well, Josh and I had a chat about the best stories of 2022 because we have quite a bleak job.
	Josh is our resident psychologist, of course, so he has a lot of truck with Dr.
	Peterson, as do I. And I'm sure Dr.
	Peterson feels a bit put upon, given how badly he's been persecuted and how close he has been to the fire since coming out of his illness during the pandemic from his benzodiazepine withdrawals.
	And he's woken up to see a world that's gone completely and utterly mad.
	And so we thought to sort of cleanse ourselves of all the misery sometimes it takes reading headlines.
	We'll talk about some of the positive technological developments that happened last year.
	So, sure, the world might be being taken over by nefarious unelected communists, but hey, there's at least a chance for us to counter-capture the technology and have a cleaner, freer, greener world.
	And see what you think.
	Sign up for five quid.
	Okay, back to our topic.
	About a week and a half ago, on the 3rd of January of 2023, Jordan Peterson was ordered to undergo compulsory social media training.
	The OCP Ontario College of Psychologists is a body that oversees practicing psychologists in Ontario in order to protect patients from professional misconduct.
	Specific accusations were made about Jordan Peterson's behavior on Twitter, and particularly on one of his appearances at the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Number 1769.
	So Peterson has decided to launch the legal challenge against OCP. On his Twitter feed, Jordan Peterson uploaded the following document.
	If we look at page 3, we will see details, a section saying details of complaint.
	Down a bit.
	Up a bit.
	Okay, section C says Peterson encouraged people to commit suicide on Twitter.
	If we go down to page 4, the accuser writes, To whom it may concern, it is against every ethical standard and best practice of the U.S. National Association of Social Workers' Code of Ethics to make light of, encourage, joke about or reference the topic of suicide in a manner that is not grounded in safety, prevention and evidence-based therapeutic intervention.
	I'm sure that Canada's standards of professional psychology social work are similar.
	I'm submitting a formal complaint, not only for Jordan Peterson's original tweet, but for the fact that he just shared it again, promoting the idea that what he did was perfectly fine.
	Now, Connor, I would like you to comment a bit on this, because it seems that this person is not familiar with the Canadian Code of Ethics when it comes to clinical psychologists and appeals to the US National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics.
	Now, the reason I'm asking for this is because this person is supposed to be one of Jordan Peterson's ex-patients.
	Jordan Peterson denies this, but the person who filed this accusation said that she was his ex-patient.
	That's interesting, because, so Jordan did actually practice, I believe, I'm happy to be corrected, his clinical practice while he was teaching in Harvard when he was living in the US, and obviously he gave his massive meaning lectures from the time teaching at Harvard, so we know he was there for a substantial amount of time.
	But the interesting thing is as well that Jordan has had some nutcase patients in the past and I think it was last year when he did an interview where he said that he went through quite a harrowing experience with a sort of faux show trial about his psychological malpractice before.
	Because one female client who is having trouble with her relationships, clearly had some form of sexual malady, accused him of trying to sleep with her because while he was listening to her story, he was fiddling with his wedding ring, which you notice he does plenty when he looks down and is thinking through things.
	It's a tick.
	So I wouldn't be shocked if this is just another delusional person because usually psychologists do attract the mentally ill.
	Yeah, this seems to me like one of those weird apps with a dating advice where people read the tips for dating and they suddenly think every woman is in love with them.
	Oh yeah, he's obviously subliminally messaging that you really fancy.
	Look, Dr Peterson, I understand it.
	Women fire themselves out of the cannon all the time.
	It's really difficult.
	I sympathize, sir.
	So I hope you handle this really well and with the utmost of professionalism.
	Yeah.
	So further bizarre complaints have been made.
	If we go to the next link on National Post...
	If we scroll down a bit.
	Yeah, this is read Jordan Peterson's tweets that prompted complaints to Psychologist College.
	So I will read some part of it.
	It says, as a psychologist, an accuser says, I am appalled by Dr.
	Peterson's behaviour and the impunity with which he feels that he can pontificate on areas well outside his competence.
	One complainant wrote.
	Right, but he's a citizen of Canada, so he's more than welcome to criticise Justin Trudeau.
	Yeah.
	But the thing is that it's not only Justin Trudeau that he criticizes, and I think he's right in criticizing him.
	The thing is that Peterson is well-read, and he's talking about many issues simultaneously.
	And we could tie this with the idea of a disinformation tactic that we were talking about before.
	Because there are people who disagree with him and they want to play the expert card against him.
	And they want to pose as experts and to say, no, I'm the expert.
	Peterson, you shouldn't talk about it.
	And they are trying to move against him in such a way.
	And this continues.
	He is embarrassing to an undermining of the profession, the complainant wrote.
	Adding that Peterson's appearance of the podcast also raises concerns about Peterson's mental health.
	Wow, that's unbelievable gaslighting.
	Also, I'm pretty sure that Josh would agree with me that you're not meant to be armchair psychologising someone.
	That's far outside the boundaries of the discipline.
	So, if they're trying to say, oh, he discredits my profession as a psychologist because I am the objective progenitor of all truth.
	By the way, he's mentally ill for saying this thing.
	Well, you've gone beyond the boundaries of ethical practice as well.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, because the whole idea is that this mental illness in the circles of psychologists is not supposed to be something bad.
	So this person is using this as an accusation against Jordan Peterson.
	That's actually a very valid point as well.
	It's not just that you shouldn't be diagnosing through a screen because they're not in front of you.
	They're not giving authentic testimony.
	It's also that you are stigmatizing the very thing that you're meant to be alleviating.
	That's very perceptive.
	Yes, and...
	Unsurprisingly, this person was anonymous.
	He's just an anonymous complainant.
	Yes.
	A keyboard warrior never showing his or her face.
	And then it continues.
	There is ample evidence in the hour I reviewed of his being disinhibited Tangential, circumlocutory and grandiose, the complaint said.
	I have spent many an hour with unwell clients and if any of them had made these statements, I would have been speaking with their psychiatrist about their stability and the need for potential admission.
	Okay, thank you for the projection just because he uses big words you don't necessarily understand.
	He's very well educated and they just might be the words that come to mind at the time.
	And these are weird words to use as accusations, like tangential.
	Is that a sign of mental health?
	But also, if you're accusing him of being too verbose, why did you pull out a thesaurus to find every circumlocutory word that you could think of?
	Disinhibited, tangential, circumlocutory and grandiose.
	And I think that, interestingly, this is an instance of psychologists now over-diagnosing things.
	Everything has become a syndrome because we are not supposed to be active agents anymore.
	We're supposed to be mere recipients of goods.
	Passive consumers.
	Passive consumers.
	And everything has become a condition.
	No, this is my condition.
	Let me tell you my story.
	Yeah, everyone gets a flag.
	Yeah.
	So, Jordan Peterson writes an article with the title, I will risk my license to escape social media re-education.
	I think very prudently, wisely, he denies this.
	Yes.
	And also, he doesn't really have time to practice anymore.
