Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Aug. 22, 2024 - On Brand

02:45:11

OB #72 - David Martin: Batman, Buffoon, or Bigot?

'Plandemic' guy and finance analyst David Martin came on Russell's show, and he had a few 'gotchas' of the left to lay down. Support us on Patreon! - patreon.com/OnBrand Buy a magnet! - getyouractualgoldhere

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is propaganda live.
	I only suggest how to take him out of the boat.
	Extraordinary cultural moment.
	Already iconic.
	Already iconic.
	We love you.
	You're welcome here.
	Where did this guy come from?
	It looks like he's been doing it for ages.
	He's very confident.
	Plainly, and this is a matter now of fact and record, I'm right wing.
	I feel that Christ may have had a better vision.
	Is this misinformation or is Vivek Ramaswamy in the lavatory?
	That's sort of like a poem.
	Is this Eminem?
	Man, if we didn't come together in that stream.
	I'm assuming it was just the Pete.
	Now these are the kind of conversations I think that the legacy media can no longer compete with.
	Win win win win win win win This is On Brand, a podcast where we discuss the ideas and antics of one, Russell Brand.
	I'm Al Werth, and each week I go through an episode of Brand's Show with my co-host, Lauren B. It's me, I'm Lauren B., and I'm the host that has no idea what we'll be getting into, but it's usually bad.
	It's almost invariably bad, which is why we do the good thing before the bad thing.
	And Lauren, what is your good thing this week?
	Mmm, I'm gonna go comedy again.
	We went and saw a show on Friday, and it was really fun, and it was exactly what I needed.
	Nice.
	It's been stress, like, you know, just life stresses.
	And Chris Gethard was in the openers, which was very, very cool.
	And he did, like, five solid minutes on Love is Blind, and just kept making the caveat that, like, This is the worst show on television.
	It's a terrible program.
	And then proceeded to talk about how enjoyable it is to watch.
	And it felt validating.
	I was gonna say, that's comedy for you specifically.
	Well it's funny because like he definitely identified the people that weren't understanding it but for the most part everybody was on board because it is one of the biggest shows like on whenever like new seasons come out and yeah and just one of the biggest shows on Netflix and so and that was kind of the point he was making was like Not just ironic, you know, city folk are watching this if it's that popular.
	Yeah.
	That means that like rural, you know, like rural little weirdos out in the sticks are also enjoying it.
	Get a grip.
	Maybe we just like gossip.
	As like a species, which is my argument.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And it's fascinating to see the person, like the people that will put themselves in that position, very often specific types of human beings, which is fascinating.
	Yeah.
	Because they're not people that I know.
	They just aren't people I know.
	It's a different experience.
	And it's a weird pressure cooker.
	That's fun.
	And what I love, You know what?
	This is my fucking good thing.
	It's great.
	Netflix fucked up and started, you kind of have to be successful to some degree, for the most part, not always.
	You can kind of tell whenever they're reaching for a job description to say about the person.
	But they made the mistake of hiring people that know their legal rights.
	As workers and so there are two guys from Love is Blind that are organizing like they're like unionizing and they're trying to get like unscripted reality.
	Basically, workers, personalities, organized.
	Yeah, yeah.
	These are still regular people at the end of the day, because they still have to go back to work while they're on the show, the later part of the show.
	They have to go back to their jobs, which can be a problem for a relationship, right?
	Yeah.
	So they want to show that part.
	And that also means these people have, like, education resources?
	It's like this millennial conundrum that, like, we really could rely on, like, people that were so disenfranchised as to be, like, unable to advocate for themselves in this, like, working space.
	Netflix fucked up!
	And they're gonna have to pay them!
	And I love it!
	I think it's great!
	So yeah, that's uh... Double good thing, yeah!
	I've been seeing more, I've been seeing the, yeah, I've been seeing their kind of like arguments make the rounds on socials over this week and I'm like, fuck yeah!
	That's like... Nice!
	That's cool!
	It's nice that enough people are aware of it.
	And fucking stick it to him.
	Netflix is making a lot of money off of you.
	It's like Olympic, like there's a, there's a ratio of Olympic, um, like the Olympics paying, like what, what percentage of the profits that Olympians get, which is like incredibly like a fraction of a fraction of a fraction compared to like NBA, NHL, NFL, whatever.
	Um, It's kind of like it's like, no, you can you can organize and do this.
	That's good.
	Everyone's watching this dumb show.
	So awesome.
	More power to you.
	I think it's really funny.
	Anyway.
	So, yeah.
	What's your good thing?
	Comedy and unions.
	Yeah, that's a that's a that's a double.
	That's that's great.
	Start a comedy, get to unions.
	It's still me.
