Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 16, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:03

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #654

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 16th of May 2023.
	I'm I'm Josh and I'm joined by Dan.
	Hello.
	And today we are going to be talking about the excess deaths with the vaccine which of course will not be going elsewhere.
	Most definitely not on YouTube that one.
	And I'm going to be talking about trolling the media and then Dan has an uplifting surprise in response to many people saying that you're a harbinger of doom.
	Yes, I've decided to give one for the audience and cheer everybody up a bit with something uplifting.
	I'm sure I can figure out a way to make it somehow depressing.
	No, no, no.
	I'm going to sabotage it.
	It will be a good one, yes.
	You're not allowed to be optimistic.
	No, I'm joking of course.
	So, shall we dive into the first one then?
	Of course.
	Because, look, in this segment what I'm going to cover is what I think is probably the biggest story in the world right now.
	And it's one that is so dangerous to the established order that it can't be discussed on mainstream media, can't be discussed on big tech platforms, which is exactly why this is not going to appear on YouTube.
	It's going to be a website and Rumble exclusive.
	We're going to have to talk about these excess deaths.
	Um, let's have a look at the ONS.
	So these are the government's own data's who are tracking, uh, mortality in the country.
	And this has been the case now for throughout this year and for, you know, throughout 2020 as well, there has been a significant increase in the amount of people dying.
	You always expect a certain number of people to die in any given week.
	Um, but you've got a baseline for this.
	You've got the five year baseline.
	In fact, the baseline, you know, you can take it back as far as you want.
	There was a fairly consistent trend.
	And yes, it tends to, you know, somewhat increase over time with demographic changes, you know, population getting older and the increase in the population, but we know what the benchmark is.
	And the excess deaths in the UK, and not just the UK, we're talking about across the Western world, the United States, other developed nations as well.
	I take it you're just using the UK as a sort of case study to then extrapolate to other countries.
	I know the figures in the UK better, but I mean, this is the case for, I mean, all of them.
	United States, Japan, Western Europe, basically anywhere else that has a certain characteristic in common.
	You are seeing this rise in excess deaths.
	So let's quote from the ONS.
	So this is the British government's own statistical service.
	Now what they say is in the week ending the 21st of April, 2023, the week 16, there were 12,420 deaths registered in England and Wales.
	538 of these mentioned COVID-19.
	Now, this is basically just mentioning something on a death certificate.
	It doesn't necessarily mean they died of Covid, it's just simply mentioned.
	So it could be a contributing factor, it could be something else, it could be that the person filling out the death certificate simply decided to add it.
	So that bit is subjective, but the number of deaths, of course, is inabsolute.
	You can't fake that.
	There is no subjective analysis here.
	It is you are either dead or you're not.
	Yeah, take that, Schrodinger.
	Yes.
	This is an increase in all deaths compared to the week ended 14th of April, when the number of all-course deaths was 9,000-something, of which COVID accounted for, you know, 465.
	Again, it's just, you know, mentioning that.
	Right.
	The number of deaths was above the five year average in private homes by 29%.
	Which is very significant and I've seen some breakdowns of the data and it seems to suggest that there is a statistical significance in the increase which implies that there's There's an underlying factor, or perhaps multiple factors, which more often than not there are multiple factors, perhaps a leading one, but the fact that this is a universal trend suggests that it's something that's common amongst all countries that seems to have happened at the same time.
	And of course, I mean, if it was, because we go on to hear later about some of the experts trying to, you know, give their explanations for when they come across, you know, things like, you know, it's an ageing Well, why aren't these deaths occurring in care homes?
	I mean, there are more deaths in care homes, but why is there also significantly more deaths in younger people at home?
	You know, that doesn't make any sense.
	So, the biggest increase is in deaths at home, there's also deaths in hospital, which is 20% above, deaths in care home, 25% above, and other settings, 12% above.
	So, you average that out, it is a 22% increase against the five-year average, or an extra 2,540 deaths.
	In a week.
	Right, that we're not expecting.
	That's massive, isn't it?
	Well, to put it into context, that is the equivalent of six full 747s crashing.
	And, of course, if that happened, that would be remembered for hundreds of years into the future, if it occurred in that manner.
	Well, to give you a comparison, it's a slightly bigger number, but only slightly number, in the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the World Trade Center attacks, 2,983 people died.
	So that's only slightly higher than the number of people that are dying every week in Britain, on an excess basis, and yet nobody is talking about it.
	The 9-11 terrorist attacks, the events of that day, whoever caused them, Triggered a war that lasted for 20 years and resulted in the biggest donation of military equipment to men in sandals that the United States has ever indulged in.
	Right?
	It was a watershed event.
	Like you said, it's something that will go down in history books and will be talked about in hundreds of years.
	And that was, you know, 2,900 people.
	So 9-11 every week?
	Yes.
	And nobody's talking about it.
	And it's not just this week.
	I mean, go to the ONS and pick any week you like.
	It is a consistent trend.
	And as you correctly say, it is not just happening in the UK.
	So to this, I'm going to go to Dr Campbell, who's also been talking about these numbers brilliantly on his channel.
	Let's see what he has.
	That's the data there for Australia.
	Above What we would expect all the time.
	January 2022 to January 2023.
	Canada likewise.
	Again, this is the 10% line here.
	So did it just about go down to normal then perhaps?
	But all of this is above the average and Canadian deaths remain above the average.
	So excess deaths there and this is excess mortality deaths from all cause compared to average over previous years.
	A lot of excess deaths in Canada.
	Deaths from all cause compared to the average of previous years, of course, is the same.
	Denmark, again, Denmark at least fell below average there for a period of time.
	But again, we see that the bulk of this is above the average that we would expect based on the five-year average.
	This is an international phenomena that's going on here.
	And very few people seem to be that concerned about it.
	At least in officialdom.
	Germany, again, that's the 0% line there.
	And we see it's been above average for the vast majority of the time, just dipping below a couple of times.
	Of course, all this area under the graph are people's lives.
	Ireland, again, dipping below the 0% once and maybe a little bit there, but again, the vast majority well above, sometimes peaking highly above.
	The five-year average for Ireland.
	Israel, again, above the five-year average virtually all the time throughout all of 2022 into 2023.
	Italy, again, above the average line, above the 0% marker for the majority of the time in Italy.
	Italy, again, above the average line, above the 0% marker for the majority of the time in Italy.
	Japan, well, this is the 10% line here for Japan.
	So Japan has been well above for December 31st, 2021, all the way through to more recent data.
	Netherlands went down below a little bit in January 22, but again, the vast majority of the time, it's been above the five-year average, that being the 0% line there.
	In the Netherlands, New Zealand.
	That's the plus 5% line there.
	So New Zealand has always been well above, dropping down to about plus 4%.
	But again, well above for the vast majority of that time period, January 2022 to April 2023.
	Yeah.
	So, I know.
	And just bear in mind, looking at all of that data, the solid bar, when you can see it, and you can't even see it in the New Zealand one, but that solid bar, that's the zero bound.
	So all of that volume under the graph are people dying that shouldn't be dying.
	Yeah.
	It's so harrowing, isn't it?
	Clearly.
	And this is thousands of lives directly ending, but of course you've got to remember with each of those, there's a family, there's a friend set, there's colleagues, there's people who miss this person.
	And why is this happening?
	And why is no politician even acknowledging this?
	Why is the public health officials, who it is their job to respond to this sort of stuff, refuse to acknowledge it?
	The media haven't been acknowledging it.
	Well, they have a little bit.
	There's been a little bit of a very tepid acknowledgement from the media.
	Let's have a look at this Mirror article.
	So this is an article from the Mirror headlined "Brits are dying in their tens of thousands and we don't really have any idea why".
	So to quote from this, tens of thousands more Brits were dying than expected and experts aren't quite sure why that is.
	From May to December last year there were 32,441 excess deaths in England and Wales, excluding deaths from Covid.
	Excess deaths are defined as the number of people who died above the five-year average.
	Yep.
	That means that 32,000 Brits would be expected to be alive, but are instead dead.
	They spoke to Professor David Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Demography at Oxford University, and he told the Mirror that nobody knew for certain what had caused so many deaths through last year.
	He pointed out that post-Covid, the UK's population had changed through the deaths a significant proportion of the elderly due to the virus.
	He explained once those poor people had been packed off, the remaining population should be healthier.
	There should be a period afterwards where deaths are lower than normal.
	But that hasn't happened.
	And the interesting thing about this article is they decided to turn their comments off.
	Funny that, isn't it?
	Whenever there's a controversial topic discussed, it's mysterious that they always know that it's controversial, but then when actually talking about such a thing, it's almost like that controversy disappears, like the removal of it.
	And I think I know why.
	It's because I think their readers would have solved the mystery for them, had they left comments on.
	I'm not sure whether you're going to have a breakdown of those graphs or on screen.
	Oh no, please add comment.
	But I know that you've spent probably a very large amount of time looking at graphs, so you find it pretty easy to spot patterns in graphs.
	And did you notice how sharp the peaks and troughs were in lots of the graphs?
	It seems to indicate specific significance of specific dates, doesn't it?
	Yeah.
	I mean, there is a certain amount of when things go onto the register, so things can get moved around by bank holidays and stuff like that, so that can add to some of this.
	But yes, certainly there are certain points where we're seeing a significant increase over others.
	But I mean, more broadly, I just looked at the area under the graph which shows a huge amount of people that should be alive.
