All Episodes
Previous Next
April 30, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:31:49
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #904
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to the podcast of Load Seaters, and today I'm joined by Beau.
Hello.
And Dan.
Hello.
And today we're going to be talking about Europaws actually being paw.
Resignation letter, white, and the moon landings of course.
So I have some announcements to make.
So first and foremost, I just want to say thank you to Jamie, for giving me the biggest king dick I have ever seen, which, um, don't know what the hell I'm gonna use this for, but thanks, I guess.
People listening, I'm not holding a penis.
It is a massive spanner that he sent me.
Well, you'd use it on massive bolts, wouldn't you?
Presumably.
So... Good God, it's heavy.
So, yeah, killing people will be what I'll be using that for, so thank you, Jamie.
It's just quite a cool thing to have, right?
Just...
And also, yes, I also have to say thank you to Luna because she sent a lovely box of chocolates and I will be devouring all of them within a day.
So there we are.
So you have received today a big box of chocolates and a big dick.
Yes.
So what many people would consider the perfect day.
Now if you want to send Callum stuff, this is our PO Box address, so obviously we're very sad to be losing Callum while he goes off and has his adventures on his channel, but if you want to send him a parting gift, that's how you do it, and lots of people are, and that is lovely.
There we are.
Otherwise, I don't think I have any answers to make.
No, not today.
So we'll just get into the news, I suppose.
There we are.
Right.
Europoors.
Now, this is a phrase that has been described, well, used to describe Europeans by the American perspective, because Europeans have always, well, not always, but ever since the war, been a bit poorer than the Americans.
It's always been a bit poorer.
It's never been that extreme.
But recently, a huge debate has been sparked by this tweet.
And this is a Chipotle ad for hiring at Chipotle.
If you'd like to go and work at Chipotle.
Not sponsored, sadly.
But this is a guy here saying you can make 100k at Chipotle in under 3 years.
Which got a lot of likes and conversation starting.
If you don't know what he's talking about, it says it there in the text.
So the idea that you can get 100k in 3 years, it's not entirely clear.
around three years.
Right.
So the idea that you can get 100k in three years, it's not entirely clear.
If that means over the three years or at the end of three years, you'll be making that per year.
But I mean, corpos, like they're going to lie to you.
They're going to defend the truth.
If it was 33 grand a year, dollars, that wouldn't be that much, actually.
Well, it would depend on what comes with that, because also they say here, for example, debt-free college degrees, medical benefits, flexible schedule, 401k, blah blah blah.
Which, if you're paying for the tuition, good god, that could be a lot of money.
So, um, Europeans took this news well, as you can see.
Please put a content warning, there is Europeans using this app.
From local, trans flag, gay flag, EU flag, okay.
Alrighty, alrighty, alrighty.
Just so happens to be whenever we find these people.
So then there's the French.
Now, I don't read French.
Don't need to hit translate post on that.
I already know.
He's miffed.
He's a bit miffed because he's looking at buckies here, which is a gas station in the United States, a rather big one, to be fair.
And as you can see here, here's the wages paid weekly.
$18 is the lowest.
Then it goes all the way up to a general manager who can make up to $225,000 a year.
Sorry, $225,000 a year.
But even an assistant manager is like $100,000.
Yep.
Food Service Manager, $175.
Car Wash Manager, $125.
And Assistant Manager, $100k.
Department Manager gets $33 an hour.
So this is definitely, definitely a thing.
I've been collecting charts on this for Future Brokernomics at some point.
But you can basically see the lines diverge around 2008 between the Euro area and the US and the rest of the world.
And the US is basically... No, the rest of the world is on top.
Then it's like America, and then a long way behind is the Europeans.
Yeah, and it seems to be something that people have noticed.
But to be fair, corpos, as I mentioned, are full of shit and will lie to you and bend the truth and everything else.
I mean, these are adverts for why you should come and work for us.
And my brain obviously notices that these people will lie to you and wants to find out what the truth is there, because I find it a bit suspicious the idea you'd be earning 100k per year at Chipotle.
So I looked it up.
So here's Chipotle, here's their website, here's careers.
And apparently that advert there was in San Francisco.
So we're going to be looking at San Francisco.
Which, of course, is a bit difficult, because the United States being so big, and the way wealth works everywhere, is that wealth is concentrated in its creation in where it's created, and then hopefully trickles around out of investments to the rest of the country, right?
So, they have a similar problem to us, where you've got like a few areas in the United States that are burgeoning with wealth, and where prices are really high as a result.
But we've got a similar thing, we've got London.
It's not the same, but that's going to be my point of comparison.
I was going to say that, because America's so big, when you talk about just in general, America's richer than Europe.
I mean, famously there's parts of like the Appalachians, which are extremely poor.
Yeah.
And then, yeah, certain segments of some of the big cities are some of the most affluent places in the world.
Same for Britain, right?
If you live in London and got a decent job in London, you are going to be richer than if you have a crappy job in a rural area.
Well, you say you're going to be richer, but basically the landlords capture all the excess.
Or at least earning more, let's say.
Yeah, you earn more, but you pay so much more in rent that you actually come out about the same as somebody who's just got a crappy job in, like, Wales or something.
And also the downside of working for Chipotle in San Francisco is that you...
You have to be in shit town.
To be fair, living in London, also not great.
So that's why I'm going to make a point of comparison.
It's not perfect, but what can you do?
That's the two nations we're in.
So here we are.
Here's a crew member position.
So you work at the very bottom of the rung.
You're making the food and then serving the food.
Well, that pay starts at $38,000.
And the benefits include $5,250 a year for tuition and then medical.
You also get dental and you also get vision insurance.
So that's the best benefits.
They also mentioned some other crap, but it's not really that interesting.
That's really the interesting subjects.
So, are you getting paid 100k as a crew member in San Francisco?
No!
No, absolutely not, of course not.
But you are getting 38k, which I suppose over three years is more than 100, if that's what it was advertising.
Which, no, it's not.
So, once I learned that, I thought, okay, well, you know.
Corpo advertising.
Full of shit.
Maybe it's not so bad.
And then I started looking a bit deeper.
So let's go to the managers at Chipotle.
So here's Glassdoor reporting on managers at Chipotle's in San Francisco.
Total pay between $69,000 to $103,000 a year, with the median, so the most common there in the middle, at $84,000.
So a manager is getting $84,000 at a Chipotle.
Which, I imagine for some of the American audience, are gonna be like, eh, big whoop.
For us, this is not normal.
This is very abnormal.
In case you're wondering how abnormal, we have Chipotle in the UK.
There's not many, but there's some.
Here you are.
Here's a general manager at a Chipotle restaurant in London.
£30,000, which equivalents to $38,000.
So in the US, 84 grand.
In the UK, 38 grand.
So basically, you get pretty much the same salary as a shop floor worker for being the manager over here.
A shop floor worker in the United States is a manager of Chipotle in the United Kingdom, and that's in London again, which... Right, there might actually be a problem.
$84,000 is not bad, right?
Right, there might actually be a problem.
Yeah, $84,000 is not bad, right?
It's just not a bad wage.
Which, again, there might be some people thinking, or at least Americans pointing out to us, like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on.
San Francisco, of course.
Keep in mind, I mean, not only have we got to deal with the human shit, there's, you know, wages are higher in the United States because the costs are higher.
It's not a perfect comparison.
Okay, fair, fair.
But we'll get back to that.
Because I did then look up, where's that 100k figure come from?
So if a manager's getting 84k, How would it be accurate in the advertising you could get 100k at Chipotle within three years?
Well it turns out it's possible.
So this is them saying here, Chipotle just rolled out new accelerated job paths for six-figure incomes, and this was in 2021.
So of course that's going to have changed significantly.
And they're talking here that if you become a restaurateur, so if you own the restaurant and manage it, Your salary from Chipotle would be $100,000 or above, which after another three years of inflation, since that was published, I imagine this is going to be even higher because the dollar is worth less.
And then I decided to look up San Francisco income brackets, because that's where there is some truth, of course, in the fact that it's not that amazing.
Because as you see here, if you're the average in San Francisco, you're earning $104,000 a year.
That's the median.
That's the middle.
If you're earning less than that, you're less than the average.
If you're earning more than that, you're more than... I just can't get over the idea that more than 50% of people in New South Wales are earning more than £100,000.
Half the population earn more than £100,000.
And how can the 10th percentile be £45,000 when they've got all of those homeless people?
Or were they just excluded from the numbers?
I don't know.
I don't know what's going on.
They must be excluded from the numbers, yeah.
If you're not employed, then you don't... they don't count you.
I would have thought... I don't know.
There's a substantial amount of people in... Have you censored them?
I suppose.
Hello, Mr. Drug... Would you like to fill in this graph?
Yeah.
But, I mean, they stop to poo in the streets quite regularly, so you've got plenty of opportunities to survey them.
Yeah, I don't think we've been included in this one.
I've never really understood how homeless people afford their drug habits other than just stealing.
Yeah, I think it is the stealing.
It's just that, is it?
I don't know.
How can you be jobless and homeless and still get loads of fentanyl or whatever it is they're on?
Yeah.
I don't know.
It's cheap.
Okay.
It must be cheap.
I suppose it must be.
Although I have a whole sidetrack.
I have seen one country on earth fix homelessness, and this is the solution to homelessness.
It's the big secret they've been hiding from you.
Don't give them money.
Literally fixes it.
And I've seen this, I've mentioned this before.
Go to Serbia, and then cross the border into Kosovo.
Don't argue about it.
And that's the Albanian part, right?
And you'll notice that there are no homeless people in like Krajevo, and then you cross into Kosovo with the Albanians, and there's just homeless everywhere, constantly begging for money.
Just different cultures.