	I don't even believe he lives in Canada anymore because he's working for Daily Wire.
	I don't think his studio is still in Canada.
	I think he's moved out there.
	Yeah.
	I'm not saying that he's willing to lose his license because he doesn't need to practice anymore, because of course he still deserves to retain it.
	But it is good that he's standing on principle, because I also wouldn't want to be part of this club if this is where the discipline is going.
	It's the reason that he stopped teaching, for example.
	Yes, and I think that he's very conscientious and he stopped counseling when he became famous because he said that he doesn't have the time that is required to do this.
	So he seems very conscientious.
	Anyway, so in this article he writes, for my crimes I have been sentenced to a course of mandatory social media communication training with the college's so-called experts.
	Although social media communication training is not a scientific and certainly not a clinical specialty of any standing, I am to do this at my own expense, some hundreds of dollars per hour, and for a length of time that is to be determined only by those retraining me and profiting from doing so.
	How will this be determined when those very re-educators, those experts, have convinced themselves that I have learned my lesson and will behave properly in the future?
	I guarantee it's going to be an implicit association test, which the creators, other than Mazrin Banerjee, who I think is an open Marxist, have come out and said, yeah, you're not meant to be using it to test unconscious bias because it's not a replicable test.
	It basically tests reaction time.
	If you can do it each successive time and get better results, it doesn't iterate over time the results.
	Therefore, it's not a valid psychological assessment method.
	But they're still going to use it anyway on a psychologist because he's tweeting wrong things.
	Yeah, and the thing is that it's at his own expense.
	They always want money.
	Yeah, you have to pay your tithe to the institution of the church.
	Yeah, and also, but the interesting thing though, and that he does a really great job of pointing this out, is that it is an open-ended test.
	It is supposed to be, you know, you will undergo this training until further notice.
	And when is further notice?
	When we decided it.
	And when will we decide when it's time for further notice?
	When we will basically have asserted our right over you.
	Yeah, it's the same as the party struggling with Winston in 1984, forcing him to say, like, two and two make five.
	But not just to say it, but to fully believe it, to abolish your own critical thinking capacity and accept the party.
	And of course he understands this and continues.
	If I agree to this, then I must admit that I have been unprofessional in my conduct, and to have that noted publicly, even as the College insists that I'm not required to admit to any wrongdoing.
	If I refuse, and I have of course refused, the next step is mandatory public disciplinary session inquiry and the possible suspension of my clinical license, all of which will be also announced publicly.
	He's doing more good though, specifically for young men psychologically, by just speaking to audiences.
	So again, I totally understand he wants to retain the title he has earned as doctor.
	I don't think that would be stripped from him if he's a practicing academic.
	But his entitlement to practice as a clinical psychologist, he deserves to retain that.
	But it's not like he won't still be doing good.
	At least there is that.
	No, he will definitely be doing good and if he continues doing what he does.
	And I think that this is a symbolic effort to dishonorably discharge him from the guild, if you would like, of clinical psychologists.
	Excommunication from the priestly class.
	Yeah.
	And the thing is that, the point is that if he accepts this, and this is very correct, he will lose part of his appeal to his audience, Because if he does this, he will be accepting the power of those social media experts, those alleged social media experts who are basically woke cardiologs, over him.
	And I think that they're trying to basically, this is a defamation effort, and they're basically trying to make him lose his appeal to his own audience.
	Yeah, what it is, and it's funny because he said years ago to Kathy Griffin, there is an ideological indistinguishability between the Maoists and the modern trans activists.
	Man was that prescient, because this is like marching the counter-revolutionary intelligentsia through the streets and whipping them and putting them for a struggle session until they say Mao is the greatest.
	And even then, you will not receive forgiveness.
	So, next link...
	A petition goes on with a title, Release Jordan Peterson from his re-education sentence.
	Now, at the end, if this petition reaches 25,000 signatures, we will physically mail it to the college office.
	It has already collected around 46,000.
	Now that I click on it, it says here 46,159.
	Solid.
	Yeah.
	Okay, now, next link.
	Please.
	We have this article and it says here, if we scroll down a bit, Garnet Janui, a Conservative member of Parliament from Edmonton, is trying to do something about it.
	He has tabled a bill to add political belief and activity as a protected category to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
	That's right.
	Just keep expanding civil rights protections.
	Yeah, that's great.
	Just keep expanding the purview of the state.
	No, just institute a free speech bill and don't allow anyone to persecute you off the grounds of that.
	Stop adding intersecting identities as to what the state can pick and choose.
	It's annoying.
	And he continues, while the act prohibits discrimination on the basis of the usual human rights grounds, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, disability and four other common grounds, It is totally silent about political belief and activity.
	Now, so sorry, it's just frustrating to me that that you're going to do the turtles all the way down approach of protecting all the identities.
	You don't have a human right to be protected from discrimination or offense.
	You don't.
	Nature is very discriminating.
	It won't provide you an abundance of food.
	If you're out in the wilderness, you can scream at the sky and nobody's going to censor you.
	But if you feel oppressed by nature, deal with it.
	And I know it's futile telling the Canadian government to stop being progressive, but if you want to help, repeal the legislation or create a concerted effort to do so.
	Don't just add more legislation on top of it.
	This is the statist's dream.
	And despite the fact that he calls himself a conservative member of parliament, this is the dream of the statist.
	It says that, let me have more power as the state, so I will solve the problems that I created in the first place.
	I met and spoke to, at COP26, the Canadian shadow energy minister.
	He was a really nice guy, former jiu-jitsu expert, like, actually cool.
	And then on his phone, the screenshot was his vaccine passport, and he wouldn't shut up about it.
	And it's just like, oh, okay, right, this is why the Canadians are in such a sticky, wicked spot.
	Because you are limp-wristed in opposition.
	You're just a nodding dog going along with everything Trudeau says.
	So next link, let us have a look at the link that was in a sense what caused it.
	So Jordan Peterson initially wrote a tweet Where he shared an article that predicted that the world population is going to peak at 9.5 billion.
	And this person, Roger Palfrey, responded to that article and he said, I disagree.
	Based on the record of human behavior, we're already overpopulating this small world.
	Any arguments I have heard for supporting such a large human population completely overlook the huge loss of species and ecosystems resulting from our self-absorbed attention.
	And Jordan Peterson responds to Roger Palfrey, you're free to leave at any point.
	What is the use of talking from the position in a moral system from the position of the universe, which is apathetic to our existence?
	We can only talk from human-centric perspectives.
	So yes, we are the predominant species on this planet.
	Yes, we should have a form of ecological balance that allows us to exist sustainably and conserve the environment, not just because it's beautiful, but because we do have to rely on it.
	But that doesn't mean that we value some fledgling bird species, its last remaining members, over saving many infant lives as mortality has been raised because of the Industrial Revolution, right?
	And then the frustration with the climate cultists, for me, having encountered so bloody many of them at this point, is they just sound like Islamists.
	They sound like a radical preacher who's saying, hey young man, go and strap C-40 to your vest and blow yourself up and you'll get 72 virgins.
