Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 13, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:05

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #631

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to Lois Ears, joined by Josh.
	Hello there.
	It's Thursday, my dudes.
	Anyway, today we're going to be talking about masks finally proven harmful, which apparently we're allowed to say on YouTube now.
	Hooray!
	Freedom-ish.
	Elon Musk versus the BBC and why he loves BBC.
	I'm looking forward to that.
	And conservatives don't understand libertarianism, which I think is a personal rant.
	It is, yeah.
	I'm basically going to subject you to my opinions.
	Hello, welcome to my opinions.
	All right.
	Anyway, without further ado, I suppose we should begin with the masks.
	So yeah, obviously we're living in the wake of the COVID times and at least in Britain, people are kind of already forgetting what it was like because we're basically back to normal, aren't we?
	There's nothing really in daily life that is a relic of it.
	You see the odd person wearing a mask, but now they're a bit like a pariah.
	You see them one in a hundred people, maybe.
	I just love seeing like the stickers and stuff that are still about.
	They're all peeled off halfway.
	You know, they like stand three meters apart.
	It's a very good metaphor for the degradation that it's caused to our economy in that they're all kind of decaying and decrepit.
	Yeah.
	But yes, there's recently been a study, a systematic review of the impact of mask wearing.
	And obviously, throughout the pandemic, many people, ourselves included, suggested that, yeah, these don't really work.
	Why are you mandating them?
	Well, the government and the scientists said they didn't work.
	So we believed them.
	And then they all of a sudden all changed their mind.
	At the same time, yeah.
	And it was like, that doesn't sound like... Physics hasn't changed.
	Size of virus versus size of gap in cotton.
	But for some reason your opinions have changed.
	Okay.
	So this study focuses on the physiological effects.
	And yes, I'm not a doctor, by the way, but I do understand the statistics that they've used, because it's a systematic review and a meta-analysis, that sort of thing.
	You can look at the statistics to see whether the proper conduct was carried out, and it was, in my opinion.
	I actually think it's a very, very good study.
	It's done by a broad church of academics from various places in Europe, so it's not necessarily the product of an individual's bias, because generally speaking, the more people you have working on it, the better quality it will be, as a rule of thumb.
	Not always, though.
	But yes, my interpretation of the medical thing is only translating the terms.
	I'm not going to be explaining any of it, I'm just going to be explaining it in its actual in-text form so everyone can understand it.
	But first it's of course worth mentioning that we have covered other things as well to do with the Covid times and recently Dan on his Brokenomics series talked about the economics of lockdown, so if you would like to know a bit more about that side of things and our perspective on that, Definitely check that out.
	It's also worth mentioning as well that there have been other things in the news which I'm just going to briefly mention.
	Here's an article that came out relatively recently from the Daily Mail titled, How Covid restrictions hit grandparents the hardest.
	The elderly who couldn't see their grandchildren during lockdowns were twice as likely to suffer depression, the study shows.
	We could have told you that, maybe not two times, it's difficult to quantify anecdotally, but of course that's going to have an effect, and obviously there are lots of impacts to these sorts of decisions, and of course I don't think that the lockdowns... Nobody thought back any of them.
	Yeah, and no one here agrees with the lockdowns, so...
	If you want to know a bit more about that, definitely check out the Brocanomics.
	And even back in July of 2021, the Telegraph rather bravely published this article, cloth face masks are comfort blankets that do little to curb COVID spread, scientists warns.
	And of course, this was in the midst of it all when people were still frothing at the mouth for it.
	And I just wanted to read.
	This was kind of the the fringe opinion at the time.
	And even this is perhaps too charitable.
	And I'm just going to read a little bit about this because this was kind of the go to skeptic argument.
	But with this new research paper is a lot, lot worse than we thought the actual effects of the face mask.
	So, says Dr Colin Axon, who has advised the government on minimising the risk of cross-infection in supermarkets, accused medics of presenting a cartoonish view of how tiny particles travel through the air.
	This is what you were alluding to earlier, I think.
	Small sizes are not easily understood, but an imperfect analogy would be to imagine marbles fired at builders scaffolding.
	Some might hit a pole and rebound, but obviously most will fly through.
	Medics have a cartoonised view of how particles move through the air.
	It's not their fault.
	It's not their domain.
	They've got a cartoonish view of how the world is.
	Which I thought was quite funny.
	Once a particle is not on a biological surface, it is no longer a biomedical issue, it is simply about physics.
	The public has only a partial view of the story if information only comes from one type of source.
	Medics have some of the answers but not a whole view.
	He goes on to say that yes, Covid particle is around 100 nanometres, the material gaps in blue surgical masks are 1000 times that size, and cloth mask gaps can be 5000 times the size.
	So he's basically alluding to the fact that, yeah, well, wearing these things, it's not going to work, is it?
	I mean, the maths is there for you.
	Pretty plain.
	But like, the maths was done in what, like the 20s?
	Yes.
	We've known this for a very long time.
	Everyone knew this forever.
	In 2019, if you'd asked anyone, that's why there's so many clips of Fauci saying, well, yeah, that wouldn't work.
	But yeah, in 2020, you just went, yeah, it would work.
	Why?
	Why have your mind changed?
	The physics is the same.
	Exactly.
	It's very unusual, isn't it?
	And obviously, it's a political motivation rather than an evidence-based health one.
	There were weird copiums about this at the time, like Johnny Harris made a video trying to argue the state's perspective, which is like, well, the big particles would be stopped by the face mask so that there's a lower dosage that might hit you.
	But those are big particles, they wouldn't even get that far.
	If you actually map this, because they're big, therefore heavy, they just fall to the ground in front of you anyway, like a meter or something.
	In which case we're not really worried about them.
	Like the whole point of the mask was to try and stop the small ones but it's not small enough to do that.
	So waste of time.
	Yes exactly.
	But on to the actual study itself which was published recently and it's titled Physiometabolic and Clinical Consequences of Wearing Face Masks Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation What I've done is I've cut out important bits and I'm going to just explain them with the words used in the article.
	I'm not actually interpreting any of it but I will be translating any terminology that is not entirely clear.
	Although the statistical stuff I know inside out probably better than many academics actually.
	But I'm going to start with the intro and it talks about the actual rationale for doing the study in the first place.
	It says, in most countries the use of medical face masks have been restricted to professionals for decades.
	In healthcare settings, masks constituted a mandatory self-protective and third-party protective measure for medical personnel prior to COVID-19, based on the assumption of efficacy of masks in reducing transmission of pathogens, especially bacteria.
	And of course, COVID was a virus.
	The effectiveness of masks in all healthcare settings was debatable even before 2020.
	In 2020, many scientists and leaders started to believe that the use of masks could also provide protection against viral transmission, although evidence for the effectiveness of this measure was only weak.
	Since the pandemic began, a large number of studies tried to assess the antiviral effects of masks with hardly conclusive results.
	And then they go on to provide a bit of a rationale for this study and it says, as with any other preventative measure and or intervention, masks also have specific disadvantages.
	While certain properties may have justified their intervention application in the past, for example, retention of bacteria during surgical wound care and operations, which I think everyone will concede is a very valid place to use it.
	At present, the question needs to be addressed as to the long-term effects widespread mask wearing may have on normal breathing.
	It is noteworthy that the compulsory wearing of masks for the entire population provided good research conditions for studying the adverse effects of mask wearing.
	And it says, recently, the harmful effects of masks were highlighted in a large-scoping non-systematic review that is summoned for a systematic review with comprehensive evaluations of mask-induced adverse consequences, which is this study.
	And They go on to talk about the limitations of previous studies, which I think if you want to have a really good view is important, but I'm going to skip over that and just presume that yes, this is probably one of the best studies we've got yet.
	You don't have to take my word for it though, they go through and break down some of the previous literature, but it's just not that interesting to hear about.
	There's also worth mentioning as well that the actual methodology of the systematic review is quite impenetrable to most people that don't have the research methodology background that I do.
	I'm going to go out on a bit of a limit here and say that yes, I checked it, although I didn't run the numbers itself because that would take me days and days, weeks, but the actual methodology itself seems pretty solid by my reckoning.
	Take that with a pinch of salt, of course, that's just my opinion, but I don't think it's that controversial.
	It has been published in the prominent journal, which does check all of this stuff in more detail than I can possibly spend the time to.
	So with all of that out of the way, let's actually look at the interesting part, which is the results.
	And I'm just going to go through and read the summary that they've given of each individual point but it's a very long study and it says in a pooled analysis blood oxygen saturation resulted significantly lowered during mask use and this could be found just for general mask use because they break down mask use depending on whether it was the cloth masks, the surgical ones which were the blue ones that were the ones that I normally was forced to use.
	And then you have the, I think, N95.
	The ones that actually worked if you wanted to deal with something.
	Yes.
	Which really restricts your inflow.
	It does, yes.
	So unsurprisingly, yes, your blood oxygen saturation was lowered through wearing a mask.
	So that means you have less oxygen in your blood available for, say, living.
	I mean, I don't think it would kill you, obviously.
	It doesn't kill you, because we are still alive, yes.
	And that was the funny thing about, at the time, I remember people mentioning, well, it's probably going to reduce the oxygen inflow, and then people were saying, what, are you going to die?
	I said, don't worry about it.
	I'm like, well, I don't know, there might be some other negatives.
	There's lots of things in between being in perfect health and death, aren't there?
	Not in the public conversation.
	Yes, you're either perfectly healthy or dead.
	There's no in-between, there's no sickness, it's been solved already.
	But it says, this was also confirmed in the subgroup analysis of the N95 mask use, but not necessarily for surgical mask use.
	And I think the surgical mask use, this is my own subjective interpretation, is because it doesn't really cling to your face very much.
	And I, when I was forced to wear one, I liked it the most because it meant that my mouth would get the least hot.
	Because my beard hairs grow through like copper wire, it's also really scratchy and unpleasant.