One gives money, and the other one is just like...
Well, and also San Francisco is a good case study on this, because they've got a program to eliminate homelessness that they pump millions into, and the amount of money they've been pumping into this program has been going up steadily over the years.
And if you overlay the chart of the money they've been putting into the homeless program over the chart of the amount of homeless, they're the same line.
They match.
So basically they are funding a program for people whose job it is to administer these people and therefore they need more of them.
We're getting back to San Francisco because as mentioned, I mean, I just find it mind boggling that more than half the population of San Francisco on 100k or more, which again, I mean, the United States is a huge place.
Wealth works in a certain way, which is that there are hubs of wealth creation.
And then the hope is that those people generate that wealth and then decide they want to keep some of it by investing it in other places in the country.
And it seems to be working in the U.S.
somewhat, but in the U.K.
it's a different matter.
I mean, all of our wealth is just put in London.
And then if you're sensible, you invest in global markets, not locally, because why would you?
I mean, I know you've made the point and I'm agreeing with you.
If you looked at the same chart for sort of, I don't know, Gary, Indiana, or like a small satellite town of Omaha, Nebraska or something, it'd be nothing like 104 grand median.
But that's why I'm comparing it to London.
Like if you work in central London or you're working as a Chipotle manager in London, for example, you're on the crew wage for San Francisco, which is Just amazing.
I mean, we can see here the other highest paid jobs.
I mean, this is more just, you know, the jealousy graph where you look at the people who are making ridiculous amounts of money, which, um, that's that's a thing.
So you can go through all that in your own time.
I don't know how to do it properly because I'm a moron.
But anyway, back to London, though, because the comparison between these two, I don't think is actually that insane because we'll go real quick to In-N-Out, who also apparently pay 160 on average for their store managers, which a lot of Europeans took that well.
So that's it.
But getting back to San Francisco, someone made this post.
Transport police starting salaries.
London $37,000.
San Francisco starting $124,000.
Up to $200,000.
That's what they're adding here.
To be fair though, if you're an American cop it's more likely that you're going to have to attend somebody who's dying of a fentanyl overdose and then spend your entire life in jail because of it.
They are different roles.
Yeah.
For sure.
But the idea that it's that different, that we're looking at, what is that, three, four, maybe even six times your wage?
Good God.
Yeah.
That is a different world.
That's just not like, oh, you know, I have to carry a gun, I have to deal with this, that.
That's a completely different society.
You know when we talk about Eastern European nations?
In fact, I remember this graph we looked at where it was the wealth of the UK.
There are some regions of the UK that when you account for the cost of living are as wealthy as regions of Poland.
Like rural regions of Poland.
Poor in other words.
Yeah, I really do think the difference between the Europeans and the United States at this point, I suppose we should say North America, is starting to look like that.
It's starting to look like the Europeans who lived in Poland looking at us when the wall fell and how the money has just...
You know, gone somewhere and not somewhere else, or been created.
Because we're going to do San Francisco again, as I mentioned.
The comparisons are not completely unjust.
So this is someone pointing out that here's the number of dwellings approved per thousand people, and it's got some American cities and London.
London being terrible for this, just not built houses.
You can also see San Francisco there.
It's also, you know, built about the same number of houses.
But when you compare the rental changes, the house price changes, London is ridiculous.
It's just mad.
I mean, it almost looks like there's some sort of relationship between supply and demand.
Yeah, but compound that with the wages and the fact that the wages haven't increased in London the same way they've increased in San Francisco over that time period from 2000.
I mean, never mind 2008, let's not even talk about the dark times.
Your rent would have skyrocketed and your wage would have not really gone very far if you're a Chipotle manager in London.
But if you were one in San Francisco, you're now on an average of 84k and the rental price is lower.
So you've got all the costs, don't get me wrong, but these two things I don't think are that different.
There's also, people have been pointing out, back to that Bucky situation, a Bucky's manager gets paid more than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
This is that graph from a while back.
And to be fair again, he's probably a better leader.
Yeah, yeah.
So he probably deserves more.
He will actually make the place run instead of destroying it.
Maybe that is the job though.
We can objectively say that every single Bucky's manager, every single one of them, without exception, is a better leader of men than Rishi Sunak, yeah.
Least competent Bucky's manager, most competent PM.
There's that.
But this is a story that's not been unnoticed as well.
I mean, people have been pointing out this.
So here's an article talking about the mass emigration of young Britons.
So this gets back to, I remember Thomas went to Australia recently and then came back.
I keep mentioning this story because it's stuck with me.
He said, oh, this is where all the young people went.
Because you walk around Swindon and there's no young English people.
It's not there.
There's young people from pretty much every other part of the world.
No young English people with kids.
It's just not a common feature.
Whereas when Thomas went to Australia, he was like, oh, they're all here.
And they're all English.
They're not Australian.
They're English-English.
And it's like, what's this situation?
And it's because people are leaving.
So this is an article talking about that, the mass immigration to Australia, New Zealand, Canada.
And this guy writes, I think correctly, the element of the UK discussions on emigration, particularly to Australia, I find the most interesting is they often mentioned motivation of quote-unquote lifestyle.
It's rarer to hear the quiet part, which is they're noticeably richer than us now.
Well that's how they're able to get the immigration so high isn't it because they import 1.4 million but they say oh no it's only 700,000 because another 700,000 people British people gave up and left and it's like well and that's supposed to be a justification as to why the hell are 700,000 people British people quitting this place?
I mean, it's not really a... I mean, I suppose if you're seeing it from a global perspective, because you're a globalist, I suppose it is a strategy for them.
You just move the Anglos to the richer nations over time, but then the homelands become completely hollowed out, and then you fill in that hollow shell with Pakistan, and then suddenly enough, you haven't actually got England anymore.
You've got something else.
I mean, yeah, if you're young and you just simply can't afford a deposit, For a mortgage on a home in the city that you live in, which is also now a Pakistani enclave or something.
But you can go to Australia, which is just nicer in terms of weather, and you can afford a house.
And it won't be a Nigerian or a Bangladeshi enclave.
Yeah, move there then.
Yeah.
It's just on the cards.
Yeah.
I mean, for people before they say it, because I know as well, it's the situation of the prices of things in cities is not, you know, unique to London.
Of course, Sydney has its own problems with housing and everything else, and they've got a unique tax situation on housing, which is why it's such an investment there.
But the point being, if you're British, London is the place where all the money is made.
So you think, go there, do your life, whatever.
But the money isn't actually that interesting anymore.
Unless you're working in one of those top positions, it's actually kind of dull.
It's not worth it.
Instead, you can just go to Australia.
And they mention in here that they're blaming TikTok, of all things.
So this is them talking about it.
TikTok makes this so more legible too.
Every day, young Londoners can see online Well, who's making more?
And where?
And they mention here graduate trainee salaries have fallen 22% in real terms since 2010.
So if you became a graduate, you know, you did that to make more money, you did the right path, you studied, you did hard school, blah blah blah.
Actually, you're way worse off than those graduates in 2010.
So, you know where you could look?
Elsewhere, and people have been.
I mean, I don't know if we can... I suppose I'll restart this.
This is a TikTok talking about this issue.
Well, not talking about it, but showing it.
And there's loads of these where it's just showing graduate salaries for different professions.
In the UK versus the US in this one, for example.
If you do law, starting salary, $25k for the UK.
$50k for the US.
Again, USD, so it's a bit different, but come on, that's not the same.
Medicine, $35k.
$181k.
Teaching, $20k in the UK.
$60k in the US.
Marketing, nursing.
Nursing being the big stinging one for those going to Australia, of course.
This is not unknown.
People are just like, why the hell would I stay?
Want to be a nurse in London?
Or do you want to go to Australia?
Get paid double.
Yeah, I think they get more of the training paid here, but yeah.
One thing I would say, that London is, you know, it's not just Chipotle.
A lot of jobs in London are around finance, asset servicing, that sort of thing.
The financial sector, private financial sector, and of course there are decent salaries to be found there.
There are some, yeah.
So it's not just... But the idea that it's the hub of wealth for people trying to find wealth, it just seems to be gone.
Because remember, of course, you then got, as I mentioned, nursing there.
There's something obviously you need in London, medicine.
And, well, if you're British and you do that...
You wouldn't go to London.
It would be foolish to do that.
You would leave.
And people are.
I mean, that's what the old article was about.
Lots of nursing students, for example, going to Australia.
It's a well-known issue.
But I don't mean to just bring this all up to be like, man, God, look at America.
Shining city on the horizon.
It's not.
It's got its problems.
It's got a lot of problems.
But there is just an undeniable truth that things have changed.
Because you see here, this is Financial Times, and this is a graph of economic growth showing the EU, Japan, the US, and then globally.
Now the ones we're going to be focusing on are the EU and US, and that's why I focused on the euro pause.
Because you see this going from 1975 till today, and you can see around about 2008 there's a gap.
I seem to remember it was always the case or a feeling that the US is a bit richer, you know, there's Silly money out there for elections or whatever else.
But the gap wasn't that mental.
And of course, since 2008, the EU is there, and the US is just much, much higher.
Because there's a slightly higher growth rate, that obviously compounds.
And I wonder where this is going to be within 10 years, especially.
Just the absolute difference will be mental, because you see the future of Japan, and that's pretty stagnant.
It used to be richer than the average American, and now they're just barely holding on above us.
Small incremental changes in the rate make huge difference in outcomes.
So if the US had 1% slower growth between its founding and today, its current economy would be smaller than Albania's.
So it makes a huge difference.
But the other interesting thing about that is, of course, is the global bit.
I mean, what do they mean by that?
Well, that's going to be basically the BRICS, isn't it?