	And it's like, right, how have you made it to like 70 sitting in a cave and you haven't done that if it's so good?
	Why don't you go first?
	Why don't you test it out and we'll see how it works out for you?
	Oh, you don't because you don't want to blow yourself up and die?
	Same reason for all this lot that don't want to kill themselves to reduce carbon emissions.
	Yeah.
	And the thing is, if you see Roger Palfrey says, I disagree, what he disagreed with the original tweet by Jordan Peterson was Jordan Peterson's claim that population on its own is not the problem.
	The problem is how we structure societies.
	And this person says, you know, I disagree.
	It's not this.
	And I'm really...
	You know, it's really funny that he's talking about self-absorbed attention.
	That seems to me to says it all, that this person just wants to say, no, no, we are a scourge on planet Earth.
	And exactly what you said, I agree with you completely.
	Jordan Peterson just tells this person, practice as you preach.
	If you don't practice as you preach, maybe you're a hypocrite.
	Or, you know, you should be willing to be the change you want to see in the world instead of trying to get other people to do something that you want.
	So, next tweet.
	At some point, the interim Otawa police chief says he's working with social services and freedom convoy protesters to have children removed from the area prior to any sort of police action.
	So what Jordan Peterson says here is he's trying to ask some things.
	He says, children removed.
	How exactly?
	Why exactly?
	By whom exactly?
	Sent to where exactly?
	And for how long exactly?
	Think this through Canadians.
	This is a bad decision.
	Now, to me, this seems to me like the Lockean claim that citizens have an active duty to criticize power and speak truth to it.
	And he's just asking questions.
	It's also the admission, the statement of intent, a threat by the police department to say, if you don't stop occupying our roads and honking your horns in protest over our vaccine mandates, then we will do something violent to come in and crack you up, and we don't want your children getting in the way of us persecuting you.
	Now, I don't think people should be taking their children to protests anyway.
	I understand childcare is difficult, but it's just dangerous because crackpots like this do run the government.
	If you're protesting against the government, you will put your children in harm's way.
	But Peterson is pointing out exactly that they are showing ambivalence to your children's well-being because if they're going to suppress you, where exactly are they going to take your kids?
	Do you trust your kids being in a government's hands rather than your own?
	Definitely not.
	And this should be any right-thinking person's questions.
	But instead he's being persecuted for raising these kind of issues.
	He is raising them because people are surprisingly docile and gullible, unfortunately.
	And this is taken advantage of everywhere.
	So basically, they have this tendency to think that whenever people, government officials tell them something, that this is already well worked.
	Yeah.
	So he's just asking, is this actually a good idea?
	Have you thought this through?
	So next link, if we...
	Yes, so this is basically what started it all.
	I think that we can assume this safely.
	So Justin Trudeau says, Canadians have the right to protest, to disagree with our government, and to make their voices heard.
	We'll always protect that right.
	But let's be clear, they don't have the right to blockade our economy or our democracy or our fellow citizens' daily lives.
	It has to stop.
	And Jordan Peterson tweets back, then stop, pop it.
	Now, what's your endgame, Justin Trudeau?
	Lay it out.
	This seems to me to be really interesting because in a very short exchange, we see Justin Trudeau pretending to be a Democrat, but on the other hand, being completely unable to handle dialogue.
	So these are the main tweets.
	And let's go to the fourth one.
	Next one, this is a tweet that he wrote.
	I remember this one, yes.
	So if we look at the tweet, this is an overweight model.
	And it's Yumi Nu shaking over SI swimsuit cover.
	And just Jordan Peterson says, sorry, not beautiful.
	And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.
	Yeah, they're gaslighting you into changing your beauty standards to something that isn't very conducive to lifelong health or fertility.
	And don't get me wrong, the girl's pretty in the face, but she'd look a lot better if she lost some weight.
	So basically, it was these four tweets and some others, but these were the main four tweets and his being tangential at the Joe Rogan Experience podcast that were particularly scandalous and had people accusing him.
	So...
	I think that he's correct and that he shouldn't not even...
	I think at some point he was tempted to undergo this because he asked the COP if they are willing to do the training with a camera so that people could watch.
	So I think that this is a kind of temptation that he should resist.
	I think perhaps he was going to do some of it and then when it got really ridiculous he walks out anyway and he still has the footage.
	Yeah, I mean, that could be the case, but I think that this is a purely symbolic approach to, let's say, say bad things about him.
	And I think that he shouldn't accept it because accepting it would be like accepting the authority of the social media within quotation mark experts.
	Yes.
	So that was it.
	Fantastic.
	Alright, let's get on to the really demoralizing fact that everything you love has been turned queer now.
	And that's not my words, by the way.
	That's the words of a group of TV, film, and comic book executives who sat for a chat with the Writers Guild of America, West, about how they're queerwashing all of your favorite characters and about how your concerns as fans don't matter.
	They don't need your money, apparently, because it's profitable on its own.
	Even though they need your money for it to be profitable...
	I'm sure we'll unpack it all.
	If there's any doubt on my love for this material, you can go over to our website, pay a fiver a month.
	There's also some preview clips on our YouTube to tantalise you.
	You can watch a series called Comics Corner, where Harry and I go through some of the best and worst that American and eventually maybe some manga has to offer.
	This one was on the history of the comics industry in the 1990s, where they had really outlandish and extreme comics, and they overprinted variant comics and caused a market crash.
	And it's looked back on as a time of Of hackery and gimmicks and being creatively bereft.
	And God, I wouldn't give anything to go back there now because things are awful.
	As you've already seen with Pregnant Joker.
	Yeah.
	I am miserable.
	Now, bear in mind, the 1990s when Batman and Robin came out as well.
	So the movies were actually still somehow slightly better than the tripe we're getting at the moment with Wakanda forever.
	So if you don't know what I'm talking about in terms of the Zoom call, it's up on YouTube.
	And it hasn't been taken too kindly, as we can see with the dislike bar.
	The 12 likes, 379 dislikes.
	The comments are a little hostile.
	Oh, it must be popular.
	They must be popular.
	People seem to want them.
	Yeah, but they're right.
	They certainly are a minority.
	People have basically said this is a seminar on how to lose your job.
	And unfortunately, that's not true, because they're going to stay there no matter what, mainly because of ESG scores, but because of the ideological insistence on perverting everything you enjoyed in your childhood and in your adulthood.
	Bear in mind, folks like me, I paid throughout my life to buy back issues of the comics, I didn't buy these clowns, so that the company could make enough money so that they could come in and inherit the characters that me and other fans have made successful and other creators have made really good, and then pervert it and get paid doing so, and call us racist for not liking it.
	So what I'm going to do is I'm going to subject you to a struggle session of a few clips.
	Now, this panel involves a few people.
	I'll just run down.
	So it's Magdalene Visaggio, who's a trans-democratic socialist of America and GLAAD member who writes for Marvel, DC, and Boom Studios.