	Still lefty loosey over here.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	My good thing is I've been playing a video game and it's it's Dead Island 2 is the name of it and it's a, I'm not gonna say long-awaited sequel, but it's a sequel that came about.
	It's just kind of romping around the place and killing zombies pretty much.
	That's kind of the whole gist of it.
	You know, world is ending, zombies everywhere, that kind of thing.
	You have to like occasionally craft some kinds of weapons, etc.
	But I'm really enjoying it because specifically when it comes to horror, games especially and movies slightly less so, but in general I'm a big flapping pansy.
	So I struggle to kind of engage with this stuff on my own because I get too scared.
	I'm just like, nope, nope, nope, this is making me feel all the bad things, nope, this is... and I'll just not.
	But what I do enjoy about Dead Island, those games especially, is they come with kind of a sense of humor, you know, a little bit of tongue-in-cheek kind of stuff, so you can kind of... it's enough to get me through it, you know.
	There are still moments where I'm like... Can you give me an example of a movie that's... so you just have to stop watching It's not that I'll stop.
	Less so with zombies in general, to be fair.
	I don't find them as scary as some other kind of genres of horror, but it's less that I will stop watching it, it's more that I just won't.
	I will just be like, no.
	And that's the answer.
	Unless I've got company, I'm okay.
	If I've got people with me, I'm fine.
	But if I'm on my own, I'm like, nope.
	Just not.
	I am just not going to do that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I don't know, it gets a little too much for me.
	But yeah, as I say, if there's a bit of tongue-in-cheek comedy, then I can cope.
	Not a big Silent Hill person.
	Oh shit, no!
	I mean, here's the frustrating thing, right, is that I love the Resident Evil games, for instance.
	It's just I can very rarely play them.
	Because I just get too freaked out.
	I'm like, nah, nah.
	With games, I will give it a try, and then I'll be like, nah, I'm gonna have to nope out of this.
	This is too much.
	Silent Hill, especially.
	They're just too atmospheric and, like, fucked up.
	I'm like, nah, nah.
	They did a great job.
	Yeah, they're fantastic.
	Incredible.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Don't revisit.
	Preserve your memories.
	If you played it and it was very cool way back when and then just don't just leave those memories where they are.
	It's just it's it is a bummer for me just you know when someone does their job really well it means that I can't engage with it you know.
	Yeah, that sucks.
	Oh well.
	But yes, I have been enjoying dipping my toes in that at least a little bit with Dead Island 2, so that's been fun.
	Dang it.
	So, we have got a show to do, but first we should thank a new Patron.
	So, R.C.
	Morgenstern, you are now an Awakening wonder!
	You are indeed an awakening wonder.
	Thank you very much!
	Hugely appreciate it.
	Thank you so much!
	I must be a railroad baron from that name?
	Yeah, something like that.
	Landed gentry.
	I don't know.
	I'm a fan.
	And if you do enjoy the show, please leave us a five-star review wherever you're listening, and please do share us with your friends, loved ones, or anyone you think might enjoy this project of ours.
	It would be hugely appreciated and goes to great lengths in helping us continue.
	And if anyone wants to support us financially in what we do, become an Awakening one to join the Invisible Hand or donate on an elevated tier, head to patreon.com on brand and you will have our eternal gratitude.
	It is this which allows us to be editorially independent and ad-free.
	And as a Patron you also get a shout-out on the show and access to our Patron-only After Show Off-Brand!
	And this week Lauren led a little look into the Rumble-affiliated sponsors of Russell's show that we could see at the RNC, namely Be Naked, Positive, 1775 Coffee, and 5G Free!
	And boy, if it doesn't look like every single one of those is at least scam-adjacent!
	There seem to be problems, but that was fun.
	It's either a scam or however you feel about drop shipping.
	It's like whatever you qualify that like it's not all like it is a product that arrives that you order.
	Yes, you will get something.
	Right.
	We're not sure what the weight of that thing might be, or what's in it, or what the markup is, but you'll get something.
	Yeah, good lord.
	Yeah, really, Interesting.
	Very interesting.
	So hey, head to patreon.com slash OnBrand to check out that and the many, many hours of content up there.
	And please note that while you can easily listen to an audio version anywhere you can find podcasts, you can also watch us on YouTube, or if you listen in the Spotify app, the video will come up there too.
	Now then, Russell has been back in the studio and on his usual bullshit.
	He had a chat with Brett Weinstein, which apparently is actually pronounced Weinstein.
	Who knew?
	And that was incredibly Crazy!
	I haven't!
	He's also been doing a sort of comedy review segment on his locals channel as like the
	because he kind of ran out of conspiracy theories to cover it seems somehow. And so he's doing-
	Crazy! I haven't! What?