China, India, Indonesia, Brazil.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Which, you know, are exciting in their own right, but they're not exactly overtaking the US anytime soon, it seems.
But if that continues, then maybe they will.
Yeah.
Yeah, there we are.
That's just something I wanted to talk about, which there was a huge debate about Chipotle, whether or not they're paying 100k.
Sadly not for crew workers as of yet.
Maybe if they keep printing the money they will, but it'll be worthless.
But it is true that, yeah, I think the Europeans have got to reckon with the fact that the lack of productivity on this continent is really starting to hurt.
It's really starting to be demonstrable as well.
Yes.
Have you ever eaten at Chipotle?
Yeah.
Oh, I never have.
Is it good?
Not a fan.
I quite liked it.
Yeah?
Yeah, there's one near me.
All I know is that there's an old South Park episode where Cartman eats it loads and it gives him the runs.
That's it.
That's just all Mexican food, apparently.
Oh, right.
According to American TV.
All right, let's move on.
Just in between the segments, remember to do the ads.
The ads, because we need clever buttons.
Can you also move the... I haven't got a mouse.
Can someone scroll down so I can see my notes?
There you go.
Do you want to read that out, then?
Am I reading this?
Oh, yeah, if you incorporate it into your segment, because we need the button people.
OK.
Yeah.
All right.
There's some job opportunities going at Lotus Eaters if you're interested.
A production manager.
And what is it, two other video editor people?
Videographers or something like that.
So if you know what Adobe Premiere Pro, if you know that inside out, get in touch with us.
Or if you're a dab hand on, what's the thumbnail?
JPEG thing?
Photoshop.
If you're good at Premiere Pro or Photoshop, get in touch with us.
There's a couple of opportunities going.
All right?
Yeah, top man.
Not very good at that sort of thing.
All right, let's talk about something politics.
Let's talk about the decline and fall of Hamza Yousif.
Or Bums Are Useless, which is his real name.
The Scottish guy who hates white people?
Yeah.
Well, I say Scottish guy, I mean... Yeah.
A Pakistani expat who happened to be born in Scotland, yeah.
Yeah, that's... And somehow, in an unelected, undemocratic way, found himself at the top of the First Minister of Scotland.
So play this clip, first of all.
You know, the people that matter.
I want to find out more.
Why would we stop?
How did you find this?
Were you just watching Pakistani news?
- - Really?
- Okay.
No, no, no.
- I want to find out more.
Why would we stop?
- How did you find this?
Were you just watching Pakistani news?
- No, I just typed in and it was one of the first things that came on YouTube.
- Why are the Pakistanis talking about personal changes?
Well, his base need to know what's going on, don't they?
They need to be kept abreast of the news.
But if you play the next link, which will actually show a bit of his actual resignation.
Unfortunately, in ending the Butte House Agreement in the manner that I did, I clearly underestimated the level of hurt and upset that caused Green colleagues.
Therefore, after spending the weekend reflecting on what is best for my party, for the government and for the country I lead, I've concluded that repairing our relationship across the political divide can only be done with someone else at the helm.
I have therefore informed the SNP's National Secretary of my intention to stand down as party leader and ask that she commence a leadership contest for my replacement as soon as possible.
Politics can be a brutal business.
It takes its toll on your physical and mental health.
Your family suffer alongside you.
I am in absolute debt to my wonderful wife, my beautiful children and my wider family for putting up with me over the years.
I'm afraid you'll be seeing a lot more of me from now.
You are truly everything to me.
Hang on, before you go any further, I'm going to have to ask questions, because I pay no attention to mainstream media at all.
First of all, he's only been First Minister for like a year or something, hasn't he?
Yeah, something like that, yeah.
And secondly, right, what... It's so unimpressive now you mention it, yeah.
And never got a mandate, it was only because Nicola Sturgeon quit.
Yeah, but why is he even quitting when he talks about that?
I can tell you all about it.
Oh, right, OK.
Yeah, I can tell you all about their coalition government and all that sort of thing.
First of all I'd like to say that I honestly do think that sort of gloating is a bad look.
You know when the leftists gloat about all sorts of things, you know like when Trump lost or whatever you get leftist gloating.
It's not a great look but I can't really help myself a little bit here because you're so hated, so obnoxious.
So I'll try and keep the sort of glee to a minimum.
But also literally who?
This is the thing I love about when these people go, because they're unelected, is that it's not just, oh, we finally got that guy out, get the new guy in.
It's like, yeah, that piece was so awful that even the establishment, who didn't care about democracy at all, had to admit, OK, we've got to get rid of this guy.
Yeah, yeah.
In fact, I had a quote, I've got a quote here from Dankula, the Count Dankula.
His lordship?
Yeah, the Lord Lanarkshire, 1st Baron Coatbridge.
He's like a legit, real bona fide Scot, right?
Can you get any more Scottish than Dank?
Not really, right?
I mean, he's about as Scottish as you get.
Unnecessary?
The Daily Record are going to do a hit piece on you now.
Some of your best friends are Scottish now, aren't they?
He said, where he said, I watched a video of his a few days ago, just before Bums Are Useless quit, saying that loads of his friends vote, most people he knows, vote SMP, but they hate Bums Are Useless, they hate him.
Right.
And Dank said the same thing.
He said, wait have you scrolled down on, can you scroll down a bit further on my thing for me?
There you go, there's a quote.
He said, imagine being that bad, talking about Yusuf, that even the completely effed up, inept SMP who don't even believe at all in their own core message, imagine if they went, you're too shite.
I need that.
I need that to happen.
I need him to be gone.
I need Hamza Yusuf out of power.
I need him kicked out of the party.
I just need him out.
Oot.
The man is a complete idiot.
And I'm saying all this because I think Dank is a fair representation of what a lot of Scots will be thinking.
He makes a good point.
It's a bit like being kicked out of Antifa for being a spiteful mutant.
I mean, you're already in the bottom barrel.
Dank goes on to say, um, he's a complete idiot.
Um, I never felt more fearful of a leader.
And we've had some effing terrible leaders in our country.
We've had people that are shy and inept and all that type of stuff.
A lot of them were just shy.
His language is foul, isn't it?
But funny.
They're just clueless, bumbling idiots.
But this is the first one who I view as genuinely malicious.
Genuinely malicious.
He wants to actively do harm to people.
That's the way I see him.
So this is the first time I've actually genuinely felt fearful of this absolute effing idiot.
He's a dangerous idiot, that's the problem.
So, if anyone's out there who's American, or perhaps, or from anywhere, that just doesn't follow UK politics or Scottish politics, there's no reason why you really should.
I don't.
Right.
He was roundly hated.
It's not just that he's got brown skin and so all the white people hate him because they're just bigots for no good reason.
He's roundly hated.
The white people hate him because he hates the white people.
Well, there's that.
So, yeah, quickly, sorry, if you could scroll up a quick, I think, or can I have a mouse?
Yeah, sure.
Right, so there's a number of things.
First of all, before he became the leader there was just a famous sort of white controversy where he called out sort of all of Scottish society for being white.
That all the top leaders in politics and in civil society were white people in Scotland.
And Scotland's like 96, 97% white.
So you would just expect that.
So it's just, it's just, it's true race baiting.
Yes.
It's sort of true hatred, real racism actually.
Most people, a lot of people I think would have seen him just ranting about the whiteness of Scotland.
It's mad, it's mad.
Yeah.
When you run into like, I'm going to call them the online racists right, where you run into people who are selling racist jokes or making racist remarks or saying that the races are different and here's graphs or whatever else.
They're usually actually kind of fun about it.
It's like the meme about if you see a Tumblr meetup, it's all white women.
Whereas if you see a 4chan meetup, it's guys of all different races, creeds, colors, cultures, all just being like, yes, yes, yes, you are inferior to each other.
That's the thing.
And there's some comedy about it.
And that actually isn't that frightening.
Like, if you're of a different race and this person thinks they're superior, it's like, okay.
Like, you have a laugh about it.
But with Pumza, it genuinely was just actual hatred because you're white.
And there's no comedy, there's no goodwill or funniness.
Or even like, haha, you know, he kind of believes that, but not really.
It was just, oh.
Oh, you just want me dead.
Well that's the thing about like proper racists is that I mean they're actually quite a fun bunch because they don't care what colour or creed you are they only care that you're racist and then they would get along it's like oh you're a Nigerian racist are you excellent we get along then it's like stuff like that it's in the Louis Theroux club No.
He's in South Africa and he runs into this boar and the boar's having bread with I think it's like a Zulu or something and he's like, uh, Johnny, Johnny, why are you having, uh, breaking bread with a black man?
And he's like, well, you know, of course I'm a racist.
And he's like, yeah, so why are you breaking bread?
And he's like, well, he's a racist as well.
That's funny.
That's kind of humorous.
This was not.
This was just a strange man who's unelected declares war on his own people.
It was just really, really weird and horrible to see.
And, um, well, okay.
The other thing is actually in politics, before he was the leader, he was sort of a, I think he did transport and health before that.
Both times he didn't really achieve anything or was a bit of a, like this trust, just sort of was a bit of a hand grenade in any department he was put in.
It wasn't very good.
And then when he became leader, only because Sturgeon had to step down because of fraud allegations with her and her husband, the SNP decided to elect Bumzer as their leader.
And then since then, not that long ago, like I say, just quite a few months, about a year or so, he had done all sorts of things that wasn't good.
So he wanted to try to push through that tranny bill, I don't know what you'd call it.
What's the... Oh, no, apparently you're not allowed to say tranny because every time you say tranny he has to censor it.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, so use another word.
The transgender... Yeah, I call them the alphabet people.
Some sort of alphabet people bill they were trying to put through.
And Westminster had to Veto it, do you remember that?