	I mean, for the UK it's 32,000 people who should be alive this year that aren't.
	And of course he went through the list.
	It is all Western countries.
	We had to cut him short because there's basically so much of it that we couldn't get through it all.
	My experience of looking at those graphs, when you see these very defined patterns, it seems to indicate that there's a very robust phenomenon underlying that.
	Right.
	If you have poor data that's quite noisy, there's not necessarily a distinct pattern in the nature of the graph that you see.
	And this is just something that I've kind of built up by looking at lots and lots of data and graphs when I was studying.
	Yeah, and I want to be careful how I phrase this.
	It's difficult not to phrase it with the converse meaning, but this is good data.
	I mean, it's obviously tragic that people are dying, but it's good data because it is so binary.
	There is no interpretation here.
	You either died or you didn't.
	So, you know, that is a very clear thing.
	And one of the things I started to realise at the beginning of the pandemic was you wouldn't be able to trust anything coming out of government.
	With the exception of the deaf figures.
	The total deaf figures, because there was nothing that they could do to massage that one way or another.
	People either died or they didn't.
	Now, we've seen the mirror there, asking the question, why are all these people dying?
	But they don't know why, and they can't provide an explanation.
	I noticed that the Express also spotted the popularity of it, and they decided to do their own version of this, which is essentially the same article, how Britons are dying in their tens of thousands, but nobody knows why.
	The only difference with the Express article is they forgot to turn their comments off.
	So I jumped in and took some screen grabs and I had a look, I went down to the comments section and I changed it to most popular comments.
	So let's see what the most, I mean they're all the same actually, I mean everybody's basically coming to the same conclusion, but let's have a look at what the most popular comments are.
	The most popular comment says it's the Covid vaccine.
	Surprise, surprise.
	The second most popular comment says, maybe it's got something to do with the experimental drugs pumped into a large portion of the population.
	You're looking at the newest there, John.
	Yeah, you want to click to the best or whatever.
	Just below, there you go.
	Thanks, John.
	The third most popular comment says, it's called the vaccine wake-up.
	And the fourth most popular comment says, "Nobody knows why, I know why, and I'm glad neither me nor my family fell for it." So it would seem that the commenters are well aware of what's causing this increase, And look, just going to personal anecdotes, you know, I know somebody who had the... was it the AstraZeneca one early on when that was being pushed?
	And she was a runner.
	She was, you know, took that sport very seriously and she lost 30% of her lungs.
	She spent months in hospital because it caused blood clots.
	And lung tissue doesn't grow back.
	And she's like early 20s.
	So that's...
	Life-altering.
	Oh, life-altering.
	Yes, definitely, definitely.
	The reason I'm so glib and miserable is one, just seeing death on such a scale, just whatever the cause, it makes one concerned for the future of humanity.
	I mean, I'm not the most optimistic of people, but this is just one of the most egregious and horrific things you could possibly see.
	All of my family got the vaccine as well, I didn't.
	And it's kind of like, well, almost my entire world could stand to suffer because of whatever is underlying this.
	Because the public health officials and the government and, you know, anybody who wants to keep their job within the medical industry is steadfast ignoring this issue.
	You know, we're not getting to the bottom of what's going on.
	You know, give you some other personal anecdotes.
	I mean, I know somebody who was saying, oh, yeah, you know, my other half, she's been having these really bad eye issues.
	You know, she just randomly goes blind every now and again.
	And she was in the shops the other day.
	She had her two kids with her.
	She just went blind for about 45 minutes.
	The staff had to look after the kids for her.
	That sounds terrifying.
	And it's like, OK, well, how long has that been going on?
	Oh, about 18 months.
	Right.
	Do you want to make the connection as to what happened 18 months ago?
	And that was exactly when they went off and had their jabs.
	I've got one if you would like to hear it.
	One of my close friends, his older brother, who I know because we went to school together, he's in his late 20s, and he had an adverse reaction.
	He had heart palpitations, heart inflammation, to go into hospital with it for a few days had to be kept there and they said it was a reaction to the vaccine themselves in the hospital and I mean he's a healthy lad in his 20s similar to me so it makes one worry and I mean I'm very glad that I was skeptical because I did almost think that well
	If we're not going to be allowed to do anything, I almost was coerced into it, because I thought, well, I do want to leave the UK at some point, and I thought it would eternally be closed off, so at least we don't have that.
	I feel somewhat safer in not having taken it.
	Yeah, it's worth looking at the reasons that people give to try and explain.
	Oh, and actually, the other thing I'm going to point out, right, is, and this is the point that Peter Lorre made to me in my Brokeronomics series, the interview Peter Lorre on Investing, Section 2, that is coming out later today, actually, at 3pm, so that'll be a really interesting one.
	He made the point to me that, of course, it's not just people dying, because if you think about it, you know, what death is, really, is you have an impact to your health that passes a critical threshold.
	But lots of people are going to have impacts to their health that do not pass the critical threshold of finishing them off, thank goodness.
	But they're still going to get, you know, serious injuries.
	It's going to be my friend who lost her lungs, or the friend who, you know, keeps losing her vision all the time.
	There's going to be loads of people who are significantly impacted by this.
	And, you know, looking at, you know, the example you gave to me is looking at the payout data from life insurance companies and from personal injury companies.
	So this is, this is, You know, companies who've had employees who've suffered disabilities, you know, that data is also showing a significant increase following vaccination.
	But, you know, just for the sake of it, let's have a look at the arguments that people are raising against this being a vaccine-based thing.
	So one of the things that this Professor Emeritus at Oxford University that I cited earlier in the Mirror article, he says, well, people are getting older.
	People have always been getting older.
	Yep.
	Well, the demographics as a whole, we have an ageing population because of the boomer bubble that came along.
	So yes, the populations are getting older.
	But that's still been going on for a long time, hasn't it?
	But you don't get a 20% increase between 2019 and 2022.
	Yeah, people haven't got 20% older in the space of a couple of years, have they?
	So that one doesn't work.
	The other explanation you gave, oh, maybe people are getting fatter.
	And again, that's probably true because, you know, we have seed oil stuffed into, you know, everything that you try and eat these days and... I imagine being locked at home for a couple of years didn't help.
	I actually got fitter.
	But again, are people dying 20% more because they got 20% fatter over lockdown?
	I think it has a sort of elongated effect, doesn't it?
	You don't die almost immediately.
	Yeah, but you would expect to see a sort of smooth increase in the sort of rate of deaths.
	You wouldn't see a 20% leap.
	It certainly wouldn't be that massive jagged line, like we've got a bunch of people who are bulimic that have binges and purges, do they, where you're getting these spikes.
	The other explanation people give, and actually I'm more sympathetic to this one, it is the lack of access to health care over the pandemic.
	That is actually something very significant.
	That is definitely true because, you know, you think about it, delayed diagnosis in diabetes, cancer, you know, all of that is going to lead to an excess death.
	So a part of it, I'm certain, is going to be the lack of access to health care, right?
	But that doesn't explain why 30s and 40 year olds are dying more.
	And the reason they're dying predominantly is heart issues.
	Now, 30 or 40 years, they don't go and get themselves checked out for heart issues.
	In fact, they don't get themselves checked out at all unless they, you know, they bump into something or they have a serious issue or some part of them really starts hurting.
	I haven't been to the doctors in about 10 years.
	Exactly.
	So, I mean, 30 and 40 years are now just, you know, just not waking up in the morning, but from a heart issue.
	How is that, lack of access to healthcare?
	So even though, you know, we are seeing an increase in cancers and diabetes and all that kind of stuff, it does not explain the heart issues.
	So clearly, that has to be a minority contributor towards the excess deaths that we're seeing.
	I think you're right, yeah.
	Another one that people always throw at me is, oh, the NHS is underfunded.
	A trend across the world can be broken down to NHS funding.
	So the reason we've got excess deaths in Japan is because, you know, the NHS is underfunded.
	The Japanese just rely on our health service, don't they?
	Yeah.
	They're always in the... I mean, not the Japanese, to be fair, but I mean, it is a sort of... I mean, it's not a national health service, it's an international health service.
	That's true, yeah.
	I remember once going to, I think, was it Thomas Hospital in London, when I lived there, and I remember seeing an Indian family turn up, and they still had their bloody suitcases with them.
	And they went in, and they couldn't speak English, but they just went to the front desk because they had their grandmother and they needed to get some medical care.
	They had clearly just got off the plane.
	Didn't speak a word of English, but it turned out to get medical care.
	Yeah, but... But that doesn't explain the Japanese and the New Zealanders and... No, of course not.
	And just to inject another bit of anecdote to some of the data, I know some people who work in hospitals and they said that not only was hospital traffic way, way down, but also the COVID cases in certainly some places didn't warrant the members of staff that they had in.
	So there's all this talk of... That might possibly explain the explosion in the dance routines then.
	Yes.
	So not only were they shutting off access for all of the other real health problems, but they had overstaffed for Covid because they anticipated it to be a lot worse than it actually was.
	Yes, quite.
	Deaths of despair is the last argument that I hear put to me as to why this is happening.
	Well...
	I mean, to spare the stupidity of people to raise an argument possibly, I might go with that one.
	Right, so now I want to talk about why I think it's the vaccine.
	Because, look, the main argument that I have as to why I think it's the vaccine, it's because the political and media and the public health officials, they think that it's the vaccine.
	How do I know that they think it's the vaccine?
	It's because they're not talking about this.
	There is no incentive structure for them not to talk about this.