	And having a bit of airflow was nice, but it also defeats the purpose of it.
	Yeah, it made no sense.
	But have you ever used the N95s?
	No, I never wore one, no.
	So we used them on a flight to Germany because we just didn't want to get sick in general because, you know, you're travelling and you've got work to do.
	And hell, it just becomes like a rainforest around your mouth, which is why when I see people who are like freaks, who are still wearing masks, but not just any, N95s all the time, I look at them and just say, you Like, that's not comfortable in the slightest.
	It's actually unbearable because, of course, the water from your nose just builds up and builds up until your face is kind of dripping inside that mask, which is really gross.
	It does sound gross, and we'll be talking about that effect later because they do talk about it and how harmful that actually is for you as well.
	So it says, in a separate meta-analysis of pre-post studies, an equal significant drop in SpO2, which is your like the amount of blood oxygen you have, was found when using a mask, and especially in the subgroup of N95 masks, so those are particularly bad for not giving you blood oxygen, and yet with a high heterogeneity, which means variation in the data. and yet with a high heterogeneity, which means variation in So it depends on your circumstances.
	There's a large amount of variability.
	It's not necessarily a very consistent effect.
	I've said the same thing like four different ways.
	But I've taken a segment from the discussion to contextualise what the effect of this result actually is, and it says, studies have shown that oxygen Oxidative stress under hypoxic conditions can inhibit cell-mediated immune response to fight viral infections, which may gradually lead to immune suppression.
	So that's the complete opposite of what you would want it to do, isn't it?
	This may set the stage for contracting any infection, including SARS-CoV-2, and making the consequences of that infection much more severe.
	In essence, masks may put wearers at increased risk of infection and severity.
	This is their words, by the way.
	Just for clarity, they're talking about N95s only?
	And prolonged usage?
	It's just the... I think, except the surgical masks, um it it reduced your blood oxygen levels and therefore any of these additional masks actually increased your susceptibility but not necessarily the surgical one because it's so bad at being an actual mask that you didn't have as significant a difference.
	There's no effect because it does nothing.
	Yes.
	So it carries on to say, in a pooled analysis, blood carbon dioxide content was found to be significantly elevated in mask use.
	And of course, you breathe out carbon dioxide.
	It's not good to have it in your system.
	You can have carbon dioxide poisoning, which, believe it or not, kills you.
	This was found in general mask use.
	It was also confirmed for N95 mask use and also surgical mask use.
	It goes on to list the effects of this saying, systemic CO2 concentration exerts an important influence on the intra and extracellular pH.
	CO2 passes quickly through the cell membrane to form carbonic acid which releases protons and in excess causes acidosis.
	With a prolonged CO2 burden, the body uses the bones as CO2 storage to regulate the blood pH.
	Bicarbonate and positive ions are exchanged for hydrogen plus.
	Accordingly, kidney and organ calcification were frequently seen in animal studies of low-level CO2 exposure.
	And of course they've used animals there because exposing human beings to low levels of CO2 is...
	Believe it or not, immoral.
	But there's no reason to think that it's any different.
	Our respiratory systems aren't wildly different.
	So yes, supposedly this increased concentration of CO2 may have led to increased calcification of kidneys and other organs as well, which is not good, obviously.
	Additionally, CO2 in relationship with chronic and or intermittent long-term exposure might induce pathological states by favouring DNA alterations and inflammation.
	Even slightly elevated CO2 induces higher levels of pro-inflammatory interleukin 1B, or 1-theta I think it is, a protein involved in regulating immune responses which causes inflammation Vasoconstrictions and vascular damage.
	In addition, carbon dioxide is also known as a trigger of oxidative stress caused by reactive oxygen species, including oxidative damage to cellular DNA.
	Increased CO2 exposure damages your DNA.
	And this was provable in both the surgical mask and the N95 one.
	Great.
	I know, it's pretty harrowing.
	Do they give you any percentages about how bad?
	Well, they give percentages in this next one, but it's given in the tables, but not in the body of text.
	I didn't necessarily want to bog it down with all of the numbers, because people are more concerned about the meaning, aren't they?
	And the actual impact.
	So it says, on average, masks reduced respiration minute volume by 19% according to our meta-analysis and by as much as 24% for N95 masks.
	The difference between surgical masks and N95 masks was about 10% respiratory minute volume and that's, I believe, just The amount of air you're taking in, I think, if I remember rightly.
	But it's to do with your rate of respiration.
	It's probably the explanation for why you've got this reduced blood oxidisation and increased CO2 retention.
	And it says, interestingly, no statistical difference regarding respiratory rate was found in mask use in the pooled analysis and this is significant as well because it's suggesting that well you've got more carbon dioxide in your bloodstream and less oxygen and you're not breathing anymore to compensate for this.
	So it's suggesting that, yes, that it's not just a matter of, you know, taking a deeper breath.
	Because you're wearing the mask, you breathe more, no problem.
	No, you're breathing the same, so, problem.
	Yes, it is a problem.
	And it says, significant elevation in systolic blood pressure was found for mask users in studies elevating both mask types, surgical and N95.
	The N95 mask always yielded a higher systolic blood pressure than the surgical mask.
	However this effect was not statistically significant so that's the difference between the two masks but in all of the studies the N95 one was worse which is a running theme throughout the whole set of results so one can presume that it's more damaging but it's not necessarily to a statistically significant degree if that makes sense.
	But yes, obviously elevating blood pressure is very bad, particularly if you have heart conditions, you're elderly.
	Many, many different things that an elevation in blood pressure could be harmful for and I'm sure you people at home are well aware of this.
	It's quite a common problem to have to regulate your blood pressure and it's very, very significant as well because look at Things like heart disease.
	Only a very small stressor can cause someone to have, say, a heart attack.
	And it could have been it.
	I mean, people could well have had their blood pressure raised to a point where it could have been fatal.
	I mean, it's impossible to know for certain, of course, but... I doubt anyone jotting down the reason as to why this has happened is ever going to jot down the goddamn mask.
	So, carry on to say, there was no statistically significant difference regarding the heart rate during mask use in the pooled analysis.
	And of course, I forgot to clarify that the pooled analysis is just all mask use in general.
	However, in the subgroup analysis containing surgical and N95 masks, only for the N95 mask condition, a weak significance for a slight increase in heart rate could be found.
	So yes, your heart rate stays the same, and again, if the heart rate was slightly elevated, this suggests a compensation for the differences in oxidisation and CO2 present.
	And moving on to the actual skin covering, or the skin being covered by the mask itself, it says, skin covered by masks had a significantly higher temperature during the rest and activity stages in studies and said this could be found for general mask use and for N95 mask use but not for surgical mask use.
	I think that's just because they're rubbish as masks and they let in lots of air.
	It says the dead space covered by masks had a significantly higher humidity in the pooled analysis.
	I mean that's what you were saying earlier isn't it that It makes lots of moisture build up and it gets hotter.
	And it says here, increased humidity and temperature can increase droplet and aerosol generation, which facilitate liquid penetration through the mask mesh.
	This not only increases the chance of microorganisms, both fungal and bacterial, growth on and in the masks, causing increased risk of accumulation of fungus and bacteria pathogens, But also leading to re-breathing of viruses that may be trapped and enriched within the moisturised mask and meshwork.
	Therefore, these conditions within masks are favourable for pathogenic growth and are unfavourable for good systemic microbiota, i.e.
	individual-specific.
	Basically saying, yes, it's going to generate more bad stuff in there.
	I mean, it's not really a surprise.
	No, it's not, is it?
	What if I stick a bowl on my face so that I'm getting loads of water sticking around my mouth to the point that it's disgusting?
	Do you reckon this might be bad?
	I don't know, I feel like you need to run that experiment.
	I'd like to see it.
	Because that's what it feels like.
	I can't believe you didn't wear one at any point.
	You end up wearing it for like an hour flight or two hour flight or whatever.
	You take it off and it is dripping.
	Your entire face.
	So disgusting, isn't it?
	But that's like a two hour flight.
	And then you see people in real life who are wearing that constantly.
	Or people who are going on planes for eight hours.
	People in hospitals and stuff that work like a 12 hour shift and they don't take their mask off.
	Yeah, but the risk is worth it because you're in a high infection environment, right?
	But like, you see the normal, well, so-called normal people, wearing it in everyday parts of life and you look at them and you just think, there is no risk-reward there.
	You're just an insane person.
	I don't know how you are okay with the amount of sweat that's dangling around your face right now.
	Well, people are really bad at calculating risk at all and when you combine that with fear, It makes people very irrational and move towards things that if they were clear-headed they might not do.
	Who's that journal everyone hates?
	The Docs, Stump, Libs and TikTok?
	Oh, Taylor Lorenz.
	Yeah, Taylor Lorenz always tweets about her wearing an N95 on planes and stuff still.
	And I just, I can't explain enough how much her face must be dripping every time she goes on one.
	Well, it's making her more ill, apparently.
	And it says, as a result, the isolation of people with masks for extended periods can attain conditions for new and individual specific strain formation and mutations of pathogens to which other people in the environment will be susceptible and or not immune.
	So by wearing masks, it actually aids viral mutation and allows the virus to become more infectious on top of it, making you personally more susceptible to getting ill as well.
	And it says, perceived discomfort was significantly higher in mask use during rest and activity in the pooled analysis, true of all mask types.
	I mean, this shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone who wore a mask.
	If you didn't at all, I mean, I respect you.
	In the N95 mask use, the perceived itching was significantly elevated, which I think alludes to what you were saying.
	Perceived exertion is significantly higher in mask use during activity in the pooled analysis.
	There was funnel plot asymmetry, which means that some of the studies may have had sampling biases there.
	That's what that test is for, so you need to take that result with a bit of a pinch of salt.
	Perceived shortness of breath was significantly higher during mask use during activity in the pooled analysis, and perceived heat is significantly higher during mask use with physical activity in the pooled analysis.