Rishi had to... Because they've devolved parliaments, they haven't got absolute, complete executive power.
If Westminster decide, oh no, we're not actually going to let you, we're not going to let Wales declare war on Russia or something.
Westminster can still basically veto stuff, they do.
And they had to do it in that case.
So it's just a political failure, really.
There was loads of net zero policies that they wanted tried to push through and then it became obvious that they were like absurd targets so he had to sort of do a 180 on those another sort of political failure there's the the censorship hate crime bill thing that he put through fairly recently remember that?
It was where you just you just um reclassified loads of things you can't say anymore because they're hateful.
You couldn't even say it in your own uh house if nobody heard it.
Yeah.
Oh right.
We did a segment on it We did a segment on it.
So if you say something racist and nobody hears it, can you still go to jail?
The answer was yes, because what in case Alexa hears it?
And it could be loads of things, all sorts of, all the alphabet people, sexism stuff, all sorts of types of racism and religious stuff.
Just a massive extension of the, of curtailing freedom of expression, freedom of speech.
So it was like a Pakistani-Scottish Justin Trudeau trying to out-compete the wokes in America by being even more woke?
Scots don't like stuff like that, just weren't happy with that.
His popularity was just through the floor, like minus 30 or something crazy.
And wasn't he up against, originally he was up against a fairly sensible Scottish woman, who was like the ideal candidate, the only thing is she had some reservations about abortion.
Yeah, Kate Forbes was her name.
Yeah, she'll come into this story in a bit.
Oh right.
And also, just the grand SNP goal of pushing for and trying to get independence, For Hollyrood.
He got no traction on that.
So the whole point of SNP is not really fulfilling any of that.
So he's roundly hated and a bit of a political failure.
And so let's get to his final downfall, which we'll talk about.
So the Scottish Parliament has got 129 seats in it.
In the last election, which was what, 2019 was it?
Or was it 21?
Anyway, they got 64 seats.
Which is sort of one shy of being able to just form a proper government, a majority government.
Right.
And this was under Nicola Sturgeon.
So they could either, so at that point they've got a choice.
You can either rule as a minority government, which is weak but it's totally normal.
In all sorts of places all over the world all the time there are minority governments.
It just means you're a weak government and you have to probably get other MPs to vote with you to get stuff done.
But okay, they're a minority government to the tune of one.
Pretty damn weak, but not insane.
Okay, that's their mandate.
But then, at one point, one of them, that Kate Forbes actually, defected.
That Alex Salmond, remember him?
He created his own party called ALBA, I think it's called.
Scottish Nationalism But Not Retarded.
Right.
Was basically his campaign promise.
Right.
And so she defected to them, so they've got one less now.
So, after Nicola Sturgeon forms this minority government, a few months into that, she strikes a deal with the Greens.
I think there was eight Greens, or still are, eight Green Scottish MPs.
I think there was about 30-odd Tories, 20-odd Labour, like four or five or six Lib Dems, and about seven or eight Greens.
That's the whole of the situation.
And one Pakistani.
And one Alba.
And so she got in an agreement with the Greens, just like any coalition agreement.
Remember when David Cameron and Clegg did that?
So they did that to form a coalition government with the Greens, then they've got a majority, albeit a relatively slim one, they can start doing stuff.
And their agreement, just like Clegg and Cameron had an agreement, they had an agreement, it was called the Butte House Agreement.
Right.
Okay, and they agree to all sorts of things that there's most of their legislation is they're in line with each other because the SNP, even though they're meant to be nationalists, actually agree with the Greens on loads of things.
Loads and loads of things.
And not cool stuff like, you know, keeping the water clean.
Really progressive nonsense stuff.
It's instead like, you know what I care about?
Transgenderism.
Yeah.
What's that got to do with the environment exactly?
Or Scottish independence.
Yeah, nothing to do with either of those things, right?
So, but their relationship has been breaking down for quite a while, over a few different things.
So, for example, one of them was on climate targets.
The SNP and Useless had a load of goals for 2030, but sort of insane goals, like net zero type goals, targets.
It became clear they were just completely unrealistic and would never ever be met.
So he sort of 180'd on them, and the Greens hated that.
Because that's their whole thing, obviously, is the Greens.
That's their whole thing, to have sort of insane net zero targets and things.
They disagreed on things about, like, council tax.
You know, actual real political things.
Oh, sex workers!
The Greens wanted all sex workers to be legalised in Scotland, and SNP... For the environment?
This is why I always find it weird about the Greens.
It's like, oh yeah, we're for the climate, we're obsessed with the climate.
Anyway, legalise sex work.
No, no, I can see the argument, right, because what the Greens want to do is de-industrialise the world, and so the only work that women will be able to get will be prostitution.
Like any good famine.
Yeah.
It's just really progressive.
The Greens usually are just, whatever the most progressive stance on something is, that's what they're going to take, isn't it, usually.
Also, like NATO, the Greens want to leave NATO.
If Scotland ever got independence... Oh wait, that's alright.
I like that.
They would want to leave NATO, but the SNP didn't want to do that, so they disagreed over, they disagreed over all sorts of things, OK?
That's basically what you need to know.
Oh, and the ABC alphabet people, Bill, The Greens were extremely upset that the SNP didn't fight harder to make that happen and push that through and all sorts of things like that.
So this Butte House agreement was on really shaky ground.
Some people say it was sort of dead in the water.
So it was almost certainly going to break down at some point relatively soon in the next few months.
Youssef made the decision to Sort of jump before he was pushed.
That he would sort of formally renege on the agreement before it collapsed.
You know?
So that's what he did.
That's what I don't understand though, like, if you're him, who cares?
Just go back to being a minority government.
Well, so that was his plan.
He said, he said, well, on one day he said, I'll completely stand behind the Boothouse Agreement, and then like a few days later said, no, I'm getting rid of it.
Now the Green Party felt that fairly rightly, you can't really blame them.
It's just a massive, massive betrayal.
And he said, well, I'll just carry on ruling as a minority government.
But then the Scottish Conservatives sort of smelt blood in the water, if you like, and they, you know, when someone's weak or when someone's wounded politically, you can try and stick the knife in.
So that's what they did.
They said, well, no, but it's, you know, a minority government.
That's not cool.
It's not minority of one.
It's now because you've lost that other woman as well.
I want some sort of movement of no confidence, vote of no confidence in your leadership.
So what would have happened is that all the SNP MPs would vote with him, for him, but if everyone else voted against him, which they were going to, because as I said he was roundly disliked by nearly everyone in Scotland apart from party diehards, he was going to lose that vote.
Because if nothing else, it would come down to an extremely tight sort of 64, 65, 66.
It would have been extremely close.
But that one woman, Kate Forbes, who had defected to that new Alba party, she would have made the difference.
And she wasn't going to back up Youssef.
She was going to vote against him.
So he would have lost that vote of no confidence.
So he hasn't really got, his only choices at that point is to sort of let that play out and be removed or resign.
They were his options in the end.
So what was he begging on about the whole hurt and upset stuff in his speech?
What was that all about?
Yeah he's talking about the leader of the Green Party.
He's like I'm really sorry I upset, I didn't realise that reneging on this Butte House Agreement, I didn't realise that would upset so many people.
Well one, obviously it would and two, oh well, Oh no, the Greens don't like me, no!
I'm going to shed a tear for this.
No, no, anyway.
So that's how it played out and Sony has had to resign.
If we could play that clip with Andrew Marr there.
So it's been 25 years we've had of a Scottish Parliament and this is the biggest crisis it has faced and it's really a crisis caused by bad poor politics by the leadership of the SNP and that is producing calls right across the UK people saying right that shows that devolution you know Scottish Parliament Welsh Parliament it doesn't work it's no good it should be repealed that we should go back to a single state and
I would just say if we applied the same lessons to Westminster would we really be saying that because of what happened under Liz Truss or Boris Johnson Westminster had failed and we should abolish Parliament?
No we would not.
Yes we would.
Non sequitur for a start.
What are you talking about Andrew?
That's just nonsense.
And I think in the same way, Scottish politics will find a way through this.
It's going to be very intense, very interesting, sort of a white-knuckle ride for the next few days.
But I do think democracies repair themselves and that's what's going on right now in Edinburgh.
I was hearing one commentator in Scotland just after that announcement saying that the problem with Hamza Yousaf is he was more of a follower than a leader.
Would you agree with that?
I would agree with that.
I think, you know, there's nobody that I can find across the spectrum who doesn't quite like Humza Yousaf.
He's a... What are you talking about?
What nonsense?
Nobody... How would you lose emotional no confidence from every party hating you if everyone liked him?
He's roundly hated.
I don't trust Andrew Marr.
Oh, why would you?
I don't trust him.
There's a few articles he's written a long time ago and all sorts of views he expressed if you actually look at what he believes.
I don't trust him in all sorts of ways.
Anyway, the point is, Humza Yousaf is out.
If you put up my tweet, I'll put there.
People do that sometimes, don't they?
Put up their own tweets.
I've seen Harry do it.
So, bye bye.
Get in the bin.
He's a political abomination.
I stand by that.
It should never have been the case.
We'll look back on his time as a weird, freak occurrence in Scottish politics.
It should never have been.
A trivial pursuits question in 50 years time.
When was a Pakistani leading Scotland?
Yeah, right.
So last few things to say then.
Where to go forward from here?
The next leader of S&P is likely to be John Swinney.
Apparently a lot of the people in the party like this guy, John Swinney.
There's that Kate Forbes who nearly beat Yusuf last time.
She can come back now, can't she?
You should have another go, yeah.
Oh, no, wait, sorry, no, of course she's out of the party.
Right, yeah, no, so, yeah.
I don't know, but people was talking about her name.
I don't know.