	So, you know, however I arrived at this review, you know, I play a lot of poker.
	You know, when somebody doesn't bet, that is information as well as when people do bet.
	In fact, I'm going to give a really good example.
	Let's have a look at this.
	So this is a sort of question you might get asked in an interview.
	So it's, you know, it's four pepes, right?
	And two of them are wearing yellow hats, and two of them are wearing red hats, okay?
	And they're all facing towards a wall, and for those of you listening at home, one of them is on one side of the wall, and three of them are on the other side of the wall, facing towards the wall.
	Now, the interview question generally goes like this.
	One of them knows what colour hat he's wearing, because they know that there's two yellow hats and there's two red hats, but they don't know what colour hat they've been assigned.
	Which of them knows what hat they're wearing?
	What colour hat?
	It's the frog at the end with the red hat on the far right hand side.
	How does he know?
	Because he can see... Well, he knows what hat he's wearing.
	No, he doesn't know what colour hat he's wearing.
	You can only see what you can see in front of you, but you don't know what hat is on your own head.
	Okay.
	I know you would definitely get there, but I'll save you it.
	The person who knows what colour hat they're wearing is the second guy on the right-hand side.
	And the reason that he knows is because he can see the guy in front has a yellow hat, and he knows that if he was wearing a yellow hat, the guy behind would speak up.
	The fact that the guy behind has not spoken up tells him that he must have a different colour hat to the guy in front of him.
	The absence of people talking about something is a powerful indicator.
	So you think about the incentives that's going on here.
	Yes, fine.
	Let's say it was any of these other explanations.
	It was the ageing population, it was the NHS being underfunded.
	The government might not talk about it, but Labour most certainly would.
	Opposition's party would most certainly talk about this.
	The Labour party, every election that they've won has basically been on the basis of the NHS.
	NHS is underfunded.
	That is their whole stick.
	Public health officials, when they talk about public health issues, they get bigger prestige and budget and importance and prominence.
	There is no way that they would not be talking about something like this.
	And the media The media loves health scare stories.
	There is no way that they should not be talking about this unless all three of those groups The political class, the media and public health officials think that they are liable for the harm that is going on at the moment.
	That is the only explanation that makes sense as to why they're not talking about this.
	I think it might have been Pfizer.
	They worked in a clause in their contract that specified that they're not legally liable for any side effects that was agreed in the government's negotiating with them and so they already pre-empted Yes.
	Beforehands, they knew that this would come up.
	Plus what has come out from the Pfizer leaks as well.
	I mean, so there's no question in my mind, there were excess deaths and it's because of the vaccine and it makes perfect sense.
	But, you know, that's why this is a Rumble and website exclusive, because we can't talk about this on the mainstream media, we can't talk about this on any big tech platform, so this video is going to get a fraction of the views that most of them do.
	But it's the truth, so I have to say something.
	Sorry, I was a bit downbeat, but... Well, it's a bit of a downbeat subject, that one, to be honest.
	Everyone I know outside of this office has been vaccinated, so that's pretty much everyone I know and love runs the risk of dying, so I apologise if...
	It was a bit stark when you put it all together, to be honest, and I knew that this was the case, but then when you see it all put together, it kind of hits you, doesn't it?
	It most certainly does.
	I've not really had the cause to have the emotional impact in the same way.
	I'd just been indignant and annoyed about what happened previously.
	We're going to have to confront it eventually.
	Anyway, let's beat up on some journalists, cheer us up a bit.
	Yeah, that's important stuff though, isn't it?
	I need to catch up with my notes.
	So I think we can probably agree that the media practices at the minute leave a lot to be desired, don't they?
	I think that's probably putting it lightly.
	And journalistic standards, I think it's safe to say, have slipped from an already pretty low point in the first place.
	However, there is a ray of hope.
	A sparkling ray of sunshine in an otherwise grey and miserable world, and that is trolling them into proper practice.
	And I'm going to introduce you to this article and I'm going to read all of it and pay close attention to some of the details because I'm going to pose to you a little bit of a mystery as to the nature of this article because I'm going to single it out for a reason and I want to... Right.
	See, if you can guess it, obviously I've told you already before we started, so Dan is exempt.
	But everyone else in the audience, have a bit of fun spotting some of the things about this article that might make it a little bit different to normal.
	So it's titled, Irish women's obsession with fake tan is problematic.
	Now, that headline on its own, I agree.
	Not for the same reason that they give in the article, but I think fake tan.
	To borrow a term from the Americans, which I'm rather affectionate of actually, which is a rare thing for me to praise, American English, but it's a bit white trash, isn't it?
	fake tan it's kind of an indicator of low social status in my opinion yes because otherwise you you just have a you know a long weekend in the bahamas wouldn't you well exactly it's imitating the wealth of being able to go on holiday without actually having it and getting the tan naturally and also it looks tacky and also being fluorescent orange and despite um our beloved uh It's very much like breast implants, isn't it?
	As long as you do a little bit, it can be enhancing, but typically they tend to go way too far.
	Augment, do not mask.
	That's just a good general rule.
	That's not anything to do with what I'm actually talking about, that was just a personal gripe.
	But the byline here is, when a white Irish woman dons fake tan for a night out, she is wearing a costume that allows her to experience a fleeting taste of a more exotic identity, with none of the obstacles of people of colourface.
	Colour face.
	That people of colour face.
	Bit strange.
	Sort the grammar out, Irish times.
	Mm-hmm.
	But if you scroll down, John, obviously the thumbnail's not that controversial, but obviously look at the author there.
	If you scroll up a little bit, John, just a touch.
	Adriana Acosta-Cortez.
	That sure sounds like someone we know in American politics.
	I wish I could put my finger on which Democratic based, Democratic New York based socialist that is.
	I don't really call her based to be honest.
	I mean based in location.
	I haven't received a blow to the head, I'm not calling AOC based, don't worry.
	But it starts like this, it says, Dear Irish women, we need to talk about fake tan, which is already very condescending.
	I am a Latinx, a term used to describe people of Latin American heritage, woman of colour who grew up as the youngest child in a strict Catholic family in the south of Guayaquil in Ecuador.
	I moved to Ireland in May 2015, two weeks before your country became the first to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote with the intention of living and working here for two or three years.
	But the marriage equality referendum made a huge impression on me.
	I did not expect such a progressive movement from a historically Catholic country like the one I grew up in.
	My opinion of Ireland, I accidentally adopted the accent there, No, I want you to do the whole thing in an Irish accent.
	My opinion of Ireland was formed, I'm not going to do that, and I have since found it to be a loving, accepting and considerate country, always on the forefront of progressive social change.
	Unless you're English, of course.
	They're not loving and accepting then.
	That is one aspect of Irish culture that sits so uncomfortably with me.
	I don't know if that's grammatically correct.
	The widespread use of fake tanning products.
	I first noticed the phenomenon a few months after my arrival when a colleague was showing me photographs of her children that were on her desk.
	Her daughter appeared twice In one casual photo she had fair skin, in the other she was wearing a beautiful ball gown and her skin was darker than mine.
	I asked my colleague if her husband was South American.
	She laughed and replied, no, no, none of us can get a colour that's straight out of a bottle.
	I mean, that's... I see no problem with that.
	I mean, other than the fake tanning, which I think is a bit tacky.
	Yeah.
	But, um, so far I don't see the racism.
	But, um, that might be the point, maybe.
	I mean... Oh, I never perceive the racism these days.
	I mean, it's just past me.
	Fake tanning wasn't something that I'd encountered much before, but afterwards I started seeing it everywhere.
	From the bronzed influencers on Instagram to the tanned attendees of local nightclubs, fake tanning appeared to have ingrained itself into the fabric of Irish society.
	Ireland has the highest per capita use of fake tan in the world.
	A quick search of the Boots website shows 480 various tanning products from 43 brands.
	So, one of the palest places in the world consumes the most fake tan.
	I mean... One thing that's really interesting is if you go to countries with a lot of sun, you'll often find that their tanning creams are sold as whitening.
	So in pale countries, the women tend to want to get darker, and in the dark countries, women tend to want to get lighter.
	I don't really understand it, because I'm quite drawn to fair-skinned women, in the paler sense.
	Well, you know, that's the thing with these hot countries, is they want to be what they're not.
	So, if they start out from a darker position, they want to... Literally, the sun creams say, put this on and you'll get lighter in the sun.
	It's the precise opposite.
	How would that work?
	You take in, like, negative UV rays that make you paler?
	Presumably bleach or something, I don't know.
	Well, this article does go on to mention skin bleaching in Africa.
	Okay.
	So it says, we can't talk about fake tan without acknowledging the historic context of skin colour and the value that's been placed on it for centuries.
	Eurocentric beauty standards have favoured lighter skin tones, often at the expense of people with darker complexions.
	Racism and colourism, prejudicial discrimination against individuals with a dark skin tone, have resulted in marginalisation, discrimination, inequality for people of colour by artificially darkening skin, fake tanning culture, inadvertently perpetuates the fetishisation of high melanin content without acknowledging the struggles faced by those who naturally possess it.
	Now, I actually think there might be a little bit to this.
	And again, I've not been hit in the head, but I think that part of it does come from a fetishisation of dark-skinned people.
	There's certainly that going on, isn't there?
	Certainly in music and entertainment.
	People of African heritage are wildly over-represented and to thick-skulled people that aspire to be...
	Such as an adverts, for example.