	No, I know, I know, I know, right? I'm just like why did- okay. I think what it is is he's
	run out of ones that he can like openly sign on to.
	This is the problem.
	But yeah, so he's doing like a comedy review kind of thing.
	And he put up one about Richard Pryor, for instance.
	But also, I swear to God, he must be trolling me at this point because he did a whole big thing about how much he loves Louis C.K.
	Um, like, between this, like, Woody Allen, Michael Jackson, he's literally just telling us constantly how much he loves various forms of predators.
	Um, it's like, oh, no, ZK's fantastic.
	Okay, Russell, that's a take.
	Cool.
	Thanks.
	Uh, most predictable take, I feel.
	Yeah, yes, yeah, no, I, yeah, I'm, I'm, I was not surprised, but I'm just like, ah, not really, okay.
	Um, in any case, he did have a conversation with someone that was worth covering, um, and it comes in the wake of the riots in the UK, um, amongst other things, and as ever, I will let Russell introduce the guest.
	Hello there, you Awakening Wanderers.
	Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand, where we are streaming live from what's left of the UK in a time of great consternation, conflagration, distress and despair.
	But could we, like phoenixes, emerge from the flames of these fires with new unification, new communities aligned and opposed against establishment corruption?
	Certainly we could, you glorious individuals, if you're willing to access the incredible power within you in a way Great teachers like Dave Martin can perhaps instruct us to.
	I'll be with Dave in a couple of seconds.
	In fact, why don't we say hello to Dave Martin right now?
	It's Dave!
	I'm happy to see you!
	Russell, I'm always happy to see you, brother.
	Good to see you.
	The Lord will be with us, Dave.
	We shall not conjure the forces, for we are not shaman, merely conduits and vessels of his power.
	I've got so much to talk to you about.
	Thanks for joining us, Dave.
	I'll see you.
	I'll see you in a second.
	We are still able to speak freely in the UK, am I?
	Let me just check the time.
	Yep, free speech is still possible.
	We're still able to endorse, ah, blueberry bliss, the glory of it.
	Where is Bear?
	Where's my dog gone?
	Let's get him back.
	Ah yes, the great signifier that free speech is alive and well is being able to sell blueberry-flavoured dog treats at an incredible mark-up.
	Free speech, baby!
	That bag's still smaller than I thought it'd be.
	Yeah, right?
	Still smaller than I thought it'd be.
	Yeah, just a little glimpse into what we covered on Offbrand on Sunday is they don't tell you, like there's no ounces, there's no serving amounts.
	There are serving suggestions for the size of your dog, but they don't tell you on the website Now, and again, it was the disclaimer that we talked about in the episode that we did.
	Maybe he says it somewhere.
	Maybe any of these Rumble creators say it somewhere on their content as to the net weight or ounces or amounts that you pay for.
	And genuinely, like, I have never seen that on a website saying, like, No, no nothing.
	I gotta put weights- Yeah, just no information, yes.
	Into, like, for, I gotta weigh a magnet, baby?
	Like, to put it on my online store.
	Like, I mean, it's genuinely incredible, and that bag is still smaller than I thought it'd be.
	Bag is small and expensive, yes.
	That's good stuff.
	That's wild.
	That's wild.
	Yeah, because that was like, what, $30 that bag or something?
	No, I mean it was like, well, it also depends on the... Oh, that's true.
	The subscription.
	It's a whole thing.
	With no terms.
	Go listen to the off-brand, everybody.
	It's a whole fucking thing.
	Anyway, so Dave Martin... Just order from Chewy, everybody.
	Just order from Chewy.
	Like, it's not... Yeah, definitely don't buy any.
	God.
	Anyway, so Dave Martin has gone away and is just lurking in the background like the ghost at the feast while Russell is going to do his show for a bit, until he's ready to wheel Dave back into the foreground, which, weird.
	I have mentioned this chap before, but we've not covered him yet.
	Dave Martin is one of the Plandemic people.
	Or rather, he's kind of the B-Squad, because the first Plandemic, and I hesitate to call it a documentary or even a film really, The first Plandemic series of insane interviews and unsubstantiated conspiracy bullshit came out in May 2020 and heavily featured Lady Judy Mikovits doing pretend science, while Plandemic Part 2 came out in August 2020 to significantly less fanfare and featured Dave Martin here doing pretend science as well.
	Oh, the full title was Plandemic Indoctrination.
	Which, I love it.
	I feel like they start with the word play and then go from there.
	Yeah, right.
	We can make a documentary out of this, surely.
	So, as a plandemic indoctrination, does of course use his full title, which is Dr. David E. Martin.
	Any guesses as to whether he is a doctor of medicine, Lauren?
	Definitely not.
	That's a 0% chance.
	No!
	He is not!