Yeah.
People were saying this John Swinney guy.
There's another couple of names, Neil Gray, Jenny Gilruth.
Anyway, who knows?
Whoever becomes the next leader of the SNP will then have to...
We'll either be in a very, very shaky position or have to make another coalition agreement with other parties, whether anyone in Scotland will want to do that with them, who knows?
Going forward at the next general election, most people think that Labour will probably do well, because in the past when I was a kid, when I was younger, Labour always did well in Scotland, before the SNP were really a thing, before the 2000s.
Labour, Lib Dems always did alright, Tories always did badly, Labour always did quite well in Scotland.
Well there's a saying at the Labour Party Conference, they say it a billion bloody times, which is the road to a Labour government runs through Scotland, but if you don't win Scotland they lose.
Which is why I always supported getting rid of Scotland from the Union, because then Labour gone forever.
If this was America, Scotland would be California.
Basically.
It's supposed to be like a socialist bastion.
Well it is.
There's a classic thing that was called the Scottish Mafia.
Even in the Blair years, there were big chunks of Labour MPs that were Scottish.
And they ruled the roost because they knew if they lose them, they don't get government ever.
Look at Alistair Darling or Gordon Brown.
And Blair went to Edinburgh.
But going back years, going back to the beginning of the Labour Party, going back to the 1920s and 30s, you had lots of Scottish Labour MPs in Westminster.
So anyway, people are thinking that if the SNP sort of do very badly at the next election, a lot of Scottish people lose faith in SNP, realise that it's been subverted and perverted and is a bit of a joke and they're fraudsters or whatever, allegedly, they'll probably, most of them will vote Labour then.
So the leader of Scottish Labour... I mean, the Tories are on a self-destruction path, so Labour could basically just win all of the seats?
Tories are on a zero-seat strategy, and Scotland don't really vote Tory that much anyway.
They just don't.
But the leader of Scottish Labour is...
A guy called Anas Sarwar, who's Pakistani.
The second Pakistani leader of Scotland.
Oh, right, okay.
Okay.
Okay.
So, um... He also hates white people.
He gave exactly the same speech as Hamza about how there are just white people everywhere and he hates it.
Also.
Okay?
Right.
So, so that's Scottish politics at the moment.
I've got that one last link where Dank celebrates, if you want to play that.
Average Dankular meme.
That's it, it goes on for a few more seconds, but that's essentially it.
That's the mood right now.
Okay, that's a little bit about Scottish politics and the fall of Bums Are Useless.
All right, let's move on.
Let's talk about something completely uncontroversial, which would be the moon landings.
Now, before I get into that, I'll just quickly mention we need people who can push buttons.
So if you are a button-pushing person and know your way around editing tools and cameras and all that kind of stuff, have a look at our website where we've got a career opportunity open.
We've got a position available in both London and Swindon, so check that out.
On the matter of conspiracies, the US does have quite a strong record when it comes to conspiracies.
Now, I'll actually start with ones that we can prove rather than ones that we can't.
So, just to whiz through a couple, during Prohibition, the US Department of the Treasury poisoned alcohol.
And the New York's chief medical examiner personally identified over a thousand people that had been poisoned by the alcohol.
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment.
For 40 years the government claimed to be treating black men for their syphilis but was actually just watching them and giving them fake medicine just to see what would happen.
Really?
I've not heard of that one.
You've not heard of the Tuskegee?
Oh, that was a big one.
More than 100 million Americans received a polio vaccine contaminated...
Again, presumably to see what happened.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident.
For years that was... So this was a sort of an attack that led to the US getting involved in Vietnam.
And for years that was an officially denied conspiracy theory.
Recently declassified documents out in 2005 confirmed that actually, yeah, no, it never happened.
So it was a genuine conspiracy.
Oh, this one is mad.
Operation Northwoods.
Yeah, so the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to commit terrorist acts in America, pin them on Cuba, so they could invade them.
In the early Castro years?
Yeah.
And JFK said, yeah, you're not doing that.
But the bloody Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on that plan, but they couldn't get it past JFK, presumably because George Bush wasn't in the White House at the time.
So yeah, again, declassified documents, Show that.
The government using LSD on unwitting citizens to see what happened.
MKUltra.
The MK standing for Mind Control.
So that's another one.
The Iran Contra scandal.
They were selling weapons to Iran to channel money to Nicaraguan militants.
Again, denied.
If you said anything about that, you were a conspiracy theorist, and then declassified documents have now come out and said, yeah, yeah, we did that one.
Um a public relations firm organized a 15 year old Kuwaiti girl to make up stories about Iraqi troops dumping babies on the floor in their in their first invasion and it then turned out that this was set up by a PR firm.
Right now all of those that I mentioned Um, you don't need to worry about them being conspicuous.
All of those have been admitted to.
All of them, we have declassified documents that demonstrate all of those.
Right?
Well, I know a bit about the last one.
So, she actually testified that they took babies out of incubators and then smashed them on the floor.
Yeah.
And then it turns out, obviously, she was, well, a rich child of a Kuwaiti family.
So, wasn't in Kuwait during any of the invasion.
Yes.
Was studying in the United States.
Yeah, it was all fabricated.
So, had not been to Kuwait for like three years.
Yeah.
It was transparently stupid.
Does anyone even believe that?
Yeah.
So, I mean, those are just ones that we can say without question because we have the declassified documents to prove it and it's been admitted.
There are other ones that haven't been admitted.
So, JFK, I know that you've written a lot on that, Beau.
I mean, as far as I'm concerned, the bloody CIA took him out.
I know that's your view, isn't it?
um uh what's his name rfk who's running at the moment i mean he he's just up front that he thinks the cia killed his uh killed his uh his his dad and his uncle um nixon uh that's one we we talked about about the cia's involvement in the downfall of nixon i know you have more qualms over that one but there's definitely these issues to be raised there about how this um naval intelligence officer suddenly became a journalist and immediately got the top story in the world um and
And it was all collaborated by former intelligence agents, so that's interesting.
USS Liberty.
Yeah, I won't talk about that one too much, because I don't want my car to blow up, but people will know what I'm talking about on that one.
And of course, 9-11.
Issues to be raised on that one.
What about WMD?
Oh yeah, that one, yeah.
Yeah, that one as well.
Yeah, there's lots of them.
So my point is, is that the U.S.
has- the U.S.
deep state has a long, long history of doing this shit.
On multiple occasions, they've actually come clean and said, yeah, we did that.
And some of them, like the JFK, the Nixon, and the U.S.
Lib- S. Liberty, and the, uh, the 9-11, I mean, are just wide open.
To be proved of point.
My favorite book on the 9-11 stuff is from a former pilot, Philip Marshall.
And he basically talked through in this book just how, I mean, the main thing was the utter improbability of the plane going into the Pentagon.
And he walked through the steps that a pilot would do it.
And even, you know, other pilots when they read this, like, yeah, actually there's a handful of pilots in the world who could have pulled that off.
Let alone somebody who trained in a Cessna for like six hours.
So anyway so he put that book out and um yeah funny thing is um he he had two kids and and his wife and the kids and the wife were going to go to visit her mother for the weekend and at the last minute um the kids ended up staying home with him and that night uh people burst into the house a home invasion and shot them all didn't didn't steal anything They just all got shot.
So that's a bit unfortunate, so we won't be writing a sequel to that book, but it was very persuasive on a lot of people.
So anyway, my point is, is that...
Lots of this stuff has gone on for a long time, and I knew about lots of it, but it didn't really click with me until Covid and the 2020 election.
And it was like, okay, yeah, this is just not something that's in the history.
This is something that has happened throughout and still happens right up until this day, like these big conspiracies.
Now, I always separately walled off from that the moon landings, right?
Because I just thought, yeah, all of these other things are definitely fake.
But that one, that's a good story.
I like that one.
That's definitely true.
So I was always 100% on.
And I always put people who raise any questions about the moon landings on the same level as people who talk about flat earth.
I just thought it was complete nonsense.
But after the 2020 election and the COVID stuff, I just thought, Maybe I'd look a little bit deeper.
And so my faith level went down from like 100% to like 99%.
And I kind of felt a bit dirty being at 99%.
I was like, yeah, only weird people raise any questions about this.
So I want to go from 99% back up to 100%.
So I started looking for good evidence.
To set my mind at ease.
And basically, the more evidence I looked for, the lower and lower my certainty went, until I got to where I am today, which is, like, I just don't know.
I'm like 50-50.
Maybe it did happen, maybe it doesn't, but I don't know.
But there are genuine questions out there.
Well, I would say that, obviously, there are lots and lots of examples of when the American deep state have perpetuated massive conspiracies.
Massive ones.
I'll give you that.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that the moon landings are.
No, no.
That doesn't follow for me.
So I'd say I'm one of those people that do believe men landed on the moon.
So hopefully we'll have a bit of a back and forth about it.
But I think it's okay to be sceptical though.
Because where I'm like an armchair amateur historian fan of history, but particularly ancient history, that's really my forte, is you're sort of like a detective in a way, dealing with a small amount of evidence, especially in ancient history.
You've sometimes only got tiny fragments of evidence and you have to try and work out what is more or less likely to have been true from the evidence.
And it's okay to be sceptical.
So, for example, neither of us were involved in the Apollo program.
That's true.
Right?
Yep.
Neither of us are, sort of, geologists.
Yeah.
So, what we can only really say is what is more or less likely to be true.
Yes.
Right?
Yeah.
I can't say for 100% it happened and you can't say for 100% it didn't happen.
Well that's not my position anyway, I'm 50-50.
Sure, sure.
But so the point is you have to end up coming down unless you actually flew on one of those Apollo missions and set foot on the moon yourself.
Not many people did.
Right.