	Yes, that aspire to be those sorts of people who are towed along by celebrity gossip, well, they might be a bit self-conscious of how they don't look like the people that they are looking up to.
	So it could be a factor there, that they are trying to look more dark.
	Because I think I've seen this sort of ghettoization of some white women.
	I've got to say, this just seems like a classically, torturously woke article so far.
	Yes, and if you scroll down a bit, John, because I'm not going to read through too much more of it, because I think you get the point.
	If you go up again and look at that picture, that's the author there, supposedly.
	Is there anything strange about that picture?
	Well, it's blue hair, so classical wokey, and she's a bit fat, so again, that might be why she's decided to go in for left-wing politics.
	But not the content of the picture itself, but the nature of the picture.
	Aspects of it seem...
	Some might say.
	The lighting's a bit off.
	You want to get the lighting right.
	Yeah.
	But let's skip ahead because it just goes on and it basically is the cookie cutter arguments of wokeism.
	But we move on to this next article.
	Here we have, uh, Irish newspaper admits one of its most read articles was an AI hoax and apologizes.
	It says the piece was the paper's second most read article and prompted debate on radio and social media as per the independent.
	Several social media users also questioned whether the photo and the name of the writer were those of a real person.
	Many suggested that the byline picture of a blue haired Latin American woman had been created by artificial intelligence.
	So that entire article Was AI generated?
	It was 80% AI generated apparently.
	So the AI generated it and I think they curated it just so it would hit some of the right notes.
	Probably removing the bit that says as a language model I can't generate a woke model but here's some suggestions or something.
	The thing is, that article you just read, until you told me that it was AI, that's just classic Guardian.
	90% of what gets written in the Guardian, or any of these other sort of... what's the American version?
	Huffington Post, Washington Post.
	That is all they do.
	In fact, if anything, that's slightly better written.
	Yes.
	Fewer spelling mistakes.
	Well, that kind of explains why when BuzzFeed, before BuzzFeed News was dissolved, when they announced they were replacing some of their journalists, I think 12% of their journalists were laid off.
	They were replacing them with ChatGPT.
	Their stock price trebled.
	It trebled at the prospect of replacing real BuzzFeed journalists With AI?
	So the big problem with AI is that it's, at the moment, it's not doing much by way of creativity.
	It tends to take the existing corpus of knowledge and add nothing to it, which is perfect for left-wing journalism because they don't do any thinking.
	You know, no first principles analysis takes place.
	It is purely going with the herd.
	So there is no reason why you can't replace all left-wing journalists with just a chat prompt engineer.
	It's very true, yeah.
	I mean, when you don't have anything original to say, coincidentally enough, you can be automated away.
	And there have been.
	Yes.
	And this was also something that I found funny, that I found the Twitter account of the supposed author of this, and they Tweeted the Irish Times, genuinely sad that a once respectable news source has degraded themselves with such divisive tripe in order to generate clicks and traffic from their website.
	You need a better screening process than a believable Gmail address.
	And then they also linked, if you scroll down John, an article from the Irish Times itself, BuzzFeed meets OpenAI.
	Is the robot infiltration of the media underway?
	Which is just genius-level trolling, isn't it?
	That was a paying gig for them as well.
	That's why those of us on the right will be the last in journalism, because we go against the narrative so hard that there isn't enough corpus of knowledge out there for the AI to replicate us.
	I'd also like to think AI couldn't replicate our delivery in that Left-wingers tend to just regurgitate information or talk in a sort of monotonous way about how morally contemptuous... Or screech, or re... Yes, there's some additional details here that the Guardian have kindly provided, who I'm not surprised
	They've not been replaced by AI themselves, and it says, The person who controls Acosta Cortez's Twitter account told the Guardian on Sunday via direct message that the Irish Times' apology sidestepped its decision to publish an incendiary article with an extreme left-wing viewpoint in pursuit of clicks.
	I mean, it certainly was an extreme left-wing article, and it did get clicks.
	They didn't know that they were posting an AI article, did they?
	No, they just thought it was a legitimate author.
	Right.
	So the only reason that they're upset, other than the backlash... And it was their most... Second most, yeah.
	But it was close.
	It's funny, isn't it, that an AI better than 99% of the Irish Times journalists.
	An AI can represent a brain-dead wokester better than an actual brain-dead wokester.
	Remarkable.
	It carries on to say, the person said they were Irish, a college student, and identified as non-binary, which is a bit of a twist, isn't it?
	You wouldn't expect that from someone who went out of their way- I've never figured out what that means.
	It means they don't identify with male or female.
	Which I suppose- Well of course they do, because they want to get victim points.
	It's basically just woman with an extra victim point added on, isn't it?
	Like an extra half star.
	Have you ever got those at school?
	Four and a half stars.
	I tend not to get many stars, to be fair.
	They said they created the Acosta Cortez persona by repurposing the Twitter account, which dates from February 2021, by using some Spanish and following Ecuadorian outlets.
	They said they used GPT-4 to create approximately 80% of the article and the image generator DALI-2 to create a profile picture of a quintessential woke journalist using the prompts female, overweight, blue hair, business casual clothing, smug expression.
	Well, they basically just need to say, you know, liberal arts educated, don't they?
	That's all that's missing, eh?
	They've got almost a full bingo there.
	That would have been a catch-all for all of those terms.
	Hoax's goal was to give my friends a laugh and to stir the S in debates about identity politics.
	Some people have called me an alt-right troll, but I don't think that I am.
	I think that identity politics is an extremely unhelpful lens through which to interpret the world.
	So, part of me thinks that they told the Guardian they were non-binary for a bit of a lark as well.
	Just like, yeah, you can't pin me down.
	Because why would they be complaining about identity politics but be non-binary?
	So I think they might have... Oh, it's just all made up though, isn't it?
	They might have done it again here.
	Yes.
	Which I would like to think.
	In absence of any evidence, I would like to believe.
	I have actually, um, quickly, going to our website, talked about artificial intelligence on a couple of occasions, all the way towards the origin point of my series Contemplations.
	Before it was even a popular thing.
	Oi.
	You were, you were, you, no, no, AI has only really been a story in the last six months.
	Oh, right.
	But you were talking about it earlier.
	I wasn't, no, I wasn't denigrating, um, Contemplations.
	I'm on 130 episodes now.
	Yeah, exactly, that's my point.
	Contemplations is great.
	I hear you've got some great guests coming up.
	Guests?
	I've got Beau.
	He's certainly a great guest, I'll give you that, but I thought you meant an external for a second there.
	But yes, I talk about the potential of AI technology and I talked about it from a sort of psychologist lens in that I was talking about how they were trying to recreate the human brain in a supercomputer and they'd already sort of Got the majority share of a, I think it was a mouse brain, or like a shrew brain that they created that would operate in a comparable way.
	I don't quite know how it works logistically, but there's... Yeah, it's increasingly looking like, because that always used to be how they thought they had to replicate intelligence in computers, it's increasingly looking like you can do a shortcut of it.
	I think that's probably the case.
	The analogy is that even with modern technology, we really struggle to produce a flying machine that flies the way a bird does.
	Because the way a bird flies, it's obviously flapping wings, but more than that, it's self-repairing.
	It has to be made using only the most abundant elements, carbon, oxygen, that kind of stuff.
	Whereas the way that we fly is basically we just get a whole load of aluminum and put rocket fuel in it and just go really fast.
	Aluminium?
	Yes.
	Oh god, I didn't say aluminum, did I?
	You did.
	Oh, punch me now.
	But anyway, the point is that we achieve flying for a different mechanism, and it looks like what we can do with AI is basically just use large language models to shortcut the intelligence-accessing process.
	So yeah, fascinating one that one.
	Glad you on it in the early days.
	Thank you very much.
	And I also, perhaps a bit later to the party, also discussed, will super intelligent AI destroy humanity?
	And I was just kind of going through some of the books I've read.
	We're certainly in a race, aren't we?
	Because it's either going to be the left or AI.
	So if AI wants to destroy humanity, it's going to have to, you know, pull its socks up and get a move on.
	There won't be anything left before long.
	It's got a healthy amount of competition and if anything we know competition breeds innovation.
	Yes, let's see what it can do.
	But there have been some other recent examples as well of people using media to kind of media and AI to troll the media even the other way around.
	ChatGPT is making up fake Guardian articles and I think this is more the AI itself in that it's collating Guardian articles and then making ones up on topics that haven't actually been discussed.
	And just selling it off as being a legitimate thing.
	So it's like faking its source.
	That's what the Guardian have done for the last 30 years.
	I know, and they have the gall to complain about it.
	But it says, last month one of our journalists received an interesting email.
	A researcher had come across mention of a Guardian article written by the journalist on a specific subject from a few years before, but the piece was proving elusive on our website and in search.
	Had the headline perhaps been changed since it was launched?
	Had it been removed intentionally from the website because of problems we've identified?
	Or had it been taken down by the subject of the piece through legal means?
	The reporter couldn't remember writing the specific piece, but the headline... He couldn't tell!
	But the headline certainly sounded like something they would have written.
	It was a subject they were identified with and had a record of covering.
	Worried that there may have been a mistake on our end, they asked colleagues to go back through the system to track it down.
	Despite the detailed record we keep of all of our content, and especially around deletions or legal issues, they couldn't find no trace of its existence.
	Why?
	Because it had never been written.
	Luckily, the researcher had told us they had carried out their research using chat GPT in response to being asked about articles on the subject.
	The AI had simply made some up.