	In the subgroup analysis containing surgical and N95 masks, the heat perception was increased in both mask types, but only for the surgical mask condition, a statistical significant increase in heat perception could be found.
	So, in side effects of mask usage, headache was the most frequent symptom in a population of 2,525 subjects, with a prevalence of about 62% of general mask use.
	Did you get headaches from wearing a mask?
	I didn't really notice, or I didn't attribute it to the mask at the very least.
	Seems easy enough.
	What do you mean?
	Like, I can imagine.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	OK.
	And it says, additionally, the prevalence of acne in 1,500, roughly, evaluated mask users was quite high at 38%.
	And skin irritation in a sample of about 3,000 had a similar prevalence of 36%.
	Shortness of breath was highly prevalent in a population of just over 2,000, with 33% up to 37% for N95.
	Itching was also present in 26%.
	of a population of 5,000 subjects and with a sharp difference between 51% of N95 and the 17% of surgical masks.
	And it's worth bearing in mind, now I've got through most of these results, that these studies were only looking at short-term consequences of wearing masks and alluding to some of the potential long-term effects.
	Supposedly, we haven't been looking at these sorts of effects for long enough to look at the long-term effects, but based on the short-term effects we've looked at here, it seems like there are going to be a significant number of long-term effects that are going to be quite debilitating, especially all coming at the same time.
	So it's going to be immunosuppressant, it's going to be generating more fungal, bacterial and viral infections in the mask itself.
	And mutations.
	Yeah, and creating mutations.
	Affecting your breathing, potentially altering your DNA.
	As well as many other things.
	I mean, it's pretty... That's the point about any productive piece of equipment.
	It's meant to have positives and negatives.
	What was amazing about this period of human history is all of a sudden any negative idea was just... didn't exist.
	And the thing is that...
	People were more willing to entertain the idea when people were more reasonable on it.
	When people became zealots about it and saying, oh, there's no bad things, well, it made people think, well, that's not true of most walks of life.
	There are trade-offs in everything.
	And it pushed people to basically our position, which I mean, I'm not going to complain about good for them if they stop wearing masks.
	It seems like they've avoided a whole host of health issues.
	But like you say, I'm worried about those, you know, freaky people who are still wearing N95s constantly and have been for the last, like, two years.
	And you're just saying- It's really not good for them, no.
	Exactly, right?
	But then I'm thinking, good lord, they're gonna have some weird side effects that were just not necessary.
	On my point about the wrist, though, it just reminds me.
	I happened to do a lot of research on gas masks a while back because I was just interested in them.
	And a lot of Russian gas masks are basically crap.
	And some of them will end up giving you asbestos poisoning and stuff.
	It's a lot worse than a lot of the things it protects you from, isn't it?
	But the point being that this gas mask might really negatively affect you, but you might also be about to die to gas.
	So risk-reward...
	There's at least a reasonable trade-off there, whereas...
	And this is like a principle with all protective equipment.
	Gas masks are just the most extreme example and Russian gas masks on the most extreme of extreme.
	But yeah, that calculation just no one thinks about and that's how you get the weirdos who are still walking around like Taylor Lawrence.
	I know, I don't understand it because Although I'm in my 20s, when I did get COVID it was really quite mild.
	I mean, I stayed at home and played video games and actually kind of had a good time.
	I enjoyed having COVID.
	It was really mild.
	It felt less severe than a regular old cold, and I think the main effect of it was that it did affect my breathing a little bit about five days afterwards.
	Not to say that if you're 80 it could be much worse?
	Well yes, of course.
	Everything's worse if you're 80 health-wise, isn't it?
	If you're a young man who's healthy in your 20s, then of course it's not going to be too bad.
	I mean there are lots of things that are not as bad then.
	It's also worth mentioning as well that towards the end of the study they mention the fact that it is possible that some symptoms attributed to long Covid are predominantly mask related.
	It's interesting that they use the word predominantly.
	That's implying... Oh that's interesting.
	It's implying that all of the long COVID stuff may have actually been made worse, at the very least, if not highly caused by the masks in the first place.
	There's a few people I see who are endlessly talking about long COVID affecting their lives and I also happen to know that these people I follow are also big N95 mask users all the time.
	That's just pure speculation, but I'm just like, oh no.
	I mean, that's something that I imagine is going to be researched even more, but I can certainly see it being the case, seeing all of these significant effects of mask usage.
	So I thought that this was really, really important to talk about, because this is something the entire world did, and it seems like the entire world is going to suffer the health consequences of this, myself included.
	I mean, I was forced to go along with it like everyone else.
	I didn't wear it wherever possible but even so I don't doubt that many of these effects have happened to all of us and it is something that we should be really annoyed about and the only reason I'm not annoyed about it right now is because I spent all of yesterday despairing at the state of the world and how we've just carried out this horrific thing basically for nothing to make things worse and it's just very very harrowing isn't it?
	There we are.
	Yeah, nice cheerful segment.
	First time back on the podcast in ages and I'm here to just dispense immense numbers of black pills.
	Well, let's cheer with it up.
	So Elon Musk decided to have a chat about BBC and how much he respects BBC and ask his fellow presenter if he also likes BBC.
	Why are you saying it like that?
	Because that's how they kept saying it in the interview.
	They didn't say THE BBC, like every normal person.
	And Elon starts the interview with like, so do you like BBC?
	And then just starts manically laughing like a supervillain.
	But we're not going to go through the whole thing.
	He's got the mind of a 12-year-old.
	Yeah.
	For people who want to check something out, let's just promote something here on loislees.com, being the How Elon Should Moderate Twitter.
	So these are ideas from Carl about that.
	So if you're watching, go and have a read, I suppose.
	But otherwise, we'll get into it, because the BBC got labelled state-funded media, and they didn't like that.
	But they are state funded.
	I mean, the government gets license fee payers to pay them money.
	They tax the public and then give it to someone else, so yeah, well you are getting your money from the state then.
	It actually says government funded, to be fair.
	Yeah, and you can opt out of paying the license fee, which I have of course, but even if you can opt out, that doesn't mean it's not a tax.
	It's not government funded.
	It also doesn't mean that, regardless of your stupid charter, which you totally adhere to, I swear, you are getting your money from the state.
	So, shut it.
	I don't want to hear this.
	It's a levy, it's not a tax.
	Shut up.
	I'm not interested in the conversation.
	Levy is just another word for tax, isn't it?
	But you can see it wasn't just them.
	A whole bunch of others.
	And this NAFA accountant here is pretty mad about this happening to them.
	He's like, oh no.
	But we'll get to the next one here as we can see, which is that the response from most BBC people was like, it's a licence fee, it's a levy, blah blah blah.
	But aren't these the same sorts of people that whinge about the government using BBC funding as a means of altering its reporting on stuff?
	Like they say, oh the Tories are using funding, oh they're putting in people to control it, but now all of a sudden now Elon Musk is doing something, it's oh no, there's no government funding here.
	We have nothing to do with government funding, what do you mean?
	I run ads!
	Let's go back, like, a few months ago, and they were whinging about the government influencing it through its funding.
	It's just sad.
	I can't... I mean, we're big on the defund the BBC train, because it's pointless, out-of-date crap anyway, but the BBC made their public response in an article where they screamed, Well, they should have done.
	They go with, the BBC has always been independent.
	We are funded by the British public through a licence fee.
	Which is mandatory if you're on a TV and want to watch programming from the TV.
	The BBC is taking the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approach.
	Yeah, this is a democracy.
	Yes.
	You get a vote.
	There's only one candidate, but you can vote.
	So, you know what you do if you don't want to vote for the candidate in North Korea?
	Hide.
	You don't put the card in the box, but of course there's no private voting, there's only public voting.
	So everyone will see?
	Yes.
	Seems very stupid to me.
	I don't know why you wouldn't vote for the dear leader.
	So the licence fee raised £3.8 billion in 2022 for the BBC.
	Which was willingly given, accounting for about 71% of the BBC's total income, 5.3 billion, with the rest of it coming from commercial activities such as grants, royalties, blah blah blah, basically just profiting off all the other tax money they've stolen from the public.
	Oh, sorry.
	I was just going to say, I find it funny that implicit in this, when people talk about privatising the BBC, like, no, we'll lose lots of programmes, which is alluding to the fact that they think, well, the taxpayer's subsidising these programmes that couldn't stand on their own two feet in the free market.
	I mean, if you wanted it, you'd pay for it.
	And if you're not willing to pay for it, then you don't want it.
	So shut up.
	But they also mention at the end of this, after they go, no, no, no, no, no, it's a licence fee, it's a licence fee, it's a levy, it's not a tax, now give me your money.
	Then they're off with, the BBC also receives £90 million from the government to support the BBC World Service directly, which is predominantly used to serve non-UK audiences.
	It's our overseas propaganda network, which, you know, is kind of useful if you're in government, but if you're paying for it, it's not.
	I don't get anything, and instead they take my money, so I'm not willing.
	I remember watching the Top Gear specials when it was actually good, when they had the actual presenters on it, and they would go abroad and get recognised, and I didn't understand.
	I was just like, why are Indians watching the BBC?
	How do they do this?
	But then I realised, oh right, there's the BBC World Service, so they're actually known around the world.
	But also the primary instrument of that, the reason it's fundamentally, if everyone's being honest, the reason the government funds it is so that our version of events can be broadcast to the world's public.
	Of course it is, yeah.
	In the same way that, I don't know, Russia Today exists, or Al Jazeera.
	Yeah.
	It's almost like they saw what we were doing and went, I want some of that.
	So, yeah, whatever.
	But we'll go to the BBC because they have loads of versions of events where they sat down with Elon.
	You'll notice it's only 58 minutes.
	Which is not how long the conversation was.
	Oh, has it been edited, has it?
	Yeah, if you go to the next one.
	It's funny, that.
	The Twitter space, because Elon decided to just stream it on Twitter, because of course he did, was 1 hour 40.