You can only say what is more or less like the truth.
For me, the preponderance of evidence is that we did.
But you go ahead.
Before I set out my stall while I think there is lots of evidence, you go.
Let's talk about some of that.
And the other thing I'll just note before I get into this, I just find it really interesting, the reaction to raising any doubts about this stuff.
Because people get very angry very quickly and they almost immediately go to if you don't believe this you must be stupid.
The other thing is true though if I've had it well because I've written articles about space things and yeah I've talked about space things from time to time you get people in the comments going oh my god I can't believe you believe in that we that there's a space station I can't believe you believe we went to the moon of course we didn't It's one of those things.
This issue in particular makes people really angry for some reason.
I don't know why.
And that was the start of the problem for me.
Because when I dipped to 99% certain, and I went looking for videos to prove it to me, I watched all these videos, and they were basically just half hour, 45 minute videos of people calling you stupid if you don't believe it.
And I was watching and thinking, OK, any second now he's going to give me the clincher argument.
And it's just, there were just like hundreds of videos just saying, if you don't believe it, you're stupid.
It's like, well, yeah, but that doesn't work on me.
So beyond the fact that America is guilty of all sorts of, the American government have been, Deep State, have been guilty of all sorts of cover-ups and things.
Yeah.
Why don't you think, why don't you think men landed on the main?
Well, like I say, I'm 50-50, I don't know.
Right.
My position is not that they didn't, it's just that there's sort of interesting questions.
So obviously the first thing you go to is like, oh well, there's loads of footage, isn't there?
Interesting thing about that.
Now obviously, you know, if it's on TV, for boomers, that is instantly enough.
But that's all the evidence you need.
If it's on TV, it's true, right?
Why was the footage third-hand, though?
Because you know the footage that was never actually being given out?
The way it was done is NASA put the footage up on a projection screen, And then they put a camera on that projection screen, and then that was fed to a monitor, and then all the networks had to basically film from that monitor.
So it was like a third hand signal.
So that's part of the reason why the footage quality is so low.
It's like, why did they do that?
Why have they never handed out the originals?
And the interesting thing is the director, Ron Howard, he actually went to NASA a few decades ago and said, I want to do a special on this and put it all in the cinemas.
I want to edit it all nicely.
Give me all the raw footage.
He's the director of Apollo 13, isn't he, Ron Howard?
Yeah.
And so he wanted to use loads of the original footage.
And he went to NASA and said, can I have the original footage?
And they said, no, we destroyed it.
Right.
Are you just talking about Neil Armstrong of Apollo 11?
No, the moon landings in general.
I mean, mainly.
No, that's not true.
So there's loads of footage, particularly of Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17.
There's hours and hours and hours and hours of footage.
So there is hours and hours of it, but the original footage was never given out.
It was always done through that process of being shown on a monitor, which the networks then had to have a It's a third-hand signal.
It's like, why did they do that rather than just providing the original footage?
And why did they destroy it?
I don't get that.
The other thing that I find really curious about the footage is... Because I've just seen lots and lots of footage from, particularly Apollo 15, 16 and 17, where it doesn't look... it's not that ridiculously grainy Apollo 11 style footage.
It's not that.
It is pretty clear stuff.
And again, hours and hours of them driving around in the rovers and all sorts of stuff.
Yeah, I mean especially on the later ones there is more footage available.
So one thing I'll say real quick before you go on, is I've got questions about Apollo 9, 10 and 11.
Apollo 9 and 10 went to the moon and back but didn't actually land.
And Apollo 11, obviously the famous moon landing, it's the first one.
I've got all sorts of questions about images and footage.
OK, but Apollo 14, 15, 16, 17, there seems to be no doubt.
Do you find that a lot more convincing?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
OK.
Yeah, that's fair.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't I don't know the answers to all of this.
The other the other thing I don't know an answer to is obviously AI fake detection has had had a hell of a lot of investment lately because everyone's worried about misinformation, stuff like that.
So Google have been spending and other people have been spending billions on on software that detects fakes.
The interesting thing is, is when you run the moon landing footage through these fake detections and they've got like a perfect accuracy record, they say it's fake.
Oh really?
I've never seen anything like this.
Yeah, it's not just like a big fake message comes up on the screen.
They give you almost 200 detailed reasons as to why it's fake, and they're going through really granular things that humans would never spot.
Things like, oh, the light intensity and colour patterns and distribution and stuff like that, it tells you that it's from an electric light, not the sun, and a whole bunch of stuff.
And you can put in other, and it's not just because it's filmed on the moon, because you can put in other footage from unmanned vehicles that have gone there, like the NASA's lunar rovers and Margin rovers And it says, yeah, that's true.
But when you put in the landing ones, where humans went there, it says it's fake.
And it gives you loads and loads of complex reasons as to why that's, why it's fake.
And I just, I don't know why.
And maybe there's an innocent explanation for all of these things.
Why they destroyed the footage.
Why they put it up on a monitor and did it third hand and didn't hand out the originals.
And why the AI says, I just don't know what the reasons are.
So I think those are questions.
I've not heard anything about that.
That's entirely new to me, this AI stuff.
The AI thing is definitely new.
That's fairly recent.
The other thing that people always say is...
Oh, you're stupid if you don't believe it because there's reflectors on the moon that you can ping and stuff like that.
And I thought, OK, I've got it.
I've got my solid evidence as to why it's definitely true.
So I looked into that and it then turns out that actually the Chinese, the Indians and the Russians all have reflectors on the moon.
Yeah.
Or the Chinese don't.
Yeah, they just landed them there.
So the reflectors tells you that you've got a vessel there.
It doesn't tell you that you landed humans, which is interesting.
So there's that one.
As I understand it, there's been all sorts of reflectors put on the moon.
Right now, six still operate.
Yeah, something like that.
Three American ones, two Russians and an Indian one.
Yeah.
Two of the three American ones, I believe, were Apollo era ones.
I think the Apollo 11 one.
So what you're saying, that's not...
Well, I'm just saying that if other countries have reflectors up there and they do not make the claim that they landed humans, that makes me think, oh, well, did the first ones land humans as well?
Because the reflectors clearly don't tell you that they landed humans.
It only tells you that they landed something.
I suppose.
But again, I think it's quite well documented.
I think it was Apollo 14 or Apollo 12, but certainly Apollo 11, they put a reflector down.
And again, it's documented the footage of them putting it down and placing it and stuff.
Yeah.
But I mean, they could have landed that previously.
Yeah, I suppose.
But again, it gets to the preponderance of what's more likely.
Yes.
It becomes more... My point more is that therefore the reflector argument is not conclusive proof because clearly if other nations can land reflectors without landing people then presumably the Americans have that ability as well.
So I didn't find that... The other thing I thought too... Okay, rocks.
Lunar rocks.
That has to be solid, right?
A couple of interesting stories on that.
One, Neil Armstrong personally presented a lump of lunar rock to the, I think it was the Dutch Prime Minister.
Oh, I've heard this.
And more recently, they got curious and they put it under a microscope and it turned out it was petrified wood.
So, I mean, that's just one example.
Maybe, you know, it's only the Dutch Prime Minister, so maybe he doesn't warrant a proper bit of rock.
The other thing that I found really interesting is, did you know that either, was it Braun?
The Nazi scientists they had.
Werner Von Braun.
Werner Von Braun, yeah.
So apparently back then in the 60s you just had a Nazi on hand, for whatever reason, but you had a Nazi.
The greatest rocket expert in the world.
Yes.
Did you know that he took a holiday six weeks before the 1969 landings?
Six weeks before the landings he decided to take a holiday.
Do you know where he went?
No.
Antarctica.
Right.
It was holiday.
Okay.
Which just so happens to be the best location on Earth to collect lunar meteorites.
That's interesting.
I don't know why he did that.
I mean, presumably the beaches are fantastic.
So the thing about the rocks is that they brought back something in the order of 800 pounds of rocks.
Yeah.
Like Apollo 17 alone brought back 240, 250 pounds of rocks.
There's loads of moon rocks.
If they gave the Dutch Prime Minister a dodgy one, I can't explain that.
I don't know why that is.
But I think it's fair to say, and again I'm not like a geologist or a chemist or anything, but I think it's fair to say That putting all these rocks by all sorts of different places, not just NASA, saying we've tested it, we've tested it, we've done analysis on it, and just believe us, they're definitely extraterrestrial rocks.
I think it is the case that it's documented that other countries and other people have done analysis on these rocks and they're shown to not be extraterrestrial in origin.
Oh, I'm sure they're real lunar rocks, but you do every so often get lunar rocks landing on Earth, and apparently Antarctica is the place to get them.
Like 800 pounds of them.
I have no idea how many accumulate there.
The reason you go to Antarctica apparently is because it's very white and it hardly ever snows.
So it stands out like a mile.
So they can accumulate there over decades and then you can just go along and scoop up, I don't know, £800 worth or whatever.
Doesn't really make sense to me.
There's a difference between meteorites and actual lunar regolith.
Yeah, and maybe these tests... I don't think Luna Regolith just falls on Antarctica regularly.
I don't know.
So maybe that would be the clincher argument as to why it definitely happened.
I don't know.
But I just think it's an interesting choice for a holiday six weeks before the landing.
I don't know why that is.
But yeah, maybe that is in itself the solid argument I'm looking for.
I don't know.
The other thing is, people always say, is how could you possibly keep it quiet?
Because it's like, it's a big project.
Surely somebody would have stuck their hand up and said, this is a bit suspect.
And again, I thought that's a big, that's a good argument, but I've worked on big projects for big companies.
You normally only have a small handful of people who are aware of the big picture.
Normally everybody just does their silo thing.
So there's a team that works on a particular bit.
Right?