	Its fluency in the vast training data it was built on meant that the existence of the invented piece even seemed believable to the person who absolutely hadn't written it.
	Which I think is hilarious.
	When you can't tell whether you've written something or not.
	And the funny thing is, that this whole debacle, you think, well, that's kind of an innocent thing, that's something to laugh about.
	Well, it's meant that the Guardian has had to spend more money, which is only a good thing, in my opinion.
	Oh, no.
	So this one incident has led to... He's got more of his trust fund.
	We've created a working group and small engineering team to focus on learning about the technology, considering the public policy and IP questions around it, listening to academics and practitioners, talking to other organisations, consulting and training our staff, and exploring safely and responsibly how the technology performs when applied to journalistic use.
	Oh for God's sakes, that is such a Guardian way of solving a problem.
	There's... I wonder how many people are hired in doing that.
	In the Murdoch press, it would just be Murdoch will say, right, we're doing this.
	But, you know, they need to form a committee.
	That's why the Guardian newspaper, like the people who read it, live off of a trust fund.
	Yes.
	And, yeah, I think this is amusing because you can pretty much use AI now to waste the Guardian's money and contribute to bankrupting it, as well as embarrass, you know, the Irish times as well.
	Yes.
	The trolling possibilities really are endless and although I can't legally advocate for it, what you do in your own time isn't up to me.
	There was also this one which got the Daily Mail as well.
	Reports of actor dying of 12 plastic surgeries a hoax.
	This is the Daily Star which has the gall to criticise people on their journalistic practices.
	This seems to be an artificially generated image, I don't know.
	Um, but it says a report circulating about a 22-year-old actor named Saint Von Colucci dying after undergoing 12 cosmetic procedures to look like BTS's Jimin.
	I presume that's one of those, uh, J-pop people.
	Oh, no, not J-pop, K-pop.
	Not a clue what that is.
	Uh, Korean pop music.
	It's very off-piste for my taste, personally, but I hear that some people like it.
	Fair enough.
	has turned out to be an elaborate hoax involving the use of artificial intelligence.
	News of the alleged death was first reported on April 24th by the Daily Mail and has now been pulled.
	So it's another AI-generated story that has put the press in a spot of bother.
	And I think that this is quite promising for the future.
	There are lots of fun potential applications for this, aren't there?
	Well, yes, like putting the entire left news wing news industry out of business.
	That's not even trolling.
	That is just good business at this point.
	It makes way more sense to just have chap GPT writing 12 articles at once than employing all the Guardian staff.
	You might actually get some better arguments as well.
	I mean, the people reading them don't think about them anyway, so it doesn't matter.
	They're basically NPCs to begin with.
	Yes, quite.
	They're not even conscious.
	No, that's not true.
	But this sort of thing has been putting the fear of God into the media for quite some time and I wanted to review some of the articles about it.
	Here's Slate, I think this was from 2022, talking about the 4chan AI which was trained on 4chan and just became very racist and trolled people and all sorts of usual 4chan things.
	Is Slate the one that's gone out of business recently?
	No, it's BuzzFeed News and Vice News which got bailed out by Soros anyway, so they're going to become worse.
	And also we have The Daily Star here talking about a similar thing.
	Worst AI ever, loves to make unspeakable, horrible racist posts and troll online.
	I'd like to think that if all of the people doing this sort of thing online were arrested, rounded up in some sort of spate of authoritarianism, One person with an AI and a running computer could send the whole system into meltdown because this was able to post about 10% of 4chan's posts in one day.
	Like 10% of all the posts on the entire website were from this AI.
	So it's very industrially racist as well.
	What it makes up for in subtlety, it compensates for in sheer bulk.
	It does indeed.
	Moving on to this next one.
	Rapid growth of news sites using AI tools like ChatGPT is driving the spread of misinformation.
	This is Euronews, which is generally speaking a good bellwether for what's on the globalists' minds.
	Everything they publish is basically sort of WEF agenda approved.
	Lots of boxes ticked.
	So they don't like the competition for their own misinformation then?
	Apparently not.
	It clearly undermines the very deliberate and designed misinformation made by a human.
	And we have another one here, titled, Be very scared of AI plus social media in politics.
	Right.
	Just telling you to be scared.
	And finally we have Cyber News.
	Which is more of a threat to the West, AI written fake news or human trolling?
	What about neither?
	Yes.
	Well, let's make a good go of both, so you can see how far we get.
	Yeah, but there's a bit of a downside in that these sorts of things are being used by the regime in that Amnesty International has been using it to generate fake protest pictures for their websites and promotional material.
	A German outlet published an interview with Michael Schumacher, who has not been out of the house since his horrific accident, and they used AI to generate an interview.
	Which led to his family understandably suing them.
	That's rather poor taste.
	It is in very poor taste.
	I don't think that should be done.
	And they have also been proposing potential solutions.
	So we have the BBC here, fake Trump arrest photos, how to spot an AI generated image, and they're trying to teach people how to spot them.
	And Google has also tried to go into a bit of damage control here.
	Google will label fake images created with its AI, but of course, Google's not the only one.
	Again, we have NPR, AI-generated deepfakes are moving fast, but policymakers can't keep up, which is just kind of alarming.
	This will all be solved in the next five years with zero-knowledge proofs.
	But don't ask me to explain that because it would take 10 minutes.
	I don't really understand it anyway, but I know the gist.
	And finally, the Chinese are also persecuting people for using AI to generate so-called fake news.
	So I think the Western world is going to take this model of if you use AI to create a fake story, you are going to be arrested.
	And I think it's, I'm calling it, it's going to happen.
	It's going to happen soon because the power within this to To disrupt the regime is massive and it would be very terrible if you were to do it.
	Definitely don't do that because it could get me in trouble for covering it.
	But nevertheless, I thought it's a bit of a uplifting news that there are things you can do to fight the power, but legally you can't do them.
	Right, so following your uplifting bit, let's do a bit more uplifting.
	I don't know if you noticed, Josh, but it turns out that people leave comments on the YouTube.
	There's a comment section, I've never heard of that.
	I've been working here for literally about three months before I realised that people were leaving comments under the YouTube videos as well.
	Are you not being tongue-in-cheek now?
	No, I'm seriously not, because the focus here is all on the website, isn't it?
	Because we get comments coming on our own website, and we always read those, and we read them out at the end of the show, so that's my plug for this section.
	Come to the website and... We will actually read it.
	Yeah, we will actually read your comments.
	I read all of them, actually.
	But then I realised that actually, you know, we've got a whole social media team here putting this stuff out on the different socials, and it's going out on YouTube.
	Anyway, so there's like, honestly, every YouTube video, there's like over a thousand comments.
	of stuff that people have put there.
	A couple of interesting things I've noticed is that if you make a small technical mistake in one of the segments, the comment section just explodes.
	Oh, you've noticed that, have you?
	Oh, that's funny, isn't it?
	In one of my videos, I got hydrofluoric acid and hydrochloric acid switched up, and it made absolutely no difference to the point I was making whatsoever, but there must have been at least a thousand comments pointing that out, every one of them so pleased with themselves.
	We've just got a very large section of chemists in our audience, I think.
	Or Asperger's.
	I mean, honestly, if Asperger's were flammable and a match got anywhere near our comment section, you know, windows would be shattered in Paris, you'd see the explosion from the International Space Station.
	Our poor audience.
	Yes.
	But anyway, so when I discovered this, I went and had a look to see what people were saying, because you can do a sort of Ctrl-F and you can search your name.
	And it doesn't work on all of my earlier videos, because again, it didn't really matter that I missed the first three months, because for the first three months, people in the comment section, they just called me the guy on the left.
	Because, you know, obviously a one-syllable name is a bit difficult for the Utards.
	I always dislike sitting on the left, because when people don't know my name, they say, oh, that guy on the left.
	Makes it sound like I'm a left-winger.
	Yeah, so they did laugh a lot, but then they figured out my one-syllable name and they started posting.
	And I had a look at what they were saying, and it turns out that people think that my segments are a bit depressing.
	That I basically just bring people bad news all the time.
	Here's an example.
	Here's a selection of comments that I found after having a bit of a dig.
	And yeah, so Graham sums it up.
	If you think things might be going too poopy, then nothing makes your mind up faster than a Dan segment.
	You know, that's the sort of stuff that people are putting up there.
	So I thought, right, what I'm going to do is I'm going to do an uplifting, positive segment.
	So then I had a think about it, and I thought, okay, what is the one thing that all religions, races and creeds, all political classes, all age groups, what's the one thing that we can all agree is a good thing, Josh?
	Drinking water?
	Nope.
	Fine women.
	So, this is going to be a section on Very fine women indeed.
	And the way that I'm going to do it is specifically, I'm going to talk about the new social media craze, which is the WWYD competition that's been running on Twitter and is now in its sixth season.
	WWYD stands for Who Would You Do?
	It's being run by... Have we got a chap?
	It's being run by Roland Ratt.
	We got its Twitter handle there?
	Did I?
	Oh, maybe I didn't put it in.
	Yeah, there we go.
	So it's being run by this Roland Ratt chap.
	Now, Roland Ratt was an 80s children's entertainer, and who, like many 80s entertainers, has had to reimagine himself.
	So he's transitioned into doing various fan clubs.
	So he's got a fan club for Tony Blair, who is the man who ruined Britain.
	He's got a fan club for Mario from Super Mario Brothers, who of course saved the princess.