	That was about 20 minutes of dead space at the start.
	Okay.
	But the last, like, 20 minutes... They've cut out a whole 20 minutes, then.
	Well, so they do the interview, and then Elon's just sort of like hanging out, asking questions, getting people to join.
	They're all making fun of the journo, because it's hard not to.
	They're a journalist, yeah.
	And then they just start S-posting about bots and blah, blah, blah.
	And the journo's like, I'm going to leave.
	I was like, yeah, yeah, you leave.
	I'm just going to stay.
	I kind of love that they're in the same room, and the journo's like, I'm going to leave and pack up.
	And they're filming, right?
	There's the crew there.
	And Elon's just there with his phone that's got the Twitter space on and goes, yeah, yeah, you do that.
	I'm going to continue.
	It just sits in the chair.
	Elon went to the BBC and made the journalist leave his own interview at the BBC headquarters.
	No, no, no, it's in the Twitter headquarters.
	Oh right, okay.
	I was going to say, if he did that, that would have been like the most alpha male move ever.
	But the interviewer did leave the interview.
	That's the funny part.
	But anyway, we'll get into the clips, because I watched the whole thing.
	I clipped down the video so you can enjoy some visuals.
	I've deliberately avoided watching this so I can delight in it now, although I did see a clip that you haven't included.
	There have been some that have gone viral, but we'll get to those.
	We'll start off with what I thought was the most interesting stuff in chronological order.
	So the first thing here being, why did you fire so many people?
	And Elon just goes like, oh well, I would have gone bankrupt otherwise, you moron.
	Let's play them talking about this.
	And they didn't even know they'd lost their jobs off, and they were just posing out of their accounts.
	Okay, so let me ask you, what would you do?
	Well, you might want to give someone some notice.
	I mean, you might.
	By the way, I'm not running Twitter, but this is the criticism, and this is what staff members say.
	A little bit of notice, you know.
	No, I understand.
	If you have four months to live, 120 days, in 120 days you're dead.
	So what do you want to do?
	How much are you worth?
	I don't know.
	I sold a lot of Tesla stock to close this deal.
	around the $200 billion mark.
	I mean, it's not quite, you're framing it in a way that it had a few months to live.
	You're quite a rich man. - I sold a lot of Tesla stock to close this deal.
	I did not want to sell a Tesla stock.
	- Okay. - That's very embarrassing for that journalist, isn't it?
	Because he's basically saying, yeah, I have lots of my money in assets, you moron.
	I don't want to liquidate my stock to then prop up a failing business.
	It's not even just that.
	Like this dynamic sets up for the whole conversation.
	There's no solutions, no knowledge, just whining that this guy doesn't get his way, the journo there.
	Because he's been working in North America for years.
	He's the BBC's representative there.
	He just works on tech.
	So what he's been spending his time doing is whining about Elon Musk.
	So no surprise.
	But he's complaining there.
	So you had, I think Twitter, Elon goes on to mention it, that they had like 8,000 employees, okay?
	A lot of people to pay.
	And when he brought Twitter, there was such a deficit, and as he says, 120 days, they would have had to declare bankruptcy.
	There just was no money.
	These people weren't making any money.
	None of these jobs actually existed.
	They were just living off the company, and it was about to die.
	And in which case, this guy turns to him and says, why don't you just sell your Twitter stock?
	Don't these people deserve your money?
	No.
	They're not making any money.
	Why would I keep them employed?
	So, yeah, they all get fired instead.
	But I just love how this guy here is like, oh, just make yourself bankrupt to finance thousands of people who don't make any money.
	I don't think he understands that very rich people have all of their money and assets because if you just sit on a big pile of cash, funnily enough, the government steals it through inflation.
	Sure, but it's just more the fundamental point that he's like, well, you should have just paid for all these people to not have real jobs.
	Yeah, these people that are doing nothing to benefit you.
	And anyway, if you run multiple businesses, you want each business to be its own self-sustaining thing.
	You don't want to just subsidise a business for the sake of it.
	That's not how leftist economics work.
	Sacrifice everything for the ideology.
	These ideological actors who sit and burn money, burn your car company to the ground so they can waste it.
	It just strikes me as he's got no experience running a business.
	Nah, complete, utter, incompetent and impotent individual.
	But then we go on to the big thing that went viral.
	I think it's got like 7 million views already or something, just on like one clip on Twitter.
	This is the hate speech misinformation babble that comes out of him.
	Let's play this.
	People like Andrew Tait who were brought back, who were previously banned for things like hate speech.
	Do you think you prioritise freedom of speech over misinformation and hate speech?
	Well, you know, who's to say that something is misinformation?
	Who's the arbiter of that?
	Is it the BBC?
	You're literally asking me?
	Yes.
	Well, no, you are the arbiter on Twitter, because you own Twitter.
	Yes, I'm saying who is to say that one person's misinformation is another person's information?
	The point at which you said that this is misinformation.
	Who is going to decide that?
	But you accept that misinformation can be dangerous, that it can cause real-world harms, that it can potentially cause... Yeah, so the point I'm trying to make is that the BBC itself has, at times, published things that are false.
	Just at times?
	Do you agree that that has occurred?
	I'm quite sure the BBC have said things before that turn out to not be true.
	Whatever it is, 100-year history, I'm quite sure.
	Even if you aspire to be accurate, there are times when you will not be.
	But you accept there has to be a line in terms of hate speech?
	And that's where it went for ages, just him being like, isn't there a line?
	And this is where we get to the bit in which he becomes a complete snake.
	Just completely tangential, by the way.
	Have you noticed that they're sat on, like, really cheap bar stools and one of them's still got the tag on in the interview?
	They've got, like, one of the world's richest men.
	It's like, yeah, we're going to sit you on a cheap chair and we're not even going to take the tags off.
	I mean, I love the old interviewer move of, like, you put a stool for the other guy to sit in and you sit in a big comfy chair.
	Anyway, I think it's just how Twitter works.
	It's like a therapist mind game sort of thing, isn't it?
	But we'll play the next bit, which is where he becomes an utter snake.
	And this is the bit that everyone's been seeing, but that's the lead up there where he just babbles on about misinformation and hate speech.
	But let's play this, because this is the big thing that made people realize.
	There's not enough people to police this stuff, particularly around hate speech in the company.
	What hate speech are you talking about?
	I mean, you use Twitter.
	Right.
	Do you see a rise in hate speech?
	Just a personal anecdote.
	I don't.
	Personally, for you, I would see I get more of that kind of content.
	But I'm not going to talk for the rest of Twitter.
	You see more hate speech personally?
	I would say I would see more hateful content in that.
	Content you don't like or hateful?
	What do you mean?
	Describe a hateful thing.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you know, just content that will solicit a reaction to something that may include something that is slightly racist or slightly sexist, those kinds of things.
	So you think if something is slightly sexist, it should be banned?
	No.
	Is that what you're saying?
	I'm not saying anything.
	I'm saying... Well, I'm just curious.
	I'm trying to understand what you mean by hateful content.
	And I'm asking for specific examples.
	And you just said that if something is slightly sexist, That's hateful content.
	Does that mean that it should be banned?
	Well, you've asked me whether my feed...
	Whether it's got less or more, I'd say it's got slightly more.
	That's what I'm asking for examples.
	Can you name one example?
	Honestly, I don't... You can't name a single example?
	I'll tell you why, because I don't actually use that for you feed anymore, because I just don't particularly like it.
	A lot of people are quite similar.
	I only... Well, hang on a second.
	You've said you've seen more hateful content, but you can't name a single example.
	Not even one.
	I'm not sure I've used that feed for the last three or four weeks.
	How did you see the hateful content?
	Because I've been using Twitter since you've taken it over for the last six months.
	Okay, so then you must have at some point seen, for you, hateful content.
	I'm asking for one example.
	Right.
	You can't give a single one.
	And I'm saying... Then I say so that you don't know what you're talking about.
	Really?
	Yes, because you can't give me a single example of hateful content.
	Not even one tweet.
	And yet you claimed that the hateful content was high.
	That's a false.
	You're just lying.
	No, what I claim was, there are many organisations that say that that kind of information is on the rise.
	Now, whether it has a life feed or not... Give me one example.
	I mean, right, and you can give me something like the Strategic Dialogue Institute in the UK.
	They will say that.
	Look, people will say all sorts of nonsense.
	I'm literally asking for a single example and you can't name one.
	Right, and as I've already said, I don't use that feed.
	Then how would you know?
	I don't think this is getting anywhere.
	You literally said you experience more hateful content and then couldn't name a single example.
	That's absurd.
	I haven't actually looked at that feed.
	Then how would you know if it's hateful content?
	Because I'm saying that's what I saw a few weeks ago.
	I can't give you an exact example.
	Let's move on.
	We only have a certain amount of time.
	Wow.
	Yeah, let's move on.
	I mean, Elon handled that like an absolute champ.
	I almost want to do the Wayne's World thing of, we're not worthy, we're not worthy.
	Well, it's not particularly difficult.
	No, but the fact he stuck at it, he was just like, yeah, you're lying.
	He just said it straight to his face there and then.
	This is the thing that everyone's been waiting for, because these people, like this guy, as I mentioned, working in North America in tech reporting for years, he would go and speak to Susan Wojcicki, and he would give the question of, oh, wasn't hateful constant on the rise?
	What would Susan Wojcicki say?
	Someone who is in on the delusion, someone who's in on the ideology.
	And she's like, well, we're combating it, blah, blah, blah, and blah, blah, blah.
	And then you go talk to Mark Zuckerberg, who would say, well, we take it very seriously.
	And instead, Elon just asked him, well, what is it?
	That's what you need to do, though, is you just say, give examples.
	Why is that hateful?
	And just interrogate the idea, almost like employing the Socratic method, just questioning them.
	Sorry.