And I would imagine that if there was a bit of tomfoolery going on here, they wouldn't have held an all-hands meeting and said, look guys, this is what's going on.
There would have been people who were diligently working on their bit of the project, and only a small number of people would have actually seen it in totality.
Would have seen it all pulled together.
If the whole thing is a hoax though, it'll be in the interests of the Russians, if nobody else, to expose it as such.
Oh, I'm coming to that one.
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, I'm coming to that one.
And just while we're talking about people blowing the whistle on this, of course there have been people who have blown the whistle on this, but they've been sort of sidelined or not listened to.
I mean, one example is Eugene Akers, who was head of security at Cannon Air Force Base, and he said that that's where it was filmed.
He gave a deathbed confession saying that this is where it was filmed.
So there have been people who have come out, but they just don't get any sort of coverage, so that's interesting.
The other thing that people say is, um, oh, um, you can see the landing site.
I've actually had somebody on Twitter get really angry with me when I mentioned this before, and he said, oh, you could just put a telescope in your garden, you can look at the landing site.
Now that definitely isn't true because, I mean, this is a simple question of physics.
To get a resolution on a two meter wide object from Earth, you can run the calculations to how big the telescope needs to be.
It's far, far bigger than any telescope that humans have ever made.
However, you do have lunar orbiters that can look down.
So there's one by NASA that has shown pictures of themselves.
The LRO, yeah.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, yeah.
So that's a good piece of evidence.
Although, if it was NASA who were doing something a bit iffy, of course they would be motivated to put out some dodgy footage or land something.
After the fact and then claim, look, this is what we've seen.
Well, the LRO is interesting.
That was going to be my clincher.
That was going to be my slam dunk, is the LRO.
So that went up in like 2009 and it's still up there now.
And it's mapped the whole of the lunar surface.
Right.
And it goes as low as about 30 or even some occasionally lower, 20 kilometres from the surface.
Yeah.
And it's pictured all the Apollo landing sites.
Yes.
And you can see the descent stage.
You can see the two or even three rovers that are left there.
Yeah.
You can see the various experiments they did.
You can see the tracks of the rovers.
Yeah.
You can see even the shadow of the flags.
You can't see it that well, but yeah, I've seen it.
You can.
You can see it quite well.
Yeah.
So that I would say is fairly strong evidence, which kind of tilts me back.
So this is why I'm at 50-50.
I mean it's possible all of that is a hoax and a fake, but it's extremely unlikely to be.
Extremely unlikely that the LRO and everyone at the Goddard Space Center, everyone, all the science team of the LRO, they're all in on it.
It's not likely.
But they have to be because I mean again my position on all of this is my level of certainty that you can get a rocket there is very high and that you can land objects is very high.
It's the taking the humans there, surviving that and all the rest of the stuff that goes with it that I have some doubt on.
But then you're saying after the fact they landed sort of fake Apollo sites So that the LRO could then photograph them?
Or the images, I don't know.
That's unlikely.
Yeah, so that is why, with all of this stuff on 5050, because that is like, OK, it could go either way.
But that's sort of what I'm saying.
It almost certainly couldn't go either way.
That does seem to be the strongest bit of evidence that it is that way, even though it is NASA presenting this.
I tell you what, if you want a stronger piece of argument than even that, is like just in the last few weeks another um lunar orbiter I can't remember if it's like the the Chinese or the Indians they also saw picked up one of these sites so so now they would have to be in on it as well all these things would have had to be landed so that so that I kind of feel is probably the strongest argument for that it that it did happen.
So at the beginning of the segment I talked about neither of us can say 100% yeah so then you are left with what what the preponderance of evidence suggests This, for me, is the first bit that is good.
You could say all the footage is fake, all the moon rocks are fake, all the images from the LRO are fake.
That's possible.
But now, added them all together, you're left with the conclusion, you should be left with the conclusion, that though that's possible, oh and the Russians and the Indians and the Chinese and the European Space Agency, they're all in on it.
Yes.
Okay, that's possible, it's extremely unlikely, extremely unlikely that that is the case though.
Perhaps.
In my view, to my mind.
Yeah, so I'm sort of still manning the argument first.
But yeah, those are all fairly good things.
Although, you know, there are ways around it.
And, you know, why was the footage destroyed?
Why was it always given third hand?
You know, why do AI tools say that it was faked?
You know, why did this Von Braun character, you know, go to Antarctic just before to, you know, harvest rocks or whatever it is?
Why do we have whistleblowers?
But yeah, I will give you the LRO stuff.
It feels like quite good.
The other arguments I came across is that, and this is Neil deGrasse Tyson's point, is that there's loads of documentation and it would be harder to fake the documents than to land on the moon.
That one doesn't resonate with me, to be honest.
I see his point, but it's not a slam-dunk argument, is it?
Well, that is his argument, so I thought I'd throw it in there because lots of people followed near the top.
But again, it's an OK argument.
It makes sense.
It makes some sense.
You throw it on the pile of, you know, if you're balancing things, again like if it's a court case and no one actually saw the crime, or if it's a bit of history and you've only got fragments of evidence, you're going to balance it up, all the things that sort of suggest it is fake and all the things that suggest it isn't, it's now heavily weighted.
Let me quickly come to the other point as well, so the other argument people make is that if it was fake the Russians would have called it, and the example there is that you could track the rocket Like heading in that direction and and again this is a sort of physics point that it would take substantially more fuel to go for a rocket to go there and back than it would be to keep a rocket in a in the same point in the orbit because it was always in between the earth and the moon.
Right, and it would have taken substantially more fuel to fight the orbit on that way.
But again, that proves that a rocket went, not necessarily that there's anyone on it and a landing took place.
But that is a good argument, and that might also be why it wasn't called out at the time, because presumably it was sophisticated enough to fool the Russians for at least a time.
Now, there could be other considerations as to why they don't say it now.
I mean, as I pointed out to you earlier, the Russian space agency and Chinese space agencies today, they just tell their people, yeah, it didn't happen, but don't mention it to the Americans because they get upset.
So, so yeah, so that is another one.
One last point on the rocks, just to say that in like 1976, the Russians sent an unmanned probe to the moon, picked up some space rocks and fired it back to Earth.
So the Russkies have got some rocks as well.
OK.
And I think, again, you're able to show that the NASA rocks marry up with the chemistry or the analysis of the Russian rocks.
So this is why I think, again, I have a much higher level of certainty about vehicles travelling there, unmanned ones.
Right, and then you've got the evidence going the other way.
Um, so there's all the light and the shadow stuff, which I don't really pay an awful lot of attention to, but is a good point.
Why do the shadows go in different directions and all kinds of stuff like that?
Which, you know, never worried about that.
I think nearly all of that stuff gets debunked.
Yeah, well, not well.
But I don't know.
You get into the weeds of stuff.
Then there's the whole, um, the footage, um, where an arm appears outside of the, of the capsule.
So, and again, you could, you could try and still man that one.
So there's, there was... On Apollo 11?
Yeah.
So there was, and there was, there was footage that, um, got accidentally passed out.
of basically an arm appearing outside of the capsule where they had been filming for over an hour as if they were halfway to the moon so it's clearly fake but you could make the argument well that was just a training session because they practiced for everything including what messages to send back to Earth when it got there so maybe there's an innocence.
And also there's Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 as well.
Yeah, that's fair.
There's a whole load of technical arguments I don't know how to assess, which is like, you know, the moon during the day is substantially hotter than the Sahara, and at night it's substantially colder than the Arctic.
And they were apparently running heating and air conditioning in that thing with about six car batteries, the equivalent of six car batteries for three days.
I just don't know the science on all of that.
Yeah, which, I mean, it does sound like, well, yeah, what's going on there?
But I don't know how to assess that one.
There's the Van Allen radiation belt, which we recently discovered scientists pointed out is much stronger than they thought it was in the 60s.
And the amount of shielding that was supposed to be on it was just clearly insubstantial.
I've heard other people say that that sort of radiation is just, that that's the lie, that there's some sort of crazy radiation that you can't pass out of low earth orbit because you'd just be fried by radiation.
I've heard other people say that's the nonsense bit.
Oh no, the radiation belt is definitely a thing.
Yeah, the Van Allen belt is a thing, but whether it fries you if you ever pass out of low earth orbit... Well, we now know the levels of that radiation, the radiation is enough to kill you, so... Is it though?
Well, yeah.
I'll talk about the preponderance of evidence, what's more or less likely.
You don't know that.
I don't know.
I'm not claiming I do know for sure, but you're just saying it is.
I'm mentioning it for completeness sake, but you know, it's difficult to know.
But you know, this was basically a quasi-military project at the height of the Cold War, when the US state was under significant pressure because of the Vietnam War.
It needed a win.
The Soviets had beat it on every other major milestone in the space race at this point.
Now, Kennedy got up in, was it 61, and said, we're going to go to the moon by the end of the decade.
Is it possible, and this is the thing that makes me wonder, is it possible they set out with all the best intentions They got halfway through and then they thought, oh bugger, this is actually a hell of a lot harder than we thought it was, but they were too committed at that point.
So they carried on.
That is a possible.
So all those silos of work we talk about, they were genuine work, but it just couldn't come together.
So I don't know about that.
The only thing I would know is this is the only NASA project in history to be completed on time.
Well I'm fascinated by the whole thing, the earlier Mercury and Gemini projects before Apollo.
Again, I've got some questions about Apollo 9, 10 and even about 11, but for me the later ones, at least 14, 15, 16, 17, it seems to me... Well let me wrap this off with a story of four people that I want to quickly talk about.
The first one is these guys, the original team, and that's Gus Grissom on the centre right there.
And you've got to remember that back then there was no Netflix, no internet.
This story was like...