	And he runs another fan club for Julius Evola, who is a mid-century philosopher, poet, painter, and political philosopher.
	I also heard that he's gone into the business of selling Welsh salted butter on the side.
	I don't really understand the connection, but um... I heard rugs.
	Awfully strange.
	I heard rugs, but... Rugs?
	Oh, that too, yeah.
	But more recently he's got into this WWID competition and it's proved to be a bit of a sensation.
	It's got tens of thousands of people participating in it.
	It's had hundreds of premier women entering this competition to see how they get on.
	Now I thought that you'd be the perfect person to discuss this in because of course you've got your background in behavioral economics so you can help me decipher you know, what it is that's going on here and what's really working.
	So the first thing to note with this competition is basically every time it's won by Jennifer Connolly.
	Really?
	Yes.
	I don't even know who that is.
	Here we go, we got a video.
	So this is Jennifer Connolly.
	Interesting choice of clip there.
	This is a clip of, we're gonna have to describe this section for those who are listening at home, but this is a clip of Connolly from the 1991 film, Career Opportunities.
	And for those who are listening, Connolly is here in a tight white top, sat on top of one of those mechanical horses that you put a coin in, and then they start to rhythmically gyrate.
	And Connolly is, you know, what's the adverb I want here?
	Gyrating?
	Softly?
	On the top of this thing before turning to the camera to give a coy smile.
	So tell me, Josh, with your behavioural economics advanced degrees, What are people seeing here?
	Well, I'm not necessarily surprised that there's a 10-hour version, considering what's being shown here.
	I feel like there's... So it's a segment from a film, and then somebody clipped it and looped it and made a 10-hour version of it.
	It's a recent video on YouTube, but I noticed it already has 11,000 views, so... It's clearly speaking to people, but Connolly has done... Well, she's the girl from Labyrinth.
	Do you remember that film?
	Oh yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, but you can't include those shots because she was, like, 17 when that came out.
	But in the later films, and actually, the other thing I'd say about Connolly is, you know, let's go to the Top Gun shot, because obviously the thing with women is, you know, after the age of about 24, it's... But, I mean, look at this, right?
	She's 51.
	Absolutely smoking.
	She's aged well, hasn't she?
	Yeah, very good.
	So you can see why, you know, perhaps why she keeps winning the competition.
	I mean, it could just be she's got a list of tasteful cosmetic surgeons as well.
	I mean, it's difficult to tell.
	I mean, not everyone ends up looking like Michael Jackson.
	Possibly, but I think she probably started out with a very good sort of genetic base.
	That's true, yeah.
	That probably helped a lot because, you know, she was quite remarkable in some of her earlier stuff as well.
	But it's not just Connolly who does well in this competition.
	Another one, Zoomers won't know who I'm talking about here, but Cindy Crawford.
	Let's have a look at this.
	So this is a Pepsi advert from the 80s.
	And I've got to say, this is how adverts used to be.
	So it starts off with a hot car, she pulls up in a Ferrari, and then it's a pretty girl on a sunny day, and then in a minute you're going to get product.
	There you go, she's putting a coin in a Pepsi machine, Pepsi cans should still look like that, shouldn't they?
	That classic branding.
	There you go.
	She's drinking a Pepsi.
	Yeah, they should have stuck with it.
	It's good branding.
	Any sort of PR or marketing firm can tell you a good logo can do you wonders for your PR.
	Unless, of course, you're a mid-century gentleman.
	And the rest of the attributes that go into it.
	But, you know, adverts used to be like that.
	You know, nice and uncomplicated.
	That makes me want to buy a Pepsi.
	Because, you know, it's got a cis woman in it.
	A what?
	A cis woman.
	Because these days, you know, animals are so bloody political, aren't they?
	I mean, if that was being made today... If you're watching TV in the UK, it certainly wouldn't be a white woman selling a product.
	White people mysteriously have stopped selling things now.
	Might be a chap with lipstick on or something like that.
	I don't know if you heard, but Sports Illustrated, you know, they do their swimsuit cover.
	They've decided to put Martha Stewart on their next issue.
	She's 81.
	Seems a little bit past it.
	I don't know if I'd use that terminology.
	I want to be very clear.
	If there are any ladies in their 80s watching this segment, I have nothing but respect for women in their 80s.
	I think if you get to that age, what you want to be doing is putting a bit of volume into your hair.
	Maybe a colour.
	Not a primary colour, obviously.
	Maybe a scarf or a carafe, you know, some nice neutral beige tones, possibly some pearls.
	A bit of blush.
	You know, you do that, and the Major's heart rate will be racing.
	You are describing, like, the archetypal grandmother there, aren't you?
	Yes, but, you know, I think if you play it right, you can bring a lot of glamour to your bridge game.
	You can certainly age gracefully.
	Yes.
	The Major will be shifting uncomfortably in his rocking chair and rearranging his lap blanket.
	So, you know, I am all for older women, but perhaps not in a bikini on the cover of sports illustrated that's what i was alluding to yes yes in that it there's a time and a place for an older woman but it's not on the cover of yes uh one of those magazines no quite and and you know and and um you know what
	what what the um sort of the marketing departments are trying to push us today is either like i say a chap with lipstick on that we you know we're not supposed to notice or something or it's it was that you know lizard lizzo's yeah we were We got a clip of Lizzo?
	Yeah, so she appeared in the WWYD competition and she went up against Priti Patel and lost by the biggest margin in the competition's history.
	That must have been trolling, surely.
	Either that or people were very annoyed with Priti Patel.
	No, no, no, she lost against Priti Patel, so Priti Patel therefore has the highest, you know, one round score in the whole thing, and that's, you know, Priti Patel.
	An easy win for her, really.
	Yes, it was a bit, but no, she got knocked out, I think, in round one when she made it.
	Another one who does very well is Michelle Pfeiffer, you know, here we go, this is a good one.
	Again, I'm worried that the Zoomers are going to have no idea who we're talking about, Michelle Pfeiffer.
	So, you know, the lovely lady from Scarface, which is this clip, but also Catwoman from Batman, and, you know, whatever else she did.
	I can't remember off the top of my head.
	My mind's a blank now, but no, lovely lady is Michelle, she does very well in the competition.
	Kelly Brook, that's the next one, she also does very well.
	I've actually met Kelly a couple of times.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, because in the early sort of 2010s we often ended up going to the same sort of events.
	The only annoying thing is that with these sort of events is quite often the way they do it is they have like a load of paparazzi on one side and then like a made-up wall or a banner thing on the other side.
	So you'll be trying to get into the event and like Kelly Brooks ahead of you and she'll stop at the wall and start, you know, working the camera and throwing out these shapes and Whatever, I can't do it.
	But, you know, doing the thing, and then the paparazzi would be, like, snapping for two or three minutes, and then you'd be sort of, you know, back there kicking your heels, you know, just waiting for... Because, I mean, the whole reason I went to these things is because, you know, being in finance brokers, they can't bribe you directly, so they tend to give you tickets to stuff.
	So I would then say, okay, well, does it have a free bar?
	And they always did.
	So I'd be like, yeah, okay, I'm up for that then.
	But so they'll be kicking around, you know, at the back waiting for Kelly Brook to go in.
	And then it's like, oh, okay, it's my turn to move then.
	It's like, oh, bloody hell, Danny Mahogues slipped past me.
	And you have to repeat the whole process again.
	And I'm just like looking at this thinking, well, I want to get a beer.
	So I ended up carrying a hip flask in the end.
	I always take a hip flask.
	Yes, that's the best way to do it.
	But anyway, Kelly does well.
	I did see a couple of good reasons why people are interested.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, let's do analysis of the, whatever it is, the third round.
	Here we go.
	So this is the competition.
	Just scroll down, John.
	So, you know, the third round.
	And this gives you a sort of measure for the For those who have performed exceptionally in this competition.
	Cindy Crawford beat Anna Hathaway.
	Anna's, of course, lovely.
	Scarlett Johansson, her opponent was knocked out for technical reasons.
	Penelope Cruz beat Cameron Diaz.
	Who's this?
	Anna de Armas.
	was beaten by Michelle Pfeiffer.
	Anna de Armas, that's the Bond girl, is it?
	I don't know.
	I basically dropped out of all popular culture because most of it is rubbish.
	Yes, after about 2010, it's not really worth watching, is it?
	Brooke Shields beat Natalie Dormer.
	Jane Seymour was beaten by Monica Bellucci.
	Oh, I've got a special haircut coming up.
	Baluchi will do well.
	Yes.
	Oh, there we go.
	Let's see.
	Kira Knightley was beaten by Selma Hayek.
	Now, Kira Knightley, I'm sure she's a lovely girl, but... And I normally go for the athletic look, but it's a bit ironing board with nipples, isn't it, Kira Knightley?
	I don't know.
	I kind of like that.
	Oh, really?
	Okay.
	Quite skinny, dainty.
	Selma Hayek is remarkable, I've got to say.
	I don't know who that is.
	God sakes, Josh.
	Dusty Dawn?
	Sorry.
	Oh, for goodness sakes, man.
	I mean, that was the first time I sort of really noticed it was Dusty Dawn.
	She's the vampire queen, but she comes out wearing a snake and a feather outfit and stuff, and she's dancing.
	And I remember looking at that time and being utterly confused by it, because I remember thinking, You know, CGI is not good enough to make a woman that beautiful, but there's no way a woman can be that beautiful.
	I was awestruck by that film when it came out, whenever it was, like, 1996 or whatever.