	No, but if these people, if everyone in the room was a leftist, this wasn't live-streamed to the public, what would have happened is when you ask, well, what is it?
	They would have said, well, you know, stuff that's hateful, sexist, blah, blah, blah.
	Everyone would have agreed and gone, okay, yes.
	All pat themselves on the back.
	We're all part of the censorship committee.
	Instead, because this is being livestreamed through Twitter Spaces, this chap here knows he can't get away with that BS.
	I mean, it's why I can't even really hate the guy.
	He's just so transparent.
	I got so much second-hand embarrassment for the way he conducted himself there, even though, I mean, I don't agree with the guy.
	You can't help but be like, oh, for goodness sake, that's...
	No, but this is entirely normal.
	This is why don't debate the right was always the rule of thumb.
	This is why these conversations don't get had until very recently.
	And the only reason they're having to have it with Elon is because he just goddamn brought it.
	And the other example of this in the current time is Matt Walsh.
	The fact that there was the policy of do not debate the right on transgenderism, and then when you do with Matt Walsh, crumbles immediately, the whole thing.
	And it is not a, man we lost that, it's a K.O.
	in ideological debating terms.
	And the point of hate speech here, completely gone.
	What is it?
	Oh, it's slightly sexist content.
	Name it.
	Oh, I haven't got any because if I name one I'll look like a goddamn retard.
	I'll look like an actual child who is upset because, I don't know, Chris Ragon said that women exist or something like that, right?
	And that'll be enough for him to be like, that needs to be banned.
	Because that's where it was going and where it was.
	It's comical.
	Also, on the point of him saying, why don't you use Twitter?
	So that's why I can't name one.
	Claiming something's there, but when questioned about it... I don't use it, yeah.
	I use it, I've seen more.
	Name an example.
	Well, I don't use it, so I haven't seen recently.
	It's very... I would call it slimy, but it's so transparent, as you say, that it's not even underhanded.
	It's just like... It's like catching a toddler with, like, chocolate around their mouth.
	Just like, have you been in the cupboard tonight?
	No.
	He's like, but you've got chocolate all around your face.
	I'm like, no, no, I don't.
	That's the brilliant thing about the Twitter files.
	For years, everyone on the right was saying it's demonstrably obvious these people are fudging the numbers.
	It's demonstrably obvious they're just banning people because they don't like political opinions.
	And then Beyonce buys it and finds all the Go Woke shirts, releases all the emails where they're censoring people because the FBI have told them to.
	It's not even something to get jumped up about, because it's just like, of course, the communists are killing everyone.
	This is what they do.
	It's not a surprise.
	And if we go to his Twitter account, just a fact check, obvious liar.
	Like, we can see your tweets.
	You were using Twitter for quite a while, running up to the interview every other goddamn day, because you're as addicted as everyone else in your sphere.
	And yeah, you're just a liar.
	Just off.
	It's pathetic.
	But then the other big thing that went viral,
	is that well this guy of course thought this was going to be a struggle session where he would sit and pick on Elon for being a bad man and then deceptively edit the footage so that he looks like he's the reasonable one and Elon's a madman except he went no i'm going to live stream it now you have to show the whole footage you look more on all of it and also you're not interviewing me here my friend because let's talk about misinformation let's play that misinformation you amazing you've changed the covid misinformation has bbc changes covered misinformation
	The BBC does not set the rules on Twitter, so I'm asking you.
	No, I'm talking about the BBC's misinformation about COVID.
	I'm just asking you about, you changed the labels, the COVID misinformation labels.
	There used to be a policy and then it disappeared.
	Why do that?
	Well, COVID is no longer an issue.
	Does the BBC And what about the fact that the BBC was put under pressure by the British government to change its editorial policy?
	masking and side effects of vaccinations and not reporting on that at all?
	And what about the fact that the BBC was put under pressure by the British government to change its editorial policy?
	Are you aware of that? - This is not an interview about the BBC.
	Oh, you thought it wasn't?
	I see now why you've done Twitter spaces.
	I'm not a representative of the BBC's editorial policy, I want to make that clear.
	Let's talk about something else.
	I'm interviewing you too.
	Alright, let's talk about something else.
	You weren't expecting that.
	Let's talk about something else.
	Again, he's just so transparent.
	Just whatever he's got.
	Let's talk about something else.
	Let's move on.
	Because I've lost.
	I've obviously lost.
	But there's also another funny point there of endlessly, no matter who you get from the BBC, no matter who you ever speak to, they don't represent it.
	You can be the goddamn, you know, general of the BBC, the guy that's all I can remember his name.
	He wouldn't represent the BBC.
	He says to the people, I don't represent the editorial policy.
	No one does.
	No one at the BBC ever thinks they represent anything to do with it.
	It's funny that, isn't it?
	It's a consistent, funny little thing that you are all snakes, every one of them.
	I mean, if someone went up to you and said, do you represent Lotus Eaters?
	As in, are you a member?
	Are you a representative?
	Well, I represent the stuff I do.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But this guy is like, no, no, I just, I'm a robot.
	I don't do anything.
	What are you talking about?
	And also, why are you not free to turn around and just be like, well, yeah, of course, there are some things that are wrong.
	Like if someone said, oh, this was wrong on the show.
	Yeah, probably.
	You know, send it to that person.
	This is their thing.
	But this guy instead has got to sit there in silence, which is a really powerful tool.
	Thank you, Elon, for using it.
	A lot of people do.
	And have him sit there as you can feel he gets more and more awkward as he knows he can't say what's obviously true.
	And that is transparent to everyone watching, which is why this interview is so great.
	We'll move to the next clip here because there's another example of that in which this guy is grilling Elon in his view.
	The, oh, I've got him now.
	Well, apparently in India you censored someone.
	What about my free speech there, right?
	And Elon just turns around and goes, what's the law in India?
	I can't go outside of the law?
	What about you?
	What about HP's laws in the UK?
	I don't know.
	I don't know about that, you know, what exactly happened with some content situation in India.
	The rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict.
	And we can't go beyond the laws of a country.
	But do you get that if you do that you incentivise countries around the world to simply pass more draconian laws?
	No.
	Look, if we have a choice of either our people go to prison Uh, or we comply with the laws.
	We'll comply with the laws.
	Same goes for the BBC.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Yeah, everyone's well aware of how you act.
	Not only in our country, but in China as well.
	But it's just ridiculous.
	You're like, oh, what about Hitsbitch?
	You support them in the motherland.
	Never mind the United States, whatever.
	And the last thing here is just him having fun with him after they basically ended the interview.
	He just sits there being like, so do you like BBC?
	Let's play that.
	Do you like the BBC?
	Do you like BBC?
	OK, yeah, we're not going to... Can I interview you?
	We always have work for the BBC.
	Do you like BBC?
	I see what you're doing.
	I'm not going to respond to that.
	OK.
	I think we can finish the interview there.
	If you want to continue, thank you very much for doing this.
	I really appreciate it.
	It's true you like BBC.
	Come on.
	I'm not engaging.
	All right.
	Elon, it honestly has been a pleasure talking to you.
	It really has.
	And if you want to carry on answering questions on this, then go for it.
	But I'm not going to.
	OK.
	Well, I just want to see if there's any good... There's a lot of comments here.
	I mean, people generally seem to like this interview, as far as I can tell.
	Very few negative comments, so generally positive.
	That's probably bad for me.
	He knows.
	That ending bit is what makes it for me.
	They know if the public likes something, it's against their narrative.
	Whereas, if the public are mad, then they know they've done their job, which is to lie to the public.
	If the public can see and point out that you guys are full of S, that's when he sits there and goes, oh, it's bad for me.
	I've messed up.
	I've let the cat out of the bag.
	The public can see how bad we are.
	It's like, yeah, because you're awful and you know it.
	Absolutely terrible people.
	Which is why afterwards the news came out that NPR says it's no longer going to use Twitter because we're being bullied.
	Being bullied by pointing out facts.
	Yeah, they say this because Elon Musk said to label them as state-funded, which, if you don't want that, stop accepting the state's money, which you won't, so suck a fat one, no one cares.
	If we go to the next one, we can just see here a tweet from them where they're whining about it, they just don't like having a mirror put up to them.
	So, there's that, that's news, no one cares, suck a fat one NPR, you suck, same for the BBC, stop stealing the public's money.
	I think this is pretty... I think everyone can agree to this.
	Yes.
	Well, we'll end it off with the last thing here being, uh, my hate.
	Because, of course, afterwards, the BBC published some crappy article.
	I'm not even gonna pull up, because they just argued, well, what about this Twitter account that had an n-word in its name?
	And, uh, what about this organization that says there's hate on Twitter?
	Pathetic.
	Not even worth your time.
	What was worth your time is Glenn Greenwald's Twitter feed.
	Because, of course, he just got the receipts.
	Because you may remember he mentioned, what, some organization says there's more hate on Twitter?
	In the same way that the man down the road who should be selling pencils and is screaming at the sky says that the end is nigh?
	I'm more willing to believe him to be honest.
	But one of them isn't funded by the state.
	And this is the point, as Graham Greenwald points out here.
	After getting caught red-handed repeatedly lying, this BBC reporter finally pretends he has no view whatsoever.
	It is just repeating the claims of ISD Global that maligns Twitter for being more hateful.
	Let's take a look at who actually funds this organisation that he quoted.
	Funders, 2018 to present, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
	We have the OMOYAD Group, Open Society Foundation, George Soros there.
	We have Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia's Department of Home Affairs, the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration, the Department and Premier Cabinet of Australia Victoria, and the Dutch Government, Dutch Government, European Government, Finnish, German Government, Canadian government?
	That's interesting.
	Let's go to the next list here because there's even more of that.
	I think the UN was back there as well.
	Facebook, Google, Google.com, Microsoft, YouTube.
	Okay, yeah, those aren't people who are in competition with Twitter at all.
	The Swedish government, the UK government, New Zealand, Norway, and the Netherlands again there.