	He does not in fact have a medical degree.
	0% chance.
	Did he get his doctorate in the Seychelles?
	What are we doing?
	But his name is so normal!
	Yes!
	I don't know who he is!
	He keeps flying under the radar!
	Honestly, it made it very difficult to research him because there were so many other people.
	I kept coming up with people who were actual medical professionals and I'd be like, No, that's not it.
	That's not the guy.
	There's probably 10 in my neighborhood!
	You know what I mean?
	Like, in a mile radius of my home!
	What was fun is that in Australia there's one of the directors of Pfizer that is also called David Martin.
	And I was like, oh, that's ironic.
	That's funny.
	Oh, I bet his DMs are doing great.
	Cool.
	Yeah, right.
	So this David Martin, anyway, has a PhD from the University of Virginia.
	So a legit place.
	Though for the life of me, I can't find what it was in.
	Nonetheless, his actual background is as a financial analyst and self-help guru, both of which are how he makes his bank today.
	So it could be medical.
	We just don't know.
	No clue.
	No clue.
	It's not in any of his bios and in any of the bios that I could find written by anyone about this guy I could not find what his PhD was about.
	He has had like some involvement in some medical papers and I think it's to do with the fact that he was involved with kind of the financing side of medicine rather than Do they give doctors for that?
	studying actual medicine itself, so to speak.
	Do they give doctors for that?
	Do they give doctors for that?
	I don't know. You can have like a doctorate in like business of something surely. I don't know.
	Well, well, yeah.
	I've, I've, I've...
	Either way, I wouldn't trust his medical opinion based on that.
	So, financial analyst and self-help guru, right?
	Both of which, that's how he makes his money now.
	He's the founder and chair of MCAM, which created the CNBC IQ100.
	Right, which is a data-driven index of the 100 large cap companies best using technology to invest in and profit from new business opportunities.
	It's powered by MCAM International, so MCAM, right, which according to CNBC is a firm that maintains an unprecedented archive of documents related to patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other intangible assets from 160 countries.
	And because of all this, you can find footage out there of Dave Martin talking finance on cable news, usually while wearing a bowtie.
	This was back in like 2015-ish sort of time that this whole thing came to the fore.
	And in fact, in 2015, he was very briefly featured in an episode of Last Week Tonight about patent trolls, as he was at that time advocating for patent reform.
	Since then, things have changed.
	That seems so much more reasonable.
	Doesn't it?
	Patent reform is important and should happen.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	If you go back a ways, like, there are a lot of reasonable positions and reasonable things that this guy has said.
	However, since then things have changed a bit.
	I'm gonna read from the bio on Dave Martin's site, right?
	DavidMartin.world.
	And this is how it opens, quote, His first invention was a laser-integrated system to target and treat inoperable tumors.
	His mathematics helped unravel the way the human body processes hormones and led to the detection and treatment of many diseases.
	His observation of human behavior led to his development of technology which deciphers the intention and motivation of communication, a technology that has impacted and saved the lives of billions.
	His global business activities served to develop the world's top-performing global equity index.
	He's brought the world's largest white-collar criminals to justice and brought the world's most oppressed and disenfranchised transformative ways to engage.
	From the starry expanses of Mongolia to the flashing lights of New York, his work is as passion-filled whether it's with a camel herder or a global CEO.
	Is he Batman?
	He tells his own story in the critically acclaimed documentary Future Dreaming and breaks down economic injustice in patent wars.
	An author, public speaker, business visionary, professor, researcher, oracle, father, and friend, David is a man fully living.
	All that was in the first 50 years.
	Now that he has warmed up, even greater things are coming.
	Equipped with his integral accounting insights and his breathing enterprise implementation, what's happening today is more interesting than everything before.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!
	Breathing enterprise implementation?
	Did I hear that?
	You did correctly, yes.
	And the best thing of all is that if you'd like to experience what it's like to be fully living, you can be part of the action!
	Together with Kim Martin, the woman that taught him some of his most important lessons about fully living, and a core team of masterful colleagues, you too can step into the full essence of what it means to fully live.
	Is he a professor of resume padding?
	Because that's what it sounds like.
	Yeah, so I have some thoughts.
	Billions!
	So he's helped an eighth of the world at least?
	Billions!
	A fourth of the world?
	Yes, yes.
	Yeah, that's the thing.
	Now we have to ask, like, wait, is it real billions or is it Twitter billions?
	Like, that's the new metric for actually reaching anyone.
	How many of those billions were bots?
	So yeah.
	All of those claims are things I could not substantiate, and he provides zero reference anywhere as to what he's talking about.
	But yeah, by his telling of it, David Martin is a god and we should all worship at the altar.