	So I like Selma.
	And the last one was Lauren Jaguar was beaten by Liz Hurley.
	Don't know who Lauren is.
	But Hurley tends to do quite well in this competition.
	So, yeah.
	Let's focus on some of the other top winners here.
	So, Belucci.
	We've got a section on Bellucci, so... Fair enough.
	Yeah.
	What were you telling me about something about beauty is all down to testosterone or something?
	Oh, so the... I made the distinction between sort of the pretty and more typically dateable wife material and hot.
	And typically the differences between a very pretty woman, more typically in my case... She's crying there, that's hot.
	I can't carry on from that.
	You were saying the difference between mariable and film star looks is... So basically I think a lot of the time these women that are regarded as hot are slightly less on the heavily feminine hormonal balance than otherwise.
	So you're saying the hottest women have more testosterone?
	A touch more, yes.
	Which is a bit strange.
	So if you're ever lucky enough to get with a particularly fine woman, you should say no homo?
	Yeah, yeah, apparently so.
	No, it's only very slight.
	It's obviously not, there's no overlap with actual men, but you know that the sort of traits of the quite defined and low brow, and then they've got sometimes a bit of a defined jaw whereas estrogen is is monica displaying these these traits here um not to an excessive degree certainly but there's right okay perhaps a little bit more so than average um but she's she's struck the balance quite
	well i would say but um someone who's um very very typical of femininity We'll have quite a rounded face or a little bit pointed and we'll be kind of dainty and not necessarily, you know, a six-foot model with voluptuous features.
	I see.
	So the trick for superstardom is just a tiny bit of testosterone but not too much.
	As I understand it, yeah.
	That is fascinating.
	I didn't know that.
	Next on the list, we've got Jessica Alba.
	What can we say about this for those who are listening behind?
	This is Jessica Alba doing a bit of a dance.
	She's got the large hoop earrings and a very scantily clad top, which I feel like she's trying to imitate a culture she perhaps doesn't belong to.
	But, you know, lovely lady.
	Next one, we've got... Oh, this is my personal favourite, Sybil Shepard.
	Now there is a bit of controversy with Sybil, because as you can see there, for those who are listening, what I'm showing you at the moment is a shard of divinity.
	This is probably the finest woman who has ever lived, with the sole exception of my good little lady wife, who of course is the finest of me.
	But Sybil is absolutely wonderful.
	Now Sybil has been removed from the WWYD competition.
	Uh, it was a, it was a very bad decision from the ref, um, a guy called Stephen Day, um, and, and, and he, he's basically kicked her out, and look, I'm, I'm, look, you're all adults here, if you want to go and have a word with this OG rat person, then, you know, you, you have a word and let him know that this doesn't, this shouldn't stand, because Sybil is obviously Absolutely delightful.
	At least she's not wearing heavy makeup like many of the modern people that you showed.
	True class, actually.
	She's the one from Taxi Driver, again.
	The Zoomers are going to have no idea what I'm talking about here, but, you know, striking lady.
	Now also, before we came on, I asked Josh for his example of feminine perfection.
	Oh, you're stitching me up properly here.
	That wasn't what you asked.
	No, I'm not stitching you up.
	You gave me your answer.
	Your answer was Santa Marin.
	Well, actually, and this is the most unflattering video.
	No, you mentioned Kim Yo-Jung.
	You had her and I said, out of people in politics, She's probably one of the better ones.
	Tell the audience who Sannin Marin is, just in case.
	She's basically a wefstuge for Finland.
	That's a bit more of a flattering picture of her.
	She's the Finnish Prime Minister, is she?
	Well, she was, I think.
	Oh, OK, up until recently.
	That's definitely not her.
	She's quite striking, I've got to say.
	In fact, I've heard that Finnish people are the most attractive people on Earth.
	I think studies show.
	Were the studies conducted in Finland?
	No, no, no, I think these are... So for all we know, Sanna Marin is just considered standard.
	You know, maybe Finns look at her the same way we look at Theresa May and Liz Truss or something, and they just think I was just a standard politician.
	Maybe she's baseline throughout there, but no, I can see why you chose her, Josh.
	Well, after throwing me under the bus, you had the decency to pull me out again, thank you.
	I think she's lovely.
	What we were talking about was politicians, because you mentioned Kim Jong-un's sister.
	I have in a previous segment said I do quite like AOC, even though I realise she's...
	Bit of a wide nose, don't you think?
	Yeah, well, bit of a dictator and wannabe.
	But also, the full version of that, of course, is going to be, as you mentioned, Kim Jong-un's sister, which is Kim Yo-jong.
	I've got to say, this is a rather exotic little number.
	Right, the reason that I quite like her, right, is because it's a bit like those guys who climb mountains.
	Freestyle.
	You know, without the ropes.
	What, the danger of it, you mean?
	Yes.
	So basically, a conquest of either Kim Jo Yong or climbing a mountain freestyle is that you need to have, before you start, absolute faith in your abilities.
	I don't know.
	Because if you fumble at a crucial moment, you're dead.
	So that is, I think, a little bit of a twist of danger, a touch of excitement that you just don't get otherwise.
	I do know what you mean, strangely.
	Not necessarily in her case, because I think there's danger and risky women, and then there's sister of North Korean dictators.
	But what you're saying about an element of danger, I understand that part.
	Because, you know, I've never really got into this whole Manosphere thing, or what they call themselves, the P-U-A's, the pick-up artists thing.
	It's a little bit lame in my opinion.
	Yeah, well, the thing is, because they give you their random stories of their conquests, and it's like, well, I'm sorry, but I'm not particularly impressed, because there's like four billion women on Earth, so if you're telling me about some Tennessee waitress, I mean, okay.
	I'm always of the opinion that a gentleman does not kiss and tell.
	Well, these people do, but what I'm saying is if you're in the PUA community, what I want you to do is fly to North Korea and woo Kim Jo Jong.
	That's the real litmus test.
	Send us back a selfie of you two with her with a sort of satisfied, glazy-eyed look in her face, and then make it out live.
	And then I will be impressed by the PUA community.
	That's my message.
	But I hope you enjoyed that segment, and that was something to really lift everyone up and bring us all together.
	Okay, on to the comments.
	Sometimes the reading list is good, sometimes it's not, and then there's Jennifer Connolly on a rocking horse.
	There we go.
	Oh, John's got something.
	Oh, have we got video comments?
	Oh.
	You want to put some bonnets and oppress us?
	You want to tie us down and put me on a pentagram and put wax all over me?
	Ah, I've been a bad boy!
	Can't look at the show of submissions.
	I'm a greener tool.
	That was somewhat concerning, but also kind of funny.
	If only Callum were here to be weirded out by that.
	I'd love to see his look of pure bewilderment.
	I missed half of that.
	It's basically just a clip of Callum and Connor, and they got what looked like a robot to say, Callum is so submissive and breedable.
	Moving on.
	Yeah, moving on.
	Further to Carl's request for an Englishman's perspective on Canada, Canadians are casual to the point of slovenliness and their social attitudes are tolerant to the point of blithe acceptance.
	Younger women have agency, are woke and aim for political power.
	But for practical skills, consider snipers with the longest range kills.
	Canadian men are over-represented.
	Current-day Canada can best be summed up by this Southern Ontario map of the last general election results.
	Note the sea of conservative blue and the liberal red stepping stones leading from Windsor on the border with Detroit, through London, Kitchener-Waterloo, where I live, Toronto, Kingston, and on to Ottawa.
	There is a harsh rural-urban split that Trudeau has created.
	That's very interesting.
	I've not necessarily looked at the breakdown in Canada.
	I know that there's very much that split both in the UK and the US, so it's nice to know that it seems to be some sort of universal of the Western world at this point.
	One thing that always bugs me about these principled moderate types, my brother's among these types actually, is like they'll watch your videos and Agree with everything you say, but then say, like, the conservatives are just too extreme.
	If I were to vote for them, it would stain the morality of my soul.
	They will then turn around and vote for the far-left parties whose many sins and vices they are fully aware of and not somehow view this as violating their principles.
	Why is this?
	I think it's... They've recognised that you might get ostracised for your beliefs if you're beyond a certain threshold.
	And I think that is true, but they're just not willing to take a leap of faith.
	Yeah, this is the thing, they're herd animals, aren't they?
	Mm-hmm.
	And I've always been kind of against the grain.
	I kind of see a consensus or a majority and I stick my middle finger up at it rather than anything else.
	So, contrarian to the core, one might say.
	We've got one more video coming?
	It looks like it.
	Sometimes people get names wrong and then the person has to clarify the real name.
	Trans people must feel somewhat similar, but it's not.
	Modern transsexual ideology is the ultimate self-hatred the lefties exude.
	They are oikophobes, they hate their skin color, they hate their sex, they hate their family, and it's all because they hate themselves at the core.
	Being trans is the ultimate in self-loathing feminism.
	Finally, trans ideology lets the self-hating lefties escape their core, the names bestowed upon them, and the bodies that nature gave them.
	I think you're very much right there and I think it's why left-wingers typically are more emotionally animated as well because although the right certainly does value stoicism to a certain extent I think we're just, and the evidence shows this, we're more psychologically well-adjusted and self-loathing is one of the best ways you get someone to be very motivated to go out and do external things because the last thing they want to do is sit in introspect because it's so psychologically
	comforting to do so.
	If they actually sit and think about their actual problems and tangible ways of solving them, it makes them feel terrible because they see them as insurmountable.