	The head of TV at DC Entertainment, Kim Roberto, who says some very, very revelatory things during the course of this.
	James Tinney IV, who is the recent writer of Batman Eternal, Detective Comics, Batman and Robin Eternal, and the mainline Batman title until he went off to do his own thing.
	So he's no small creator, right?
	Thomas Page Maccabee, the showrunner on Umbrella Academy, which I don't know if you've seen it by any chance.
	They had Ellen Page, formerly a lesbian woman, become Elliot Page in their personal life, a trans man.
	And they were playing Vanya, who was a lesbian character in season one and two.
	And then 12 days before the script hit the tables and they had to start filming, they had to change the character to make sure they showcased his trans journey to Victor.
	It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that I would enjoy watching.
	It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that I would enjoy watching.
	You would think that, but then you're a transphobe.
	You would think that, but then you're a transphobe.
	So it's not made for you, Stelios.
	So it's not made for you, Stelios.
	It's made for them to represent themselves.
	It's made for them to represent themselves.
	It's made for normal people.
	It's made for normal people.
	How dare you?
	How dare you?
	How could you?
	How could you?
	Roberto Aguari-Sacasa is the chief creative officer at Archie Comics and the showrunner on Riverdale.
	And then David Sigouari, executive vice president, film and television at Aftershock Media, formerly of the Trevor Project.
	Who have done all sorts of sordid research.
	By the way, Sir Kazza, he spent his pre-comics career writing plays about Satanism.
	And he revised The Tempest to make Caliban the hero.
	So typical subversive stuff.
	So we're going to watch a few clips.
	And the first one I wanted to focus on is, really, why is the teleology of art and representation?
	Because we hear representation a lot.
	Why are you actually representing about a character?
	Especially if a character passes hands, like a Shakespeare play, or like American comic books, which is the secular monomyth of America.
	It survived the Second World War, the Cold War, and it reflects how Americans think of themselves.
	What actually is the essence of artistic representation?
	So I think we'll listen to Kim articulate this, and we'll see if we agree with her, shall we?
	Who wants to answer, if you are reimagining a straight cis comic book character into a queer trans character, how do you navigate the balance of being true to the IP while also making the LGBTQ identity a genuine aspect of the character?
	We always look at core immutables.
	I don't know if that's one of your favorite phrases, David, working in comics, but for us over at DC, core immutables mean, like, what makes the character tick?
	What makes them who they are?
	And we've never felt that it had to do with what they necessarily look like.
	It has to do with their emotions and what they're going through, their journey, their struggle.
	So it's nothing to do with their physical form.
	It's nothing necessarily to do with their name.
	It's all to do with how they feel inside.
	Which is supposed to be a core immutable.
	Yeah.
	So their emotions are the only thing authentic to them.
	It's nothing to do with their externalities.
	It's nothing to do with how they represent in the world, which seems to undermine the representation argument, because if something physical matters, you need to see it to be it, then that would be a core immutable character.
	But it's only for identity that they like, of course.
	But then you come back to the sort of Gnostic mystic argument that the trans activists had of I have the soul of a woman imprisoned in a man's body and therefore it is actually a good and noble thing to upend the culture like comics or upend material reality and biological reality itself as a revolutionary enemy in order to liberate my authentic soul.
	So, it sounds very much like, and we spoke about this on the fair, not the Aristotelian conception of art, with physical realities abstracted one thing away from reality, so you can recognise it, but it's a testing ground for ideas, so they die so we don't have to, right?
	And you get the catharsis of tragedy, the levity and replicability of comedy, and the factualness of historical epics.
	Nothing to do with that.
	It's the world of forms.
	You were a woman in the world of forms.
	That's your lived reality.
	That's your soul.
	You've been imprisoned in this material form, and then art is abstracted a form away from the form, so it's an extra imposition on you.
	It's unjust.
	So if we liberate you in art, you can understand how to liberate yourself in the real world and achieve the form of woman, even though you were born as a man.
	Okay, so...
	I think this is completely messed up.
	Right.
	And I don't know if we're over-analyzing it.
	I think it's worthwhile to unpack the actual ideas behind what they're saying because when you take it to its logical conclusion, it doesn't make sense.
	And so the contradictions expose this is just a naked power grab, which they do admit later on.
	Yeah.
	So, okay.
	So if that is what they're trying to do, they're completely misguided because, for instance, for Plato, the soul is genderless.
	So it doesn't help them if they're going to appeal to the gender of the soul.
	Yes, I think the idea is what you said about the authentic self.
	They think that there is a distinction between the authentic self and the perceived self.
	And the worst thing is that they're trying to present themselves as moral authorities and authorities over what is the authentic self supposed to be about.
	So what they're trying to do, I think they're trying to do it when it comes to schooling.
	And tell me if you think that this is a wild guess that is inapplicable here.
	They're trying to pose to say that I know what you really are.
	Your parents don't know, you may not know, and I'm going to create the whole system of education and possibly art, of artistic representation, as being a kind of message that I'm giving to you about who you are.
	That makes perfect sense as well because lots of these people started out in young adult fiction like Beast Boy Loves Raven or I Am Not Starfire or Gotham Academy or...
	Oh, what's the other one?
	I can't remember.
	It's one about Aqualad being gay.
	And that is how they get into comics and they take over the lead titles and subvert them with an effort called 5G where suddenly there's non-binary Flash, Bisexual Brazilian Wonder Woman.
	Eventually, bisexual Superman.
	Non-binary...
	Sorry, female Aqua Girl.
	And it's just...
	Nobody's...
	Black Batman.
	Nobody's buying this stuff.
	But it is reinforcing the narrative.
	And a lot of the time, they're subsidized by scholastic book fairs.
	That's something that Marvel did.
	They had this thing called...
	Devil, Dinosaur and Moon Girl.
	Nobody bought it.
	They did sell it to the libraries that go around to the schools and give out books and make sure they're sold in there.
	So they are pushing it in educational institutions.
	Exactly.
	It is a top-down, a forced, top-down message.
	And it's not coincidental that they are using characters, comic characters like the Joker.
	Yeah.
	Or Batman and Superman.
	I think last time I checked, Helen Page wants to star as Superman.
	Elliot Page, we have to say.
	We can't dead name.
	They may be starring as John Kent, who is a young bisexual Superman who takes over from his father, who is being turned into a fascist slowly, which is really miserable.
	And they may not confirm or deny that this is actually happening in this Zoom call.
	Oh dear.
	Right, so we've exposed it as a naked power grab because of its contradictions, and then they just come out and say that.
	So we've got a couple of clips here.
	So let's go through first how the cycle of media indoctrination works from the mouths of the creative.
	Let's play.
	On the Outfest side, as the largest LGBTQIA film festival, one of the programmers the other day was talking to us about the cycle of trans and queer narratives and how first they need to be tragic.
	So again, we can have empathy with the larger public and, you know, we have our HIV stories and all these things that have already happened.
	And then they turn into comedy and sort of that best friend character or what have you and their supporting character, the main character.