	Well, so Professor, right, so that, okay, PhD, now I'm just curious, like, so was he actually a teacher?
	Yes, if I remember rightly, he was an assistant professor, but it was teaching business.
	Again, he was an assistant professor somewhere for a while.
	I think that was in the early 2000s, I think.
	Are we calling MBAs doctor now?
	Yeah, right.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It may have been in a much more legitimately scientific or medical kind of thing, but again, he doesn't tell us, so we can't know.
	It could be in anything, is the problem.
	Yeah, and with those last things there, yeah, he appears to be bridging the gap between finance and woo, which is interesting, and he seems quite successful at it as well.
	You know, there's plenty of pictures of him in rooms full of people, you know, just giving That's what I assume.
	of presentations about synergy and this and that right.
	Nothing I could find about any of it was particularly revelatory. It was all just kind of packaging
	you know. It was standard kind of almost business consultancy kind of stuff you know.
	Oh that's what I assume. The consultant.
	Yes.
	Yes, exactly.
	Exactly.
	The ubiquitous consultant.
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Oh, fun little tidbit.
	Way back in 2012, he appeared on Project Camelot with Cary Cassidy.
	Oh no!
	Okay.
	All right.
	That's... Now you got me.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	I was very... Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Tell me about that.
	Wait, when did that happen?
	2012, yeah.
	I've not hunted back for the episode as of yet.
	I didn't quite have time and it wasn't really relevant.
	But yeah, I think it was to discuss his first novel, Coup de 12, The Enterprise That Bought the Presidency.
	And if you're curious about Coup de 12, let me read a section of the blurb.
	Is it Majestic 12?
	Is it Majestic 12?
	Is it?
	Okay, nope.
	Go ahead.
	Go, go, go, go, go, go, go.
	Yeah.
	From the windswept steppes of Mongolia to the sweltering desert of Dubai to the rooftop bars of Manhattan, this epic thriller weaves the global political events of the past 12 years into a tapestry so close to believable that it will leave you wondering where the line between fantasy and reality is drawn.
	The truth is, it is true.
	Inside of every good conspiracy is an even better idea.
	Inside such an idea would be a Herculean opportunity.
	The perfect global coup d'etat would combine the brilliance of every conspiracy to pull it off, but it is possible and it has happened.
	The audacity of stealing all of the G7 assets right out from under the noses of the world's self-proclaimed elite is so amazing it would not have to be hidden."
	Unquote.
	Well, everybody, you make one trip to Mongolia.
	You're going to get a lot of mileage out of it if you can shoehorn it into all your weird resume shit.
	Okay.
	Yeah, he's getting a lot out of that vacay I'm sure he had.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I've no doubt he's been to a lot of places.
	He seems to be very, very wealthy.
	The one thing I will say for him is he does seem to be successful as a financial analyst, if nothing else.
	Good lord.
	But yeah, yeah, interesting book.
	He does go on to mention the self-proclaimed elite as mostly the usual kind of globalists, kind of, you know, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers and whatever else.
	Okay, okay, interesting.
	Anyway!
	Boy, all right!
	All right!
	So Dave Bugger's off for a little while so that Russell can get into a bit of the day's news and so he's there lurking in the background.
	But let's take a look at the things that Russell discusses.
	Here's the top item of the day.
	One thing is clear.
	The legacy media emboldened and excited about their new president because for them the election is a foregone conclusion.
	Kamala Harris is to be the next president of the United States.
	The legacy media is unified behind her.
	The only potential threat is An Elon Musk, Donald Trump collab.
	The two imperatures, the two mischievous, I would say Machiavelli's of the right or the libertarian tricksters.
	Those two could conjure up just about enough Oppositional might to bring down the propaganda campaign for Kamala.
	Now me, you know where I stand.
	I don't back any of these institutions.
	Decentralized power.
	I believe in you.
	I believe in Jesus Christ our Savior.
	I believe that we could be freed together if we were willing to awaken together.
	And you can do that by subscribing to his locals channel and giving him money.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And going to the fucking RNC.
	Are you serious?
	Right.
	It's weird.
	He's not on the DNC.
	Exactly.
	Which is happening this week.
	Right here in Chicago.
	Yeah.
	Interesting.
	Yeah.
	He's not there right now.
	So it feels like he's picking a side.
	Also, you know, it was just last week we were taking a look at his endorsement video for RFK Jr.
	Our side.
	And he's reportedly been vying for a cabinet position in the potential government of both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, which is hilarious to me.
	To see a man so publicly have no shame.
	And like, just kind of like no self-awareness either.
	Like, listen, with Trump, shoot your shot.
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	They also run through like, there's the hiring and firing.
	Yeah, sure.
	Yeah.
	Stick your name on a list.
	Why not?
	Yeah.