Total fixation.
These guys were national heroes.
So this was the original team.
So that Gus Grissom chap, in about 1967, he started to have serious, serious doubts about what was going on.
And he pulled together a press conference and said, look, this project is not going to work.
We are a minimum 10 years away from this working.
And he was getting increasingly vocal, but this thing that he was supposed to go up in wasn't going to work.
In fact, he famously hung a lemon on it.
He said, this thing is a lemon.
It's not going to work.
Which is kind of really interesting.
So he held that press conference.
And then the next day, the CIA was all over the launcher, the test launcher thing that they had.
And he wasn't allowed to go near it.
The team wasn't allowed to go near it.
Anyway, the next day, they go back in for a test.
And for whatever reason, they decide that today, the thing they want to test is high pressure, pure oxygen.
So they bolt the door down, um, and for some reason an oily rag is left under his seat.
And for some reason there's a, there's a power... It's a Poliwag.
Yeah.
It's a Poliwag.
And for some reason there's a weird power drop, um, as if something gets turned on and, um, and, and this happens.
Let's, let's, let's hear what happened next to him after his press conference of him saying that this is not going to work.
This is a CBS News special report.
This is Mike Wallace at the CBS Newsroom in New York.
America's first three Apollo astronauts were trapped and killed by a flash fire that swept their moon ship early tonight during a launch pad test at Cape Kennedy in Florida.
Virgil Gus Grissom, 40 years old, one of the original Mercury astronauts, the first American astronaut to go twice into space.
Edward White, 36 years old, the first American to walk into space.
And rookie astronaut Roger Chaffee, 31 years old, training for his first space flight, Apollo 1, scheduled for February 21st.
So, I mean, that's a bit weird.
A couple of days after he gives a press conference saying that this thing's a lemon and it's not going to work, they decide to test a pure oxygen atmosphere with the doors fully bolted and something causes a spark.
Next to some oily rags under his seat.
That's a bit weird, isn't it?
I'll quickly run through this.
The other really weird thing, and we know this from his wife, is that minutes after he died, a CIA team raided his house and took all of his documents and possessions and stuff.
But presumably there just happened to be a CIA team just outside his house passing by and they got it over the radio to go and do this because his wife didn't even find out he was dead for another hour after that.
I mean it was it was like the national security guys at that point isn't it?
Yeah and it's lucky they had a CIA team outside his house to get there in a couple of minutes.
Again you measure it the Apollo 1 disaster weighted against
all the LRO images of the Apollo landing sites it's just it doesn't really mean anything maybe well it doesn't mean anything but it's just when you weigh the evidence against each other it's just yeah the Apollo 1 disaster happened yeah but I mean that it could possibly be because you're more familiar with that side of the argument and there's there's quite a lot more um I mean I just mentioned three more men while I before because we were really running out of time he's um Thomas Barron uh was a was a safety inspector on the program
And he put out two reports, a 170-page report and a 270-page report, basically saying the same thing, that this thing is not going to work.
We are at least 10 years away.
And this got the attention of Congress and they said, right, we want you to come and speak to us.
Before he could deliver that testimony, a curious thing happened.
He passed out as his car was driving over a railway track and he got killed.
Right.
Funny that two guys who say that this isn't going to work sort of died mysteriously.
So, you know, maybe the deep state is just incredibly lucky.
I don't know what's going on there.
Another example, Elon Musk.
So, of course, he's looking to put, you know, people on the moon.
And it's been interesting watching SpaceX's work going on this, and he's been saying that you need at least eight supply drops to set this up before you can do this mission, which is funnily enough pretty much the same thing as the early NASA scientists were saying at the beginning of this project until they changed their tune and said we can do it in one hit, which is interesting.
And when you ask Elon Musk about this, he just goes a bit defensive and says it was a historical anomaly, but won't elaborate any further.
So that's really interesting.
The final thing that I'll mention is Neil Armstrong himself, because of course he became a total recluse after this, didn't he?
Neil Recluse, not a total recluse.
And he said that he would only ever give press conferences if his president asked him to.
And he was asked to speak at the 25 year anniversary of the landings.
I think he was just quite a shy person, because like Buzz Aldrin, for example, would endlessly talk to anyone.
This is interesting.
What did he mean by this?
Today we have with us a group of students among America's best.
To you we say, we have only completed a beginning.
We leave you much that is undone.
There are great ideas undiscovered.
Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers.
So, I don't know what he meant by removing Truth's protective layer.
Yeah, it's really enigmatic.
And so I just... Why does the Truth have a protective layer around it?
And why does he feel the need to present proof about this?
Who knows what?
Yeah, it's weird.
But there's the LRO images.
Provided by NASA?
The LRO, yeah.
And other space agencies have got... Well, one other now.
Versus what Neil Armstrong said that one time.
Well, yeah, but it's more than that, isn't it?
And I've scratched the surface, so I can tell that you're 100%.
No, no, no, I haven't been to the moon.
Yeah, so you're 99% there.
The preponderance of evidence.
The more you look at it, and I can only present so much, but the more I look at it, the more I'm like 50-50.
And I would love to get back to 100%.
I want to get there.
So, if I can have all of my questions answered, I'd be perfectly happy with that.
And all I'm saying to people is, you know, I'm not asking you to just start waving around saying, oh yeah, it's definitely fake.
All I'm saying is that there are genuine questions here, and it's just weird why they don't get addressed, and they don't get answered, and why AI tools are saying that the footage is fake, and why the footage was destroyed.
Yeah, I think it's interesting, I've never heard of that before.
There's some really weird stuff about it, so I'm just saying, you know, don't be 100%, Just have an element of doubt in your mind.
Yeah, no, there is an element of doubt in my mind, especially around the early ones.
I'll just say the footage, with all its problems inherent, the reflectors with all those problems inherent, the LRO stuff, and the hundreds of pounds of moon rocks.
Which you can get from Antarctica, yeah.
The reason I wanted to do this segment with you two is because you two are the biggest sceptics in the office by far on this particular subject.
So where do you come on this, Callum?
You've been quiet.
I'm bored.
You don't think he's even worth addressing there?
Not really.
I hate that subject because you can always tell when a conspiracy theory is bullshit when you jump from thing to thing to thing constantly and pretty much nothing you said wasn't having something wrong with it.
I mean at one point you mentioned that the Russians tell their own people that the moon landings didn't happen but also that they're operating it now.
It's just annoying.
That's my opinion.
Fair enough.
I think one thing you guys don't understand about women is that we are just hardwired to compare ourselves to each other all the freaking time.
This is just female nature.
This is not going to change.
But of course, the big problem now is that instead of comparing ourselves to the local village, we are comparing ourselves to unrealistic, filtered images of already the most beautiful women on the planet.
So yeah, young women shouldn't be on the internet at all.
It's really just destroying the female psyche.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Good luck.
I don't know why the opposite hasn't happened, though.
We were mentioning yesterday, apparently in Brazil, because loads of the men are gay and trans, that women have to compete massively to become really attractive.
That's why the Brazilians just have fantastic arses.
Well-known phenomenon, apparently.
So, there we are.
Go to the next one.
Here's video number two of my friend the squirrel.
It's always doing something entertaining.
Like squirrels.
He's got a good hiding spot now, too.
A perfumus scribbles red.
Yeah, same.
I was about to say also a squirrel racist.
Because I'm an Englishman.
You know, so if you look at a map of red squirrels, because we get obsessed with our island thinking that they're all just dying out here.
There's a huge amount of red squirrels in Russia.
You go to Russia, they're all red.
Yeah, they're all red.
Oh, I didn't know that.
Really weird.
A lot of Europe's like that.
I'm worried it's something about me.
It is, but trust me, it's good.
I've seen it.
That's fine.
Do you ever look at someone and wonder, what is going on inside their head?
Killdozer project.
What one man can do, another can do.
Killdozer.
What one man can do, another can do.
Killdozer.
Say it again!
Killdozer.
Killdozer.
Say it again!
Make a Killdozer.
Yeah!
The goddamn right.
I have mentioned the Killdozer at least two or three times, which is probably two or three times to me.
It is quite superb, isn't it?
Yeah, but that's funny, I like that.
I don't actually think about the Killdozer very often, but that was funny, I'll take it.
Right.
Next one.
Here's something fun from the Canadian media today.
A study came out that found that modifying your car is predicted by psychopathy and dark triad.
Ooh!
With apocalyptic descriptions of wild animals being startled, mothers shrieking in agony, and people making revving.
Of course, right in the abstract, she explicitly states that this whole thing exists just to give ammunition for people who want to ban these activities.
Well, Julie, come and take it.
I'm actually kind of worried about that, because, I mean, COVID tells us that people will just give up their cars.
But I'm hopeful that there'll be a lot more killdozers than that time.
so For the record, there were no fatalities in the Killdozer incident, I believe.
I didn't deserve it.
Let's go to the next one.
In previous eras, you would have, like, why does the sun rise or God makes it rise?
I'm going to go into this in more detail in a video on my own channel, but seriously, Carl, No Christian who ever lived ever believed God made the sun rise, okay?
That is a pagan belief that predates Judaism.
Pretty much the only Jew who ever possibly might have believed that was Moses, and that's because he was raised by the Pharaoh.
Is that a hard J dropped on that?
What?
Is that a slur now?
I think one of these days... I've heard a comedy bit somewhere where they say, I think it might have been Larry David or Jerry Seinfeld or someone saying that the word Jew is both just the normal legit word and a slur just depending on whether you use a hard J at the beginning or not.
I'm not following, but okay.
Anyway, don't worry about it.
Anyway, we're over time, so we're actually going to have to end it there, which is a bit annoying because there's a lot of comments, but oh well.
▲
Export Selection