	And then we go into the normalization that Mags was talking about.
	And I think what we need to see is in that period we get so many coming out stories.
	I think every coming out story, right, has probably been told or we've seen different angles on it.
	What we need is actually fully realized, lived in trans and queer characters, that their sexuality, that their gender identity is not their only character trait, but that they have a dimensional realized life and they live in a life in which they have family members and friends and lovers and they're messy and they're tragic and they're weird.
	And I think we need to see that in space.
	We need to see that in the Wild West.
	We need to see that in our time.
	I think we just need more of celebrating queerness and transness in a way that has not been done because we've been relegated to needing to speak on the parts that make it relatable to other people.
	And at this point, we don't need to be relatable anymore.
	We can just exist.
	There's a few things about that.
	So, first of all, we get the genealogy of how, let's say in the 90s, for example, loads of sitcoms like Friends and Will& Grace had lots of gay characters, and they were the likeable ones, they were the funny ones, they had some tragic dimensions, so you could really sympathise, because they were just like you, right?
	The crux of Ellen DeGeneres' coming out piece in time to make her seem really relatable.
	Then we see it move into, we need to capture existing properties, and then retroactively insert throughout history all of our characters to make it seem normal.
	This is why Marie Antoinette now is having this new series on BBC where she's a lesbian, and same with the favourite about the queens in the Georgian period, about them getting it on and all this...
	Painful nonsense where the root of it is just their sexuality.
	It's not a compelling story necessarily.
	And that achieves total capture and dominance.
	And it's openly manipulative because they want to confect sympathy on the part of an aggrieved group.
	That's the starting point.
	And it's sad because it retroactively colours stories like Life is Strange, which I really like.
	They try and co-op that, even though it's a really good story, into their project of making you feel bad for this group.
	But then when it becomes normalised, then when they say, oh, what everyone actually would say if it was a gay character, for example, if you created a new gay character, let's just have them have a family and a central conflict and be a complete human, right?
	What they're saying is, not just have them in the story and be a complete character, where it's not just about their sexuality, have the majority of characters, as James Tinian says later in here, he says, I want there to be not just a trans villain, but a trans hero also battling a trans villain.
	So it becomes ubiquitous and completely captured, and it becomes...
	The norm.
	And so, by doing that, rather than supplanting sympathy for their condition, you've now turned it into, we're going to start from the premise they have to be queer, trans, gay, etc.
	So that is actually the heroic virtue, rather than their actions, that undergird their heroism.
	But, definitely not their villainy, because the villains we have to sympathise with, right?
	Joker was just cursed to be pregnant.
	Oh, what a sad fate befalling him.
	I identify more with the villains, which is actually something that the women of Marvel said in a podcast, which is explaining a lot, really.
	So, if we move on to the next clip...
	Can I have a comment about representation that you said?
	Yeah, go for it, please.
	It's interesting that they're trying to overpopulate...
	Characters overpopulate the characters of a comic with, you know, LGBTQ plus characters.
	And they phrase it in terms of representation.
	But members of this community are not the majority of the members of the population.
	Yes, it's not proportionate, yes.
	It's not proportionate.
	So how are they going to...
	They're not representing, they are over-representing.
	They're manufacturing.
	Which is the creation of the perception of consent on behalf of an aggrieved group, which means that if they confect this, they can push for more political power and the eternal provision of jobs in these captured institutions so they can keep confecting propaganda endlessly.
	And I have another question.
	Why not?
	Why don't they make a new comic with new characters that are whatever they want them to be?
	Because they don't sell.
	Nobody cares.
	Yeah.
	And actually, what happened was as well, once there was a Batgirl of Burnside comic, and they made an allusion to it being a trans villain.
	And in the comic, Batgirl tries to say, no, but you can't sign up to the women's talent show because the sound cuts are off, implying that it's a man.
	And because of transphobia, they had to rescind and reprint the comic and imply that, oh, you can't enter the talent show.
	You're just a bad singer.
	And then it turns out that there were some sexual assault allegations against the writer.
	But do you think that this will sell comparatively to other Batman novels?
	Absolutely not.
	So there's a really big question here and everyone in the economy should ask this.
	If businesses are run this way by people who are completely uncaring about what the majority of the people want and think and they are just trying to push an agenda, They will go broke.
	Maybe, you know, Marvel and DC are, you know, too big to fail.
	No, they're tanking entirely at the moment.
	DC is basically borderline cutting their publishing line.
	They've been bought a bunch of times.
	But they're already ESGs.
	So they're all going to get subsidies to keep pushing these narratives because...
	Your corporate credit score will go up if you keep putting the trans superheroes in, comrade.
	So the next clip is Thomas Page McBee on how to sustain this long march for the institutions.
	How can you keep the pressure up?
	Let's play.
	As a staff writer, you have very little power, right?
	So pick your battles and be really strategic and thoughtful about how you want to...
	to deal with that but just really try to pick your battles because what you really need is mental health and the capacity to have a like longevity in this industry and to kind of keep a sustained interest in what it sounds like you have which is like a genuine desire to disrupt this model
	that is systemically broken where the staff writer who represents the the marginalized group is the person least amount of power and then you're trying to convince people who are telling your stories or stories that relate to you that How to do that and they're not listening.
	That is a problem in so many different ways right now in rooms.
	And I think it's the way that you can really or the way we can all kind of get screwed by that is if we exhaust all our emotional energy trying to save someone else's story from their own failure of understanding and empathy.
	And so I think letting people fail is okay.
	I think I'm not saying your piece and having your own integrity and picking your battles, but really just trying to think about how do I sustain my own career?
	And how do I make sure that I resolve this issue going forward as I get higher and higher up?
	And as you get higher and higher up, you will have more and more of a say.
	So there is like a light at the end of the tunnel.
	But I know that's not like the sexiest advice, but it's really, for me, that's been my experience.
	Like you just, you pick your battles.
	And just don't exhaust yourself over other people's inability to listen to you.
	So he is openly admitting there that he will allow institutions and stories to fail as long as it advances his personal career, which is ideologically founded in, and as he said, emotions as his resource, expressing the authentic emotions of the character, which is their internal soul.
	So you are engaging in queer liberation theology in using the culture to strip people of their prejudices, I suppose they would say, that prevent them from being queer or trans or, well, I suppose you meant to be born this way.
	From being their true self.
	Exactly, yeah.
	And you don't want to exhaust your emotions.
	And so, like a group of ideological locusts, you will move from one cultural crop field to the next, deserting it of its money and seeing if it can just benefit you and your project.
	Why would you want to hire these people?
	And as they said in the previous video, and then we'll just be.
	Yeah.
	Then you'll reach the end of history.
	Let me just ask you, did you watch the whole of this video?
	I did, yeah.
	I subjected myself to 42 hours.
	I'm sincerely worried about your mental health.
	Thanks, mate.
	That's why I was so miserable yesterday.
	Yeah, it was horrendous to sit through.
	Hence why I had a stiff drink after work.
	So, as you can see, the very excited man on the right is James Tinian.