	We should all try it.
	They're insane, they might hire you.
	It's a revolving door of whoever's going to be in the administration.
	Get your name on a list and see what happens.
	I would give anything to hear his pitch.
	I know, to hear that phone call.
	To the Democrat side.
	I really would.
	Hey!
	So, I, uh... And the articles are like, the DNC has declined to respond.
	Politely declined.
	They just won't respond.
	They're just ghosting.
	I bet a lot of rich white guys send emails about how they want to get a job in the new administration.
	I bet they do.
	I'm sure.
	I'm sure.
	Oh, dear.
	Yeah, and also, you know, as with Russell, as we've demonstrated a dozen times past, he will shit on any left-wing politician and support and prop up any right-wing politician, especially if they happen to be authoritarians.
	He likes those ones quite a lot.
	So, next we'll be getting to, like, the supposed cyber attack on Twitter, right, which caused technical problems during the conversation between Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
	Which, for a bit, forced them to go to YouTube hilariously enough.
	Elon Musk is claiming cyber attack, but the rest of the world is saying, hey, Twitter is a janky piece of shit these days because you fired everyone and rebuilt it very badly.
	Meaning it couldn't cope with the traffic of people wanting to listen to the Trump interview, which is a whole other avenue of depressing.
	But still, your site's broken, Elon.
	That's the problem.
	And Russell in this next clip briefly addresses an article claiming that there was no cyber attack before swiftly moving past it and addressing the real issue at hand.
	So firstly, Musk's cyber attack claim in Donald Trump interview was fake.
	Claim insiders.
	Okay, okay.
	The EU sent a warning letter.
	This is amazing because this is, in a way, what's more interesting to me, even than the great showdown of the US presidential election, are the new power bases that are forming.
	I consider populism ...to be a movement and ideology that needn't necessarily bear the huge livery or flag of either the left or right.
	We could have a populist decentralized movement.
	That is a possibility, but you will never get that under the kind of bureaucracies that are...
	In a sense, exemplified by the EU.
	They sent a warning letter to Musk on Monday, reminding him of the bloc's rules against promoting harmful content.
	That is like a little warning shot, isn't it?
	It's like they smashed his windows.
	They kicked his headlights in.
	You're going to talk to Trump, are you?
	Well, we'll see about that.
	With great audience comes greater responsibility, wrote Thierry Breton, the EU's commissioner, unconsciously misquoting Spider-Man and Stan Lee.
	In a post on X, the irony.
	Is there a risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in connection with events with a major audience around the world?
	I sent this letter to Elon Musk.
	Now, who determines what speech is harmful?
	Who determines who ought be censored and who ought be amplified?
	And indeed, in the case of Elon Musk, it is Musk himself who decides what voices to amplify.
	But if Thierry Breton, one of the faceless and sadly not voiceless apparatchiks of bureaucratic systems, they would decide.
	Aha, so our democratically elected legislators would get together and decide democratically on legislation.
	Well, that sounds just terrible, doesn't it?
	And he's perfectly fine with Elon Musk having all the power to censor people who offend his ego, but doesn't want the European Parliament, the elected European Parliament, to have any power whatsoever over it.
	The letter is not like throwing a rock through a window.
	Yeah, I'll get to that.
	That's usually not where, right?
	Like that's not where we start.
	Yeah, no.
	It's like sending a letter.
	Yes.
	Like how any other, like, and it stops at letter and then you
	choose where to go from there.
	Like that's, it's not like that.
	Literally at all.
	I would argue it was written in letter format, but I don't think a physical letter was ever actually sent.
	It was just put up on Twitter.
	It's not even sending a letter.
	It's making a social media thing.
	It's not a note tied to a brick.
	It's just a note.
	Those things also exist.
	And it's not that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So this letter from the EU that he's talking about was an open letter sent to Elon Musk by Thierry Breton, who is the duly elected Internal Market Commissioner over at the EU, which means, among other things, he's in charge of overseeing the enforcement of new social media legislation within the EU.
	Namely, the Digital Services Act of 2022, or the DSA.
	In the letter, he cited the upcoming interview with Trump and said he was compelled to remind Musk as the individual entity ultimately controlling a platform with over 300 million users worldwide, of which one-third are in the EU, of his legal obligations under the DSA.
	This notably means ensuring, on the one hand, that freedom of expression and of information are effectively protected, and on the other hand, that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content.
	This is important against the background of recent examples of public unrest brought about by the amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation.
	Sounds fairly reasonable to me.
	And there are a few things to note.
	Firstly, Elon responded by posting a meme telling Thierry Breton to literally go and fuck his own face.
	Just genius, that guy.
	The epitome of wit.