	Yeah, it's all a game.
	It's all a state-funded club in which they just make up facts and then quote each other because that's important.
	Why?
	Because he's on the payroll as well.
	Actual terrible people, best interview of the century because it was so transparent as this guy spoke about how awful these individuals are and their reign of terror at twitter.com ended and the world is better for it.
	It's good libertarianism.
	Wow, I enjoyed that.
	I deliberately didn't watch the full interview and I'm very glad I did because particularly where Elon was laughing about BBC.
	Do you like BBC?
	They both knew what it meant.
	Carl said to me yesterday, oh it's ridiculous, he couldn't even answer if he likes the BBC.
	I'm like, you didn't watch the full thing did you?
	He's right at the start as well, he's like, so do you like BBC?
	So recently I've noticed quite a few conservative commentators, obviously not all conservatives, have been attacking libertarianism, particularly right-wing libertarians as well.
	You took that personally?
	I did.
	That's fine.
	And there are some false presumptions in there that they're making and I wanted to correct some of the misconceptions as well as just making some general points about political strategy because believe it or not If people consider you onside, it's not good to then say, by the way, you're my enemy, if you're pushing in the same direction, which I'm going to argue that at least some libertarians are, and they're being targeted unfairly in my opinion, but I am both
	a libertarian and i'm socially conservative so i feel like i'm watching my parents fight and i'm kind of caught in the middle like no i love you both please stop just make friends and kiss but it's a valid point to make that alienating people that agree with you it's not a good idea like i i agree for the most part with the majority of things that conservatives say But it's what harm are they going to do to your vision of the world, and not really any, OK?
	We want the same things, but we just have a different idea of the best means to get there.
	So that's more of a logistical thing than an ideological one, necessarily.
	If people have the same values as you, Why are you getting mad at them?
	It doesn't make sense to me.
	But yes, both sides, friends, political allies, or at least they should be, but they are in my opinion, and I'm not going to be mean or anything like that, I'm not going to call people names, unlike some who probably deserve it.
	I don't think that this is very constructive for politics in general because you're going to push people away if you're being unreasonable and uncharitable and trying to paint people as holding opinions that they don't have.
	They're not going to want to ally with you politically, whereas otherwise you'd be pushing in the same direction.
	You're just going to alienate people, which is Really common sense, and I'm annoyed that I have to say it, but apparently a bunch of conservatives in the United States have been hitting their heads against inanimate objects to the point that they're drooling from the mouth, and they've forgotten a very... No insulting quotes?
	No?
	I didn't last very long, did I?
	No, no.
	I take that back.
	I didn't mean it, really.
	I love you, Mummy and Daddy.
	I'm not picking sides.
	But yes, here we have just an example from Sernovich, and I picked Sernovich because I actually agree with him a lot of the time on a lot of things, so I'm not picking on him specifically, but I'm not going to show you all of the different iterations from prominent commentators because it's much of the same boring thing, and you don't need that hammered home, but just need to know that, yes, I've seen lots of it, and it's been getting on my nerves, and he says, given the choice, libertarians will always side with the communists.
	They are fundamentally a left-wing movement.
	So what do you make of that, Callum?
	Um, no.
	I don't think they do.
	Thank you!
	I mean, like, the ones who were fighting against the Soviet Union from the inside certainly weren't happy.
	Yeah, but I think, um, I don't have you in mind when I'm talking about this sort of thing because you're pretty good at knowing that there is nuance in stuff.
	Like, you don't just say, oh yeah, by the way, everyone who subscribes to this political position, they think exactly the same thing.
	Also, the world's a big place.
	I've been very anti-American, trying to calm it down.
	There's mostly left-wing Americans as a position that the world is just the United States political divide, which is why they go to Afghanistan.
	They're like, so, who's the freedom fighters?
	It's like, oh, come on.
	There are no freedom fighters here, man.
	So, yeah.
	And as Spike Cohen points out here in this next one, libertarianism is the opposite of communism.
	I mean, who'd have thought that a very authoritarian belief is the polar opposite of one that values liberty and freedom?
	I mean, this is why it was the libertarian socialists are just such a joke.
	I know, it's like a juxtaposition of terms.
	I don't really understand how they reconcile the two things because socialism, of course, high State intervention, but libertarianism, low state intervention.
	So these two things do not work together.
	The so-called left libertarians, they're either liars or children.
	I mean, I think, I don't know, I might be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure Vosch has said he's a libertarian leftist.
	You can tell he's lying because he knows where this goes.
	It's just like, no, you are going to force people to comply and you're not going to do that by argumentation.
	I know that Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist but he just likes to rag on the United States.
	Conservative politicians have helped progressives build the bloated, tyrannical, indebted spy state we live in.
	Noam Chomsky, I'm a libertarian.
	Also, you threaten the Yugoslavian state.
	Time to die!
	But this point here is more of the political strategy thing, isn't it?
	Because conservatives typically want to use the state to own the leftists, right?
	Or control them or keep them From harming normal people, which I mean, the ends I can certainly understand, but I just don't think the means of doing it, using the state, is the right way to go about it, because then it's like creating the gallows which the left are then going to hang you with.
	That's the way I see it.
	It depends on the circumstance.
	It does, yeah.
	So I mean like killing your opponents.
	But saying maybe this blue-haired freak who wants to tell your kids about all the anal sex they've been up to and their friends, yeah maybe shouldn't work in the school and we're going to kick them out of the school board.
	Of course there are caveats, like I think there is a place for the government to protect the rights of children from abuse because their children, believe it or not, are not adults and they don't have the same mind as an adult and therefore they don't know What's good for them and how to deal with a situation that an adult could deal with constructively and therefore they must be protected, which is a pretty common view.
	Yeah, but you do see occasionally Libertarians are like, oh, we can't do anything about the leftists in schools.
	It's like, no, you really can.
	And I hate those people.
	Those kids don't have liberty, for one.
	Yeah, those people, I reject any association with them.
	But this argument has been around for quite a while.
	Here we have Reason magazine.
	Libertarians are the new communists and anti-libertarians are out of ideas.
	I do not like Reason.
	Nor do I. Reason the magazine, not Reason the metaphysical concept.
	No, no, no, I don't like... Alright, yeah, yeah, sorry.
	It's also worth mentioning as well that recently me and Harry did an episode of Contemplations, which is my series, talking about libertarianism, where we talked about all of the different varieties of libertarianism, there are many, and evaluating some of their ideas, the ones we like, the ones we dislike.
	Harry is like the Anakin Skywalker, he used to be my libertarian apprentice and he betrayed me and turned to the dark side.
	I think he's a Singaporean nationalist now.
	Of course I'm being silly.
	But yes, I think it was a really good video where we talked about all of the different things and what we agree with, disagree with, and it's good at getting the nuances and the divisions within libertarianism, which seemingly people don't seem to get.
	That yes, actually there are people who just want a smaller state that agree with everything the Conservatives are saying, like me.
	And I find it frustrating to be lumped in with the ones that are just like, yeah, by the way, stopping me diddling kids is violating my non-aggression principle.
	Those people belong underneath the prison, right?
	I don't want any association with them.
	They're very, very distinct from other people, but, I mean, criticising them, perfectly fair.
	It's also worth mentioning as well that libertarians sometimes have an open border policy because of the economics, free market, that sort of thing.
	People like Adam Smith advocated for it, however... Loons!
	Sorry to swear, but they're actually mental people!
	I disagree with that, obviously.
	I think that yes, you need to control your borders.
	It's obvious to do that.
	And there are chapters of the Libertarian Party, as well as, this is New Hampshire for example, they're quite often very good.
	Also the Mises Caucus of the Libertarian Party is great.
	So correct me if I'm wrong, because I ain't in these circles like you are, but my understanding is in the United States the Libertarian Party is divided between the Mises guys and then the left-wing retards.
	Yes, and this is actually an important point because obviously on the more statist side of American politics you have the Democrats and the Republicans, you've got the right and left, and then in the middle Not really in the middle politically, in a political compass sense, but you have the Libertarians who are just one party, so they've got both left and right, whereas on the more state-oriented side, obviously you've got Democrats and Republicans.
	They're separated, whereas the poor right-wing Libertarians have to suffer left-wingers.
	There are attempts to purge them out, but it's very difficult when you don't like using... It's just honestly incoherent to even listen to.
	I mean if someone comes to you, I don't know how radical this is, but the idea of libertarianism for me just seems like an ethnic ideology of like Anglo-Saxons or something.
	I mean, when you go to the Russians and you start talking about libertarianism, it's like, yeah, no, good luck, but you ain't never getting this, no matter what happens.
	Well, I'm not optimistic.
	I mean, this is just like, this is the world I want to live in.
	I don't think it's going to happen in my lifetime.
	Yeah, but I just, I can't get over those people who are like, what if we just massively ethnically change the United States and we'll still have the same values of liberty and justice?
	It's just like, you're a crack smoker.
	Like, you have to keep the borders and the ethno-commodity to have this privilege you have of being able to have some liberal worldview that, in the good way, you know, you can still own guns and blah blah blah.
	Yeah, I find that sometimes people approach politics like it's like a football team, just like, I'm red, therefore I agree with everything red do.
	I don't know why they speak like a caveman, that's a bit uncharitable.
	I'm not going to insult anyone.
	That person doesn't exist, they're hypothetical.
	Right, so it's your little straw man.
	Yes it is.
	But obviously there are things that you can disagree with, with your compatriots, that you can still agree with the majority of what they're saying, but there are still aspects of it that you don't have to agree with, right?
	Like, for example, I don't agree with lots of other libertarians about certain things.
	For example, I'm not necessarily as anti-war as many other libertarians.
	Like a good scrap does me.
	You're looking at me very strangely.
	What?
	I don't know, I think you enjoy looking at wars, not taking part in them.
	Well, that's true, yeah.
	Important caveat.
	I like spectating from a very far distance.