	He's the Batman writer, right?
	Ever since, Robin has become gay, Jace Fox has taken over as Batman of New York, and he's become black, and it's written by the 12 Years of Slave writer.
	And James Tinian openly admits to setting these things up in his Batman run, and DC themselves were impeding him because they were worried about profitability.
	So, DC actually does something right for once, dear God.
	They were just slow to getting there, right?
	To driving it off a cliff.
	But James Tinian has some very good insights in the dialectic of cultural transformation.
	It's very mask-off.
	Let's listen, because I think he might be correct.
	Comics in particular.
	I remember just a few years ago, some of the things that are happening right now, specifically DC Comics, would never have happened.
	Absolutely, absolutely not.
	I know because I was in the rooms where those ideas were shot down Like, in extreme ways.
	And seeing the people actually able to step forward with them is, like, really, really something.
	And I am, like, you know, that's the biggest thing that I want moving forward is just, like, I want to make sure we keep the ground we've taken.
	Like, because, you know, there are, we're going, you know...
	Knock on wood, we're all going to be around this industry for a very long time.
	And the goal is that during that time, the culture is going to swing like a pendulum from moments of conservative moments.
	And, like, very liberal moments.
	And we need, in the moments that the, you know, pendulum swings in a direction that is not in our favor, we need to make sure we hold on to the ground that we've taken.
	We need to make sure that we continue to support each other and make sure that we keep each other in this industry.
	And it's all about community.
	And that's one of the things that, frankly, the other side understands is that, like, these...
	You know, the reason some of these groups, these fan groups, feel like they're so, like, all-encompassing and all-powerful and can dominate the conversation is they've built these little communities where they, like, share and support their own ideas, and then they go out and then they torment people online.
	And it's just, like, we need to show that our community stands together as well in the face of that.
	So it's the admission that they are indifferent to the success of the product, but they're going to co-opt your hobby in stewarding all of society along the long arc which bends towards their redefinition of social justice.
	And if you kick up a fuss about that and say, hey, look, I've paid for all these comics so you can actually get a job, they will dismiss you as a toxic fan that they don't need to write for.
	And James Tinian IV, he, him, is actually playing the victimization card again.
	You know, the tide is against us.
	Yeah, I would kill to write for Batman.
	You're very privileged, my friend.
	And one interesting thing to note is about the guy on the top left, Eric Anthony Glover.
	Yes, he's the host in Asking Questions, yes.
	Yeah, but when James Tinian IV was talking about being in rooms, executive committees where his, let's say, ideas were shut down, the other guy does instantly this.
	So I think there's this performative behavior of sympathizing and empathizing with the other person's feelings.
	Yeah, it's like when the phrase the personalist political came out of group therapy sessions by the feminists.
	This is an open therapy session of them all patting each other on the back and saying, yes, we're destroying companies, yes, we're trashing people's hobbies, but aren't we good people?
	Yeah, but what you said, it's a therapy session.
	Now, if we combine this with the over-diagnosis coming from psychology, this is their dream of society.
	That's when they will achieve their goal of this is where we were going to just be.
	Yeah, we're all atomized, but we're all constantly sobbing about our own plights and our own emotional incontinence.
	And the only thing we share is not common culture or ideals or aspirations, but superficial identity.
	Yeah, the only thing that we share is our passivity.
	So we're going to now look at the fact that the open admission by Kim Roberto that retconning characters is a political act.
	Let's listen.
	As far as these iconic characters go, I think the more people speak up about the versions of the characters that they want to see, the more people listen at the top.
	I think it's a precarious sometimes political game we have to play when it comes to certain characters.
	I mean, I think there's There's still a lot of battles to be fought.
	But as far as toxic masculinity in our industry and fandom is concerned specifically, I think what I've come to find is that there's usually a very large or very vocal but small group of people that are the toxic ones.
	And I think the majority of fans and the majority of people consuming this media, they're good people.
	And I don't think that You know, they're as vocal.
	So I think if you are an ally, again, just like kind of use your voice and support.
	I think that's all you can really do.
	But we try not to, at least I try not to listen to the toxic minority that is like on Twitter.
	Oh, so now minorities are toxic.
	That's interesting.
	Thank you.
	So how does she get into the position that she's in?
	That's the important question.
	So she actually answers this with the next little bit we're going to be subjected to.
	Because they ask her, how do you convince straight people that run these companies?
	these because obviously everything's systemically queer phobic and transphobic to get green light and spend lots of money on these stories that don't seem to make any money and she says aha that's where you're on diverse content is actually really profitable guys let's roll the clip i have a fun thought on this i I mean, for me, I think...
	It's tough because you sometimes will feel like, I mean, just as an obstacle in and of itself, identity.
	Like sometimes you're in the room and you're not sure if you're the only queer person there.
	You're not sure if you have any allies.
	But for me, one of the things that I always love to do is cite my sources and bring Evan.
	So I love data.
	I love research.
	I mean, it all shows that diverse and inclusive content makes money.
	And I think to get a cishet person really invested, you sometimes have to go straight for the money and just show them that not only are these stories worth telling for obvious reasons that we are people and our lives and stories matter and are worth telling, But they're worth it in a financial sense.
	And I think that a lot of the times with these situations, you gotta hit them in the pocketbook.
	You gotta show them that it's a financially lucrative, smart endeavor.
	Such a great point, especially when, again, you were seeing toxic fandom sort of on the rise with Little Mermaid, with Star Wars, with everything sort of coming out of it.
	And I think part of what we're all doing and we're trying to put out in the world is...
	As queer people or people of color that are telling stories about our experiences, those stories will matter to someone.
	That representation will matter.
	I keep thinking about the TikToks of the young Black girls that are watching, you know, Haley B, Little Mermaid, and that's a huge deal for them.
	And that'll matter even with the trolls sort of bombing everything.
	And so the more we can put our stories out there and the more we can even center queer or trans I think that is important, even if sometimes they're not going to sell or they're not going to sort of be marketed the same way.
	I think just putting them out in the world is going to be meaningful in small ways that we might not even understand.
	Yeah, we can end that one there, John, if it didn't cut off.
	Before I was so rudely interrupted by these people, Kim Roberto is the woman that oversaw the cancellation of Batgirl, Legends of Tomorrow, which were relentlessly, disproportionately having gay relationships in them.
	again not necessarily a fault for the characters but it is a deliberate attempt to subvert on behalf of these people that just want ubiquitous quinn as they would say throughout every narrative even when it isn't organic and it doesn't respect the original characters so it's hilarious for her to say there oh i i have evidence that that these narratives make money even though she's overseeing the complete demolition of dc's tv department it's ridiculous
	She could just show the likes and dislikes of this video as an argument as to why it's popular.
	She would have to download the YouTube extension for that because, of course, YouTube have hidden the dislike bar, haven't they?
	So what ends up happening is, and we can skip the next clip, John, just because we're so short on time, but she then is asked, where do you get these resources?
	And she says, oh, glad.