	But, uh, secondly, although Thierry Breton, um, sent this with his formal EU letterhead, no one else in the EU sanctioned or agreed to the letter, and so the European Commission had to come out and say, hey, we didn't approve this.
	Um, this Thierry Breton guy is known for not really giving a shit about that sort of thing, so it's not overly surprising, but the fact remains this letter was sent by a man who works at the EU and is not a letter sent by the EU itself, and therein lies Quite a difference.
	Um, Russell, as you've said, is presenting this as some kind of gangsterish intimidation act by the EU, like smashing one of Elon's windows or kicking his headlights in, as Russell said.
	Um, and yeah, it's a letter, ya snowflake!
	And secondly, it was not sent by the EU, and that information was plain and obvious at least two days before this broadcast.
	So, Russell should have known this.
	In fact, like, a couple of people at the EU are very pissed off with Thierry Breton for sending this in the first place.
	It's a whole thing.
	The other thing to note is the reason he's bringing this up now, specifically after just discussing the supposed cyber attack.
	As though to say, well, there was this big cyber attack on Elon's conversation with Trump mere days after the EU sent a warning letter to Elon about his conversation with Trump.
	Obviously insinuating a conspiracy that the EU did a cyber attack on Elon Musk.
	I feel like we've learned a lesson that maybe sometimes you just need to restart your router, dog.
	Like, truly.
	Sometimes that's it.
	Sometimes that's it.
	Yes, absolutely.
	It just seems like, yeah, the website's bad.
	Yes, yeah, it's just, it's not great.
	It's not great.
	And anyone with any information on the back end of it has said like, oh, this does not, this is a problem.
	But hey.
	So the EU didn't want Thierry Breton to send that letter because they didn't want to be seen as interfering in a US presidential election, which is what the CEO of Twitter has complained about, of course.
	That's what she's been whinging about.
	But Breton, I think, is absolutely correct that even if it is a presidential election, if it violates the law, it violates the law, and that is that.
	Laws apply to everyone equally, or they're supposed to, and as much as Donald Trump would like it to be, campaigning for president is not a get-out-of-jail-free cart.
	The law is the law.
	Well, I think he'd beg to differ.
	Yeah, right.
	Vehemently and constantly.
	Matter of perspective, yeah.
	I feel like we're all kind of observing like his heart is not in it this time because he's old and tired and running for president is very taxing and difficult and he doesn't want to do it but he doesn't want legal consequences which he has avoided his entire life.
	Yeah, he doesn't want to fucking... Because we know he's not going to go to jail.
	He doesn't even want an ankle monitor, and he definitely doesn't want Discovery, and he doesn't want people looking at his books.
	Oh, no.
	Because at some point, subpoenas will stick.
	He doesn't want more subpoenas, damn it.
	So that's why he's still doing this.
	It's amazing that like, come on, come on, guys.
	By the way, the European Commission does already have an active investigation of Twitter ongoing based on potential violations of the Digital Services Act from last year, which does change the picture slightly and to me paints Thierry Breton as being like Jim Carrey in Liar Liar when he picks up the phone and yells, stop breaking the law asshole!
	I mean, that sounds more like he's being a homie.
	I'm like, hey, stop doing this.
	We're investigating you.
	I mean, that sounds like rich people acting like rich people love the rich people.
	It's like, bro, fucking just pump the brakes in, Ron.
	Come on.
	It's like, you're getting greedy.
	You're going to get caught.
	You're getting greedy, at least in part of where you, I mean, because the EU also, like, There's a reason why Elon Musk doesn't give a shit, because it's fucking free for all over here, and the EU is reasonable, measured, and actually tries to enforce anything, and not here, not in the US of A. No, not in the Wild West, yeah.
	So next, Russell hedges his bets about Elon before providing a bit of a dumb perspective on Brexit.
	Now, I am not expressing a view either way on whether Elon Musk should be celebrated as some kind of Ubermensch or brought down into hellish dungeons.
	What I will say is that bureaucracies like the EU are not your friend.
	Bureaucrats like Thierry Breton, who have formerly used language like, you know, language of some gangster bureaucracy, really, where unelected officials, in some cases elected, but certainly public funded, Officials are able to implement measures of control that I do not believe are beneficial for you or for me or for our countries.
	Of course, the UK are no longer in the EU.
	That was another example of how populism, whether you agree with it or not, can take democracy.
	And by democracy, I mean the movements inspired by the ballot box, not a set of institutions co-opted and controlled by centralised interests, can still change the world.
	So Brexit was populism changing the world, huh?
	I would say it was more a class of multi-millionaires and billionaires agitating for a decision they could profit off and using Cambridge Analytica to illegally influence the minds of the public.
	Brexit was not some great populist movement, it was a large-scale con at the expense of the entire United Kingdom.