	Oh, I do that quite a lot.
	It makes me feel absolutely awesome.
	But then I feel differently.
	As in, you sit and think, and it... Think about myself.
	If it makes you feel awesome, then you must have done something right.
	Yes.
	Shall we do some text comments?
	Sure.
	Did you do the Alex Badby one?
	I did, yes.
	I'm going to do it again anyway, because I like it.
	Sometimes the reading list is good, sometimes it's not, and then there's Jennifer Connelly on a rocking horse.
	Had to give that one a second.
	You gave it a bit more something than I did, to be fair.
	Matthew Hartshorn says, what do you guys actually think is your general take on vaccine situations?
	I find it hard to believe it was a grand conspiracy from the whiff.
	It was a combination of broken systems, polluted incentive structures and so on.
	He goes on to say, Occam's razor suggested it was a cash grab that companies could push through.
	Politicians can never just do nothing, so they went ham-fisted on the vaccines and agreed to do anything and everything.
	Yeah, the system was corrupt and broken from head to tail, and they did something, and by the time they realised what a mistake they made, they can't admit to it.
	I mean, I don't think it is a grand conspiracy.
	It is a collection of many, many semi-grand conspiracies.
	I agree.
	Some of the elite probably got the vaccine as well, and it might well be in the same boat.
	The people who actually legitimately are pulling the strings.
	Yeah, whether they did or whether they didn't.
	I mean, that's a big question.
	I mean, I've not necessarily tried to dig, but... Yeah.
	Rick Archer says, all I'm hearing is there's currently no evidence linking smoking to developing cancer.
	Yeah, that was the thing that they pushed back on for decades, wasn't it?
	Until they finally had to admit it.
	Matt P says, really important first segment.
	Shame it can't go out on YouTube, but that's the way it is.
	Yes, it is.
	Really tragic stuff, as always.
	Cheers, Lotus Eaters, for everything you do.
	Fair enough, yeah.
	Uh, Screwtape Laser says, Occam's razor clearly implicates the vaccine in excess deaths, but as Joshua knows, the powers to be will be able to claim there are too many compounding factors to ever assign causality.
	Yep.
	That's, um, spot on.
	To an extent.
	I mean, they can fudge it, but... I don't know.
	I used to think that people were going to wake up at some point, but...
	They just never do.
	I mean, even when their own family members are dropping around them.
	I think there's... It's too easy to coast through life ignorant.
	But you get a lot of difficulty, you get a lot of pushback for actually pursuing the truth.
	And I mean, the reason I was so devoted to it is that I spent four years at university trying to find out about the nature of reality.
	And I sunk a lot of money and time into it, so I actually legitimately care about knowing the truth, whether it helps me or not.
	You know, if it destroys me, I would rather, you know, at least know the world for what it is.
	But I think you and I are very typical in this respect.
	I think for a lot of people, their primary motivation is going to be staying within the herd, because that is where the safety is.
	And I remember speaking to somebody during the pandemic, and I was basically just
	demolishing the reasons for everything that the government and the public health officials are doing and I could see that he was believing the points that I was making yet all the same it produced a physiological reaction you could see it in the in the body posture and it was because he didn't like that I was making sense because he wanted to stay in the bubble of believing the government loved him and were doing everything for him and that he could trust the media because if you shatter that
	For a certain type of person, it must just leave them feeling naked and alone.
	It's like someone's reason for living being suddenly taken away.
	It's a sort of comparable effect, perhaps slightly lesser, but it gives them the same sort of sense of existential dread that is one of the most difficult things to confront as a sort of emotional state in a human being.
	I understand why people are averse to it, but I don't have much sympathy for it, because you should be willing to pursue what you believe to be true, regardless of the emotional and social consequences of that.
	One more before we get on to the next sections.
	Let's go with...
	Nicholas Valentine who says, all news reports from the mainstream media relate to these excess deaths seem to be equitable to no links to vaccine trust us while blocking the ability to discuss it.
	I've seen so many stories of athletes, professional dancers and other jobs have acquired to be actively dropping dead unexpectedly and when they do allow you to comment if you say the V word you're completely crazy conspiracies.
	Yeah exactly why they why they shutting it down.
	Stop it.
	Okay, so Anonymi says, Dan, that was one of the most disgusting words I have ever heard.
	I, sir, am offended at such use of a word.
	Aluminium, my word, good sir.
	I'm highly disappointed in this moment of yankism.
	Please, Dan, for the sake of Great Britain, for king and country, please make some tea.
	I will make my penance.
	um based ape I trained an AI on the writings of Joseph Stalin Karl Marx Mao Zedong Benito Mussolini Che Guevara Adolf Hitler Klaus Schwab and of course Justin Trudeau turns out you can make the perfect lefty this way we've been having a blast trolling people with it no joke we've been getting a lot of support from the Green Party on Twitter don't tell Elon there's a very high chance that he isn't joking um
	no he's not yeah No, Bass Tape, you're a legend, as you well know, and keep on doing that stuff.
	Henry Ashman, Dan's spot on about lefty clickbait journalists being easily automatable.
	How do you know you're an NPC?
	How easily can an AI spit out all of your standard talking points whilst using your terminology?
	If it's easily, then I have a jobseeker's allowance form for you.
	This is at least less evil than the German newspaper having an interview with an AI-generated Schumacher, I guess.
	Which is true, yes, it is.
	AI Stefan Schoenhoff, sorry if I mispronounced that, AI gaslighting lefty journos, I for one welcome our new robot overlords and I appreciate that Simpsons reference as well.
	I think I'll do one more and then we can move on to yours.
	Richard Monaghan Dam, I think?
	Irish women be black-facing now.
	Fake tan is pretty meh, but seriously don't think media can criticise anything or anyone.
	People in glass houses, you can't be latinx if you are living in Ireland.
	Idiot, you are South American.
	I presume that this is commented before I revealed that it was not real.
	So, yes, you are right.
	Your read of the situation was correct.
	Yeah, it had to be an AI to get that.
	Right, on to the WWYD section.
	Joan of Arc says, the sheer level of offence I'm hearing over Josh not knowing a particular celebrity bimbette is rather amusing.
	Yes, but it was Selma Hayek, right?
	Of course!
	I'm more of a Friedrich Hayek man myself.
	Fair enough.
	Right, Le French Vaccine says, WWYD for Lotus Eaters Women when?
	Well, I suppose we could do that, but there's only one of them, so she'd win.
	But, you know, fair enough, she deserves it.
	Pirate Tompskin says, Dan, don't let dem socialist titties fool you!
	Yes, I've been taken in, haven't I?
	They're there for everyone, aren't they?
	Sophie Liv says, Well, I can't say I complain over these new beauty standards, now that I'm an automatic ten for just showing up.
	Just by being a healthy size, youthful and not obnoxious.
	I would have no chance against Connolly, but put me besides Lizzo and I am golden.
	Do we have any Finnish women in the comments?
	I don't know.
	Because we do that one that does the video comments sometimes.
	She's usually got a sort of generic European accent, so I can never tell the difference.
	I think you're on about Sophie, who you just read, who's Danish.
	Oh, Danish.
	Oh, right.
	OK, well, that's pretty close, isn't it?
	You know, close enough.
	Right.
	Alex, Alex, in fact, Prime Minister?
	I thought they had Jarls.
	Yeah, go back about a thousand years maybe.
	Right, okay.
	Alexander Drake says, Josh might be onto something.
	There's something about Gina Carreiro that I can't put my finger on that makes her very attractive.
	Gina Carano, yeah.
	Yeah, no, she was in WWID, but I think she got knocked out as well.
	Henry Ashman says, Where's that go-to-horny-jail-image-meme-when-you-need-it-I-dread-to-think-what-Connor-will-be-thinking-about-this?
	That's why we did this segment today, because he's not in the office.
	Yeah, he's away at the Conservative conference, so... Rory, how's your views on Priti Patel?
	Stop it.
	I used to work with Priti Patel and we did not get on particularly well.
	I say I used to work with her.
	I used to work, she would turn up and basically make some phone calls and arrange some lunches.
	So, you know, I don't know if that counts.
	She's carrying a lot of weight around though, isn't she?
	Well, probably all those lunches that she arranged successfully.
	Henry Ashman says... Oh, no, you know, I've done that one.
	Kevin Fox says, it's like the old car advert with a sexy woman sprawled across the front seat.
	Truth in advertising, buy this crappy car and you'll be effed.
	Yes.
	Probably doesn't work.
	Would have thought.
	Um, Joan of Arc says, uh, I thought commercials in the 90s were trash too.
	Commercials like this Pepsi one were how I first picked up, even as a little kid, that feminism was nothing but lies and hypocrisy.
	Because if feminism was for real, they would have been boycotting Pepsi for being so overtly sexual.
	Yes, good advert.
	Um, George Haps... Oh, we've got a bit... Oh, we're going to run out of time, but I'll do it.
	I'll do George Haps.
	WWYD, fail and destroy civilization.
	It's their specialty.
	What are you talking about, man?
	What's going on here?
	I'm not entirely sure.
	Sorry, George.
	I'll think about that one, George.
	Maybe you're onto something, but I don't know.
	But anyway, thank you very much for watching, and I think Broken Omics is coming out at 3 o'clock?
	Yes, 3 o'clock.
	3 o'clock BST today, so make sure to check that out, and make sure to tune in tomorrow, same time, for the same podcast.

▲