	My team of researchers go out there and I give them a question to find the answer to.
	And she deliberately says, and oftentimes it's good for us because the data lines up with what we wanted to happen anyway.
	Right, you're in a cult.
	You're just confirmation bias.
	You are taking your framework, projecting it on the world, and cutting off all the evidence which doesn't fit.
	You're going to activist organizations, never trust an activist to solve a problem, and then just going, oh, this justifies the conclusion we already wanted.
	And that conclusion just so happens to be, I should get a job.
	This is just an ideology.
	It's just a means of performatively showing that, you know, I'm one of the good guys.
	I'm hip.
	Yeah.
	And she later turns around and says, oh, what we need actually is...
	Queer people not just in the writing room, we need them in the boardroom, we need them making executive decisions, and we need cishet people and allies to step aside and let us be the predominant voice in the room at this time, because we know our lived experience.
	Right, so you're saying, I want to step over people and cut the queue, and the fans that have been in this queue forever, like myself, who would love, dream of inheriting these characters and writing authentic stories from them, Who follow in the footsteps of Len Wein and Bernie Wrightson and Marv Wolfman and George Perez and all these brilliant people that steward these characters and made their own.
	No, I get to cut in line because I like women.
	I like women.
	I'm a woman.
	And so what I get is a job.
	I get a really high-paying job and I get to destroy your hobby for my own profit.
	And if you didn't like it, well, you're just a transphobe.
	It's your fault.
	I guess you've got to sit there and watch what I make until you accept it.
	Like Alex in Clockwork Orange with his eyes like...
	The workplace has become very tyrannical.
	Yes.
	Because let's think of it this way.
	We have many people who are competing.
	Yeah.
	Competition doesn't mean necessarily an eye for an eye.
	You know, it could be within particular standards.
	Yeah.
	to fill particular roles and they cannot compete on equal terms and they are playing the victim card afterwards and they are libeling the people who are more capable than them and that is how we end up with With companies having people in a program that literally say it doesn't care what the buyers...
	It matters not what buyers want.
	Yeah, it's a doctrine of entitlement and resentment.
	And if you have fabricated society as the cause why you're put upon and deserve the advantages, then all those buyers that reject you...
	are not people whose concerns you should listen to.
	They are affirmers of the hegemony which oppresses you and so they can be dismissed.
	Profitability be damned because we're on the right side of history.
	Doesn't matter.
	We need to make Batman as trans as possible until we finally get there.
	So, I wanted to skip directly, John, if you would, just to clip 10 and then we'll finish with clip 10 and 11 just because we're so short on time.
	Clip 10 demonstrates the effects of exactly what these people want and how ridiculous the infinite regression of identities will be in retconning characters.
	Let's go.
	We put all of our favorite, you know, teen queer characters right at the forefront of that strategy.
	And I can't speak to the specific characters just yet, but there are some really exciting things coming down the pipeline.
	And, you know, we do hear you.
	It's just hang in there a little bit longer and you'll see all the good stuff starting to trickle forth.
	What is your dream, Cishet Legacy comic book character, you hope to see queered up, see a queered up adaptation of?
	My dream was realized.
	I was in the 90s.
	It was all about Superboy and Robin being queer, and that was what all the fanfics were about.
	Roberto knows what I'm talking about, Thomas.
	Everybody's nodding, like, yes, you guys were all part of the same live journal communities as me.
	I got my queer bisexual superboy and I got my queer bisexual Tim Drake Robin.
	I got them both in the same year even.
	I'm ready to see a polyamorous relationship between Cyclops, Wolverine, and Jean Grey so that they can all...
	Can I please have that?
	Can they just be a thruple?
	Yes.
	I want that so bad.
	And we all know it's there in its subtext and I just want to...
	It's totally there.
	It's not there.
	I... The comic I read growing up most religiously was Wolverine because he seemed so trans in retrospect and I just don't know why the world doesn't understand this and I feel like it has to happen.
	Can we talk about how his OG height was 5'3"?
	That's what I'm saying.
	I'm here for this.
	Oh, I was going to say one, and this is for Kim if you want to take this back to work.
	I've always seen Poison Ivy as trans.
	Oh my god, that's genius.
	That just needs to happen.
	But also, I really want a trans lesbian action adventure story on Themyscira.
	I was like, that's really...
	Just you wait.
	Just you wait.
	Okay, great.
	Just you wait.
	We'll talk.
	The woman that's head of BCTV says, just you wait, about trans women going onto an all-female island, and that is expressed as a fantasy by the trans female writer.
	So, the trans female writer wants access to an island of exclusively women, and then the woman says, oh, all of my childhood fantasies about Robin and Superboy having sex, which, at the time in the 90s, they were young teenagers.
	Has now happened.
	So we are suffering the pollution of our art by your sexual fantasies and fetishes.
	Thanks so much for that.
	And so then we get stuff like this.
	DC's Pride 2022.
	We're not going to go through the actual comic just for time.
	But nobody else read it.
	But it's just a collection of stories like where Batgirl's trans friend has a trans pride flag wrapped around a baseball bat and says, I'm a trans woman living in Gotham.
	Of course I have a weapon.
	And you wonder why nobody's buying American comics anymore.
	I haven't bought any of this stuff since 2018.
	I just buy back issues.
	So, if we can go just onto the last one, because this March will be endless.
	We'll wrap up before the comments.
	They will never be happy.
	It's a cult.
	It's a cult of misery.
	And misery loves company.
	Because Magdalene Visaggio barely contributes throughout this entire thing and had to dip out halfway through.
	But they did say something very revelatory here.
	Let's play.
	In the discussions around our characters, but yeah, moving beyond the fact that they're trans, I also, a huge thing, would love to see more than one trans person in a scene together.
	Tell me about it.
	Is there like a Bechdel test version of this?
	There needs to be.
	Yeah, it's basically, does a trans person have friends who are also trans?
	Well, I think the real question is, I know surprisingly few cis people.
	At this point.
	In real life?
	Yeah.
	I want to live in your world, Mags.
	That's the world I want to live in.
	No you don't.
	No you don't.
	Yes I do.
	No you don't.
	No you don't.
	It's a miserable little bubble.
	Mask off moment.
	You live in a miserable little bubble because you don't know any normal people.
	You don't know any non-ideologues.
	So you are resentful and you want to pollute everything we love so you can feel better about yourselves.
	So my message to the companies that make my favourite art and everything I love, stop hiring these monsters, get off ESG scores and make some bloody good comics for once.
	Until then, I'll just keep buying back issues.
	I endorse this message, I must say.
	Onto the video comments.
	Now as you guys are getting yourself into Harleen Ellison, I really recommend listening to the audiobooks that he narrates himself.
	The thing about those audiobooks is that he's mostly calm when narrating, but then he reaches the climax of his stories and he screams.
	Into the microphone.
	It's hilarious.
	I throw the grey's ice point ahead of me like a battering ram, brazed against my right thigh.
	It struck belly on the right side, just under the rib case, and drove upward through his stomach and broke inside of him.