	And Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson and his ilk, they go off scot-free.
	Yeah, populism indeed.
	I mean, populism isn't good.
	We've established that.
	Populism and popular are two different things that Russell refuses to differentiate between.
	Yes, yes.
	And is then supported by, for instance, last week's guest.
	But yeah, I mean, on its face, populism that changed the world?
	Sure.
	For the worst.
	Yeah, it's true.
	Yeah, it did.
	It was that, and that's not good.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Populism is the loudest shouter, and reality by clap-o-meter is populism, and that's not good.
	That's bad.
	It is a tool of authoritarianism.
	Tends to not work out well for society, just historically speaking.
	Yeah.
	No, it's the opposite of organization.
	It's, it's, it's the, it's, it's the, all right.
	This is something that's like, another thing that like, I, I'm not frustrated.
	I was frustrated.
	And I want listeners, I want you to come with me, hear me out.
	Okay.
	There's been a lot of discourse about like, Politicians aren't your friend, you know, like whatever, like the Harris Walz ticket might make you feel good or whatever.
	They're not your friend.
	Right.
	That's literally always been true.
	So Russell's saying they're not your friend.
	You're right.
	They work for you.
	They are your representative.
	And like, whoever makes you feel like, and I would say this to people who support Trump equally.
	This isn't your friend.
	It's not about getting a beer and having a laugh and thinking he's funny or entertaining
	or thinking that now you're, the VP is mama-la.
	Neither of those things.
	Just, they are politicians who are doing a job of representation and management.
	That's what their jobs are.
	And we should never, like, it's called levers of power, not hugs of power.
	And that's what we also have collectively, if we would be organized enough to do it.
	And I don't think that it behooves Russell to differentiate between organization and popular.
	Yelling.
	Like, it's just two totally different things, and like, no, they've never been your fucking friend!
	They're... It's a job!
	It's a goddamn job!
	And if you give your friends a pass at a job where you wouldn't a stranger, look at yourself!
	Like, maybe nepotism isn't great.
	Like, maybe just the people you like shouldn't get the job.
	Maybe the most competent professional should get the job with experience.
	Yeah, well, I think it's difficult to make that argument to someone who is actually friends with his favorite politician, you know?
	He's friends with RFK Jr.
	and wants him, you know?
	Like, I don't know.
	I'm not convinced he understands the situation.
	Well, I don't blame him because no one's And enforcing it, necessarily, right?
	Understanding civics.
	We can get things done, and it's not by appealing to someone's... I mean, unfortunately, a lot of politics actually does happen because if someone's ego is bruised.
	Unfortunately, yeah, that's the case.
	But it's a lever of power that we also have as people.
	They're just human beings, and you're not going to appeal to I don't know.
	I've heard several Black creators, and on a broader context, the Black liberation movement and speakers and researchers have been saying this for a long time.
	You cannot appeal to their moral center, because it's not going to work.
	It's about leverage.
	And it's about negotiation, and it's about, like, unfortunately compromise, but, like, they're also compromising in this, like, weird emotional area, when, like, being practical is what government should do.
	It should do the thing that works the best for the people, and that should be, like, there should be consequences if they don't.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Absolutely.
	Mega folks, give me an argument that is not feelings-based what Trump did for you.
	Yeah.
	I don't think he did very much, huh?
	I mean, except for all like the car repossessing dudes, like interviewed on January 6th and shit.
	Like, yeah, no, I bet you're doing great.
	I bet you're, oh yeah, you're in debt collection.
	I bet you're doing awesome right now.
	Cool.
	Good.
	That's, get with it, man.
	Come on.
	It's just, no, none of them are your friend.
	Target's not your friend.
	Look, the president's not your friend.
	They're there to do a job.
	100%.
	And just back to the clip, what I do find very notable is that Russell is not actively endorsing Elon here.
	Which is, given that he will mention Elon at least once a week in a positive light, at least, this is pretty funny to me that he's not like, I don't know, But he is still hedging his bets among the alt-right who love Elon Musk and the people like David Icke who are more critical.
	He's still like, well, I want both.
	So I'm gonna pretend that I'm not on board with Elon Musk, you know?
	Sounds like something a populist would do.
	Doesn't it just?
	To stay popular.
	Yeah, what was this?
	Back to Phidias, you know, just hiding policy positions to stay popular.
	So from here, and I've wondered about this for a time now, we get to what Russell thinks his form of direct democracy would allow humanity to do.
	And I've got to say, he paints a real picture.
	That's what we should be looking into.
	How can we get power as close as possible to the people affected by that power?
	Then you wouldn't have to quarrel with one another needlessly.
	You'd be able to accept that there are many different ways of being human.
	You would be able to return to the profound questions of the classics.
	