	But yes, of course the obvious thing to rebut the Cernovich thing is that integral to libertarianism is individualism.
	In any form of libertarianism.
	You don't really have collective libertarianism.
	Collectivism is inherent to communism.
	These are two antagonistic forces that do not go together well.
	It doesn't make sense to put them together, which is why Libertarian socialism is silly and doesn't make any sense.
	But this is also my ethnic point.
	Like, if you've got massive ethnic diversity within loads of different groups that see themselves as more fundamental than the ideology, then yeah, you ain't gonna have libertarianism because you're gonna be fighting all the time on ethnic lines.
	Yes.
	And whereas, that's my point about, like, you need some things in place so that you're not divided already and then you can start thinking about the ideal state and blah blah blah.
	Exactly.
	You can't be at each other's throats, yeah.
	So, I have also heard conservatives argue against individualism.
	This is a little bit of a tangent, but I think it's important.
	They claim that it breaks up communities, but I think that this is a bit of a misunderstanding of what individualism actually is.
	Surprisingly, the Oxford Dictionary definition is actually quite good.
	It says, a social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
	You're an individualist if you don't like other people making you do stuff or the state making you do stuff.
	It's that simple.
	It's not that you reject a community entirely.
	Because, of course, being social is inherent to being a human being, isn't it?
	No one's denying that.
	Someone's got to deal with the Drag Queen Story Hour still.
	That's true, yeah.
	It's got to be you guys getting together and being like, no, we don't do that.
	Get out of town.
	It's also worth mentioning as well, of course, that libertarians are typically the most stringent supporters of property rights, which of course seems like the right are the only ones that actually support these now.
	Gun rights as well, and your right to use those guns in self-defence.
	I mean, this is something that has become a very right-wing issue, hasn't it?
	Because the left are just like, no, guns bad, guns kill people.
	It's like, no, people kill people.
	Yeah, sure.
	I mean, this is part of the incoherence of some of the Republicans.
	When you hear them talk about the right to bear arms because you need to rise up against the, like, oppressive government, and then they'll turn around and be like, by the way, I'm strengthening the FBI and the NSA.
	You're like, huh.
	You know they literally oppress conservatives.
	We've seen who works there, man.
	You could be forgiven if we were in the Bush era, but no, they literally go after Trump.
	It's like tipping your executioner, isn't it?
	It's like, here you go, buy yourself something nice.
	It's silly.
	The most charitable interpretation of this view I could think of is that some libertarians, myself included, cynical about the war on drugs and I think it's failed and perhaps a new approach should be taken and leftists do say that as well but that's one of the few things I do agree with the left on but you know the exception does not make the rule does it?
	I don't think but yes and I wanted to move on to some of the bad stuff because I've I've been a bit more critical than I wanted to be.
	But here's the Libertarian Party of Texas talking about Garrett Foster, who's the guy in Texas, I think, who pointed the AK-47 at people and then he got shot.
	But he was protesting alongside Black Lives Matter, which I don't think anyone should do, ever, under any circumstances, because they're reprehensible people.
	Protesting something that is absurd.
	But the question was more, did this guy threaten the guy?
	He got shot.
	Did he threaten the man's life before he got shot?
	If no, then he was a murderer.
	And if yes, well then, self-defense.
	Harry told me, because he dug into this, that he'd actually been cautioned by the police before this happened for pointing his rifle at people and saying, no, don't do that.
	Which I don't know why he wouldn't have been... But did he do it in this instance?
	But supposedly the crowd of people came up to the car of the guy who shot him and were admitted to kicking it and shaking it and it seemed like the guy was being threatened because he was surrounded by armed people attacking his vehicle.
	Well, the question was, did he raise the gun?
	The guy who shot him said, yeah, he rose it towards me, in which case, boom.
	And then that's self-defence.
	If he didn't, then you've shot someone for holding a rifle, which is not a crime.
	So, I would argue that the circumstances of the thing meant that it is more than likely self-defence.
	So they shouldn't be saying, his passing is a tragic loss.
	He'll always be remembered for his dedication to volunteering, activism and stuff like that.
	They're saying to Greg Abbott, don't make this worse, because he wants to pardon the person who was involved here.
	And, as pointed out in this next one here, with Clint Russell, who I've spoke to before, he says, yeah, sure, it's a loss, but the conviction of Mr Perry is also a grave injustice, because approaching innocent people in their vehicles with a mob in tow and blocking traffic while rifle ready is a definitional F around and find out.
	So yeah, there are obviously divisions.
	I know he's a libertarian and he's replying to the Libertarian Party of Texas.
	It's complicated.
	That's politics, isn't it?
	And of course, Harry did cover this if you wanted to know a bit more about that case, but I'm just using this as an example to say, yes, opinions vary.
	Shock, I know.
	But I've also seen some things from liberals as well, like Constantine Kissin.
	And here he says, Libertarianism is a great political philosophy for teenagers.
	Thankfully, most of us have the good sense to grow out of it and become adults.
	Yeah, he's also Russian.
	Yes, the state is inevitable.
	No, but it isn't happening there.
	It's like, I imagine here's also you.
	But I find the notion that getting greater personal responsibility and the state making less decisions for you makes you more of a child.
	It's a bit strange because being an adult is being responsible for yourself and making your own decisions.
	To be fair, some context here is probably Constantine arguing with people endlessly about... He is arguing with libertarians.
	Foreign policy.
	And usually the libertarian position is, I don't care.
	That's not Constantine, so... Yeah, I just think that this is really unproductive though, obviously.
	Calling people teenagers for their beliefs whilst behaving like a child, just saying, well, I'm an adult and you're a child, therefore me right.
	You would never do that.
	I didn't just do that, did I?
	I'm not a hypocrite in any way.
	But yes, what I wanted to end on is this rather amazing, and I'm not understating it, this is written by Murray Rothbard, of course, prominent libertarian, right-wing libertarian.
	He's not a frog, I swear.
	That's what you call French libertarians, is ribitarians.
	Stop making our frogs gay.
	But yes, he wrote this all the way back in 1992 and it's just a... he's titled it... I can't stop laughing now.
	I've just got a Gadsden flag with a frog on it so it just says, you know, don't gay on me.
	It's titled a right-wing populist program.
	And it says, a right-wing populist program must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of the state and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule.
	In short, and by the way, this is one of the most based documents ever written.
	It says, slash taxes, all taxes, sales, business, property, etc.
	But especially the most oppressive politically and personally, the income tax.
	We must work towards repeal of the income tax and abolish the IRS.
	Already off to a great start in my opinion.
	Obviously, I'm a bit biased.
	You've got to cut the spending too.
	Yeah, of course.
	I know he will.
	He's getting onto that.
	Slash welfare.
	There we go.
	Right after.
	Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system or short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it.
	Yes, this is what I want. - Right.
	Abolish racial or group privileges, abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire civil rights structure which tramples on property rights of every American.
	Sorry, I read the next one on a meme, Kim Doyle.
	Crush criminals.
	Roundcap... No, I can't.
	Take back the streets.
	Crush criminals.
	And by this I mean, of course, not white-collar criminals or insider traders, but violent street criminals.
	Robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers.
	Cops must be unleashed and allowed to administer instant punishment.
	Subject, of course, to liability when they are in.
	I mean, I feel like you got a little bit carried away there, and it's like, maybe I should try that.
	No, you're entirely right.
	I mean, if you actually want to solve the problems on the streets, you really need to remove the criminals.
	And there's a couple of ways of doing that.
	I mean, the American one is literally just to lock them up forever, and then just have a huge budget for prisons, because you have a billion people there.
	I mean it's kind of funny actually when you see people criticising mass incarceration in the US.
	Literally all the murderers and rapists.
	It's just the United States actually does enforce the law of giving them a huge sentence.
	In the UK we don't, we let them off.
	You'll be alright, you won't murder again.
	Oh wait, oh you have, oh never mind.
	They do take it a bit too far occasionally.
	You've got like a 7 year old who's in there, he's been there doing 20 years for murder.
	It's like, bro, I don't...
	How do you even kill someone at 7?
	I don't understand.
	Sure, but I remember FPS Russia was talking about there was some guy in there for 30 years when he was in prison.
	He was in there for murder or something and now he's an old man.
	And it's like, maybe he'll murder someone, but probably not.
	I mean, really?
	I'm not going to shed a tear as a murderer, to be fair.
	I don't know, man.
	When you're in there, if he's 50, yeah, keep him in.
	He's done the crime, given the time.
	But when he's on the point of like 60, 70... When he can't even raise his walking stick above his hip, I think he's not going to kill someone.
	It's more like a concentration camp, God.
	Where it's like, are we really running the trial still?
	I think we established genocide was bad, but I mean, this dude, he didn't do it another one.
	So another one, take back the streets.
	This is part two.
	Get rid of the bums.
	Again, unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants.
	Where will they go?
	Who cares?
	Hopefully they will disappear.
	That is, move from the ranks of the petted and costed bum class to the ranks of productive members of society.
	I'm sorry, but I don't think I've ever seen a paragraph that's been so based before.
	He's right.
	The Taliban dealing with the drug gangs, that's actually how you deal with them.
	I mean, it works.
	And it says, abolish the Fed, attack the banksters.
	Money and banking are recondite issues, but the realities can be made vivid.
	The Fed is an organised cartel of banksters who are creating inflation, ripping off the public, destroying the savings of average Americans.
	The hundreds of billions of taxpayer handouts to SNL banksters will be chicken feed compared to the coming collapse of the commercial banks.
	He said this in 1992.
	That didn't age too well, although... I thought it aged incredibly well.
	You reckon?
	What, 10,008 cons?
	Oh yeah, I suppose so.
	It wasn't a complete collapse, I suppose.
	I'm being uncharitable to someone I agree with for some reason.
	Bear Steens or whatever went bankrupt and then everyone else got bailed out, so...
	I mean, that is true, yeah.