	Well, I like the enthusiasm, Sophie.
	We may have to get you to narrate some more articles in the future.
	Yeah, I've been listening to Peter Hitchens' Abolition of Britain audiobook recently, based on the recommendation of Carl, and it is entertainingly curmudgeonly, just because you can envision him in the audiobook being utterly not at all arsed about a single thing he's read out.
	It's like he's chored himself by writing a book to read it out.
	None of you are going to listen to this anyway.
	We should ban marijuana.
	Anyway, next one.
	Hello fellow Lotus Eaters.
	I hope everyone's doing well.
	I just wanted to bring to the attention of everyone on the podcast a consultation that's just opened up.
	It's called the Draft Legislation to Support Identity Verification.
	This is essentially digital IDs and you should really go out and take the consultation just to kind of fight back on all this and you should really see how early in a lot of the questioning is.
	So if he hasn't already been raised on the podcast, everyone should go out and make sure our voices are heard.
	Not that they'll listen, but yeah.
	So cheers, guys.
	That's all right, mate.
	I do have it on the back burner.
	I believe Dan and I are going to cover it on Tuesday when I'm on with him.
	I will fill out the consultation as well.
	I advise everyone does.
	Share the link among yourselves.
	Though they won't listen to it anyway, because whenever they do do consultations, it's just performative.
	They're going to rush through the policy.
	So, we can at least try and fight back.
	But, yeah, we're going to get a digital ID. Great fun.
	Alright, next.
	On the subject of apocalyptic literature, are any of you guys going to make Connor watch Zardoz?
	It's got some weirdly base takes regarding what do you call it?
	Gynocentrism and...
	Chestless men.
	Also, very interesting in its depiction of how women can't be attracted to bug men.
	Also, it has one of the world's greatest English actors, Sean Connery, who runs around in a mankini while being a bandit warlord.
	His animal magnetism causes all the feminist technocrats to suicide their civilization out of lust.
	First of all, Sean Connery would open-hand slap you for saying he's English, because he was definitely a Scotsman, and he made Ian Fleming turn in his grave about the fact that Scotsman was playing James Bond because he didn't like the Scots.
	I've never heard of that movie, though the giant head does look like the Gnome King from Return to Oz.
	I really like the comment that this is Lotus Eaters dress for England after co-dress.
	I mean, that's for the premium content behind the scenes.
	We'll make a platinum tier and you'll get our naked calendar.
	I'm October, of course.
	Next.
	Okay, sorry, but I don't know how long I'll be gone.
	I have to cancel my membership for...
	Family reasons.
	Something has happened which I can't discuss or explain because there is someone in their Discord group who will message me about my video comment and will want details to laugh at something that has happened and I'm not going to explain.
	Plus as well, the video comments are no longer the Wild West and actually have rules.
	It's nowhere near as fun, so I'll be back later, okay?
	Yeah, because it's not a personal therapy session.
	Sorry you've had to unsubscribe.
	I hope you still enjoy our content anyway.
	As always, if you guys want to talk between yourselves, take it offline.
	Form a great community.
	All be friends.
	Fantastic.
	But it's a bit alienating for the viewers that just listen on audio and don't know who you are.
	Fantastic.
	We've got time to read a few more comments out before we go.
	X, Y, and Z. This has been bumped to the top.
	Connor, could you maybe and Father Calvin do a video to unpack that word salad after Gnostic mysticism for the slow kids at the back of the class?
	Having a bit of grounding in these overarching things will help us be equipped for the battle.
	Yeah, James Lindsay's been talking about it recently as well.
	I can briefly summarise it as the idea that the wall was created by God, who is benevolent, and then there's a malevolent sub-deity, like the devil...
	Who create the material world as an imposition on the soul.
	And so it's actually a good thing to get closer to God to remove yourself from the material plane and renounce all material possessions and liberate your soul in order to return to the good deity over the bad deity.
	So like trans identity, your soul is of a woman, but nature is oppressing you as a revolutionary enemy and imposing a body on you as a man.
	So it's great to liberate your soul and look like your internal self and you're getting closer to the trans God who truly created reality.
	Not great.
	So, on the WEF's farcical fact-checks, Lord Naravar, fact-checking is a funny thing, really.
	I think I probably speak for all of us when I say that it's pretty obvious to believe the opposite of whatever the fact-checker says is a rule of thumb.
	But the WEF is in on it.
	Real CIA investigated itself and found itself innocent vibes.
	I think everyone should go read Beau's piece on the CIA and JFK, with the fantastic thumbnail knocked up by Michael about Fallout, because one of Beau's best pieces by far, and it really does document the, um...
	Conspiracy theory about the fact that the military-industrial complex assassinated an American president.
	We've got time.
	Do you want to do some more comments for your section?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So, Omar Awad, Progressive's Project.
	The WEF are progressives.
	If they project that conspiracy theorists believe the Wu flu was created to reduce the human population, I'm now suspicious that that's exactly what happened.
	The CIA joined conspiracy theory to discredit the theory that they assassinated JFK after they assassinated JFK, Sam Energy.
	Alpha of the betas.
	Recommending, encouraging or joking about suicide is not unethical in Canada.
	It's literally government policy.
	The government killed...
	That's an amazing point that I can't believe we didn't pick up on.
	The government are literally offering people assisted suicide and they have the gall to say Dr.
	Peterson is inappropriately talking about it.
	And the comment continues, the government killed 10,000 people with MAID last year.
	But Jordan Peterson makes a sarcastic joke about it.
	It's beyond the pale.
	Impressingly real.
	True.
	One last one then, I suppose.
	Sophie.
	See, this is why Minions 2 The Rise of Gru won the highest-earning movies last year.
	Is it technically a good movie?
	Not really.
	But it's not woke.
	Neither was Top Gun, actually.
	That was the highest-grossing.
	And it never pretends to be anything it's not.
	And it never tries to convince you that it's deep or clever or trying to change the world.
	It's a dumb movie with fart jokes in it.
	It knows it's a dumb movie with fart jokes in it.
	It never tries to convince you it's anything else other than a dumb movie with fart jokes in it.
	And that just makes it a breath of fresh air.
	You can legitimately relax just watching this dumb movie with fart jokes in it.
	Hence the gentle minions trend.
	Did you see that on TikTok?
	No.
	Basically a bunch of young men got kicked out of cinemas because they all coordinated in large groups to get dressed up in black tie and go and pack out screenings of Minions 2, The Rise of Gru.
	Because what other entertainment do young men have?
	You just made Superman trans and black.
	I guess Gru's our icon now.
	He does tell women to get back in the kitchen.
	So he's bang on it.
	Anyway, thank you for joining me, Stadios.
	Thank you for the podcast.
	Thank you very much.
	For those who are subscribed, you can go watch Carl and Callum's Hangout at half past three, so that's in an hour's time on Cyberpunk Dystopia.
	Still time to subscribe before then if you want.
	Thank you very much for watching.
	We're back at one o'clock tomorrow.

▲