	America first.
	A key point, and not meant to be seventh in priority.
	The American economy is not only in recession at the time, and probably now, it is in stagnation.
	The average family is worse off now than it was two decades ago.
	That trend has continued.
	Come home, America.
	Stop supporting bums abroad.
	Stop all foreign aid, which is aid to banksters and their bonds and their export industries.
	Stop globaloni and let's solve our problems at home.
	Where is he going wrong here?
	And finally, defend family values, which means get the state out of the family and replace state control with parental control.
	In the long run this means ending public schools and replacing them with private schools.
	We must realise that vouchers and even tax credit schemes are not, despite Milton Friedman, transitional demands on the path to privatised education.
	Instead they will make matters worse by fastening government control more totally upon private schools within the Sound alternative is decentralisation and back to local, community, neighbourhood control of schools.
	I mean, this is basically the school choice debate that's playing out at the minute, isn't it?
	Extended even further.
	And again, incredibly based, in my opinion.
	Do you get the blue-haired freaks out of school?
	Yes.
	I mean, that would be it.
	And then he goes on to actually talk about left libertarians with the healthy amount of scorn that is needed.
	He says, we must reject once and for all the left libertarian view that all government-operated resources must be cesspools.
	We must try, short of ultimate privatisation, to operate government facilities in a manner most conductive to a business or neighbourhood control.
	But that means that the public schools must allow prayer and we must abandon the absurd left-atheist interpretation of the First Amendment that establishes the establishment of religion, sorry, means not allowing prayers in public schools or a creche in a schoolyard or a public square at Christmas.
	We must return to common sense and the original intent in constitutional interpretation.
	I don't know about you.
	What happened there?
	Just the whole thing is great, isn't it?
	Alright.
	Just hearing my world view articulated so well.
	We're here to see you so happy.
	I know, it's a rare thing.
	But yes, is this really so deplorable?
	I mean, this is what, broadly speaking, many right-wing libertarians believe.
	So if you're a conservative, perhaps, you know, give them a bit more charity and see them as the allies that they are.
	And the same goes for libertarians as well and conservatives.
	They're not necessarily your enemies.
	You want the same ends.
	You have different ideas of the means of getting there, but you have the same values.
	You can be friends, you can be political allies.
	The idea is we're pushing in the same direction to shift the Overton window, so antagonistically arguing amongst each other isn't going to help that whatsoever.
	But If you've not been convinced by this, I do have a bit of suggested reading for you in this final link here.
	Here is a book that I would recommend.
	It's titled, Everyone I Don't Like is a Communist, and if you're listening, it's got a picture of Joseph Stalin in his pyjamas, riding a nice carpet with a rainbow, and it says, A Child's Guide to Online Political Discussion.
	I feel like you'll really enjoy this book if you're not convinced.
	All right, well, let's go to the video comments.
	can inform how tall you might become, but diet and exercise ultimately determine it.
	Again, with intelligence and predisposition to disease, DNA's function does not fully explain how we turn out the way we do.
	Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance has some merit, although is nebulous.
	The title is a smart riposte to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion that North American readers will miss as the book has a different title there.
	Yeah, I think that one shouldn't overemphasise any one aspect of human nature.
	Like, your genes are important, but your environment also alters your genes expression as well.
	So So, even if you're looking at it purely at the genetic level, there's such a thing as epigenetics whereby you can be put in the right environment and the gene expressed will change.
	So yes, environment's very important, not everything is genetic, but genetics are important, and particularly the left like to under-emphasise their influence, whereas there are many things where they are the most significant factor.
	Complete side note, that El Salvadorian president, is there any speech of him speaking English?
	I don't know, why?
	Most of my Love and Labs ideas.
	Things for him to say.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Arizona Desert Rat.
	Oh no!
	He should have waited to meet with a lawyer first before doing an interview with the police.
	Americans always speak with an attorney in situations like this.
	You're not obligated to answer any questions and you have the right to remain silent.
	You really need to watch this video.
	Number one, and this really ought to be good enough.
	Contrary to what you laymen instinctively and naturally suppose, it can not help.
	There is no way it can help you.
	Plenty of folks think that it can and they're always wrong.
	It can not help.
	There is no way it can help you.
	Literally, if what you're saying is true, and you are innocent, it can still harm your defence.
	It is actual madness, but he does a very good job, that guy there.
	I've seen this video before, and I very much agree with it, and, yeah.
	I've heard it from police officers, just like, yes.
	Even they say, yeah, don't talk to us.
	It is a bad idea.
	Are you stupid?
	Yeah, next one.
	Utopia 2.0.
	Take back the vision of the world they've stolen by giving me your money.
	Utopia 2.0.
	Available now on Amazon.com.
	Part 4 starts in on the social issues side of the equation, begins with immigration, and ends with the responsibilities a parent has for their child.
	Utopia 2.0.
	Tag, you're it.
	I appreciate the cinematic trailer voice you're going for there.
	Alright, they're in comments.
	Okay.
	I'll start with yours.
	Okay.
	Rare treat having Josh on a weekday show.
	That's very nice.
	Thank you, Henry.
	General hyping.
	Completely unrelated to today's topics, I just wanted to say kudos to Connor for debating the naked attraction nonce on GB News.
	Yeah, he did do that.
	I've had to listen to about an hour's worth of absolute tripe falling out my mum's mouth about how amazing this programme was, with her logic floating somewhere around, well, I didn't see a penis when I was 14 and it confused me.
	I mean, it's not that complicated.
	I mean, half the population has one.
	No, but it's such a big divide between, like, parents and kids these days.
	Just the idea of like, oh, pornography, that's not easily available anywhere.
	I'm quite surprised at your mother's opinion there, because I imagine both of my parents would be like, you're showing your genitals to children, you deserve in prison.
	They wouldn't say it grammatically incorrectly like I just did, but that would be the general gist of it.
	These kinds of programmes can genuinely brainwash the meek into believing things they don't even understand, but they'll Happily espoused.
	Well, just be polite and persistent and try and argue your points in a non-antagonistic way and maybe eventually she will understand.
	Okay, four.
	Masks finally proven harmful.
	Forget the health impacts, the social, emotional and verbal retardation of children wearing masks at school was clear by summer of 2021.
	Today's red state kids will have to carry America in 20 years as their blue state cousins remain permanently developmentally dysfunctional.
	And that is very true, yes.
	I obviously just didn't have time to go through the psychological effects, but they are just as numerous as the physiological ones and just as damaging, I would imagine as well.
	I hate to be rude, but honestly, if you mass the child, I mean that really is a, oh god, I'm a retard moment.
	What did you feel?
	I don't think that's rude, that's just factually correct.
	No, but I mean, even if you did it because you were like, I'm scared or whatever, I want to protect the kiddos, it's an understandable parenting feeling, but at the same time, like, it's like those memes where people put their kids in, like, bubbles.
	It's very strange.
	The occasional TV show will have that plotline.
	They're putting bubbles to tease the fact of overprotected parents going too far, aren't they?
	Bleach Demon says trust the holy science, they said.
	Just listen to the experts, they know best.
	The holy science, two plus two equals apple.
	Well, I mean, there were scientists that were saying yes, this is dumb.
	It's just that Politics pushed them out of prominence and they were silenced, both losing jobs, not being published.
	So quite often the representation of science has been selectively cultivated because it's not politically expedient to have a division in there, or it be unanimously against what world governments are doing, right?
	But anyway, shall we move on to your comments?
	We don't have too much time.
	Sure.
	Binary Surfer says, Musk in this interview is a textbook study in how to silence, how to use silence to apply pressure.
	He speaks, he stays silent and just looks calmly at the journalist.
	This is a massive pressure increase and a perfect demonstrations of how to use force, how to force an unplanned response.
	Yeah, it's actually fantastic.
	You can see the little pause, where he's like, why did you change it?
	And he just pauses and goes, because Covid's not really an issue anymore.
	And then there's just another pause.
	You're absolutely right, Binary.
	It's real interesting and something you really should study as an individual if you want to be able to get the most out of a tense interaction or interview.
	That's how you do it.
	Desert Rat says, so Elon has a budget?
	Who'd have thought?
	Twitter has a budget.
	Gasp!
	Elon decided to make Twitter operate within the budget.
	Who'd have thought?
	Yeah, he went from 8,000 employees to 1,500, he said.
	Like 80 something percent of employees are gone?
	It's a good thing I say.
	If you can keep a business functioning with fewer employees, believe it or not, that is good.
	How little were needed?
	is more the amazing thing to me.
	Like, never mind the cost savings, which are great, but... John's put something on screen here.
	I think Josh Firm needs a cigarette after reading that treatise on right-wing populism.
	Imagine if he watches Bukele's speeches and interviews.
	I'm not actually familiar, so I'm going to have to check that out.
	Let's go to the last one.
	There's comments and then we'll end.
	Okay, Joan of Arc, eh?
	Seems American libertarians just want to smoke weed all day, which I'm sure a tyrannical government is actually quite fine with letting them do because they won't actually threaten the regime.
	I mean, of course people are ineffective, there are lots of ineffective people, but you can't tar everyone with the same brush of course, which you're not doing here of course.
	And Bleach Demon, the fundamental problem with the American discussion of libertarianism is the Libertarian Party.
	Yes, there are changes.
	Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party bet everything on the presidential and Senate races, not local and state elections.
	Until they run a state legislature, there is no path forward, which I think is fair.
	Yeah, you're a minor party in a two-party system.
	You've got to get locals.
	Yeah, you're not going to build...
	Grassroots base, if you're going for the big leagues, aren't you?
	The Senate and the President.
	Presidential seat.
	Like, unless the former President suddenly turns around and endorses your party, you're not gonna just jump to the highest office.
	That's mad.
	Anyway, thanks for your time.
	Oh yes, of course.
	More from us... I don't know, there's like a website or something?
	Not sure if you've heard of it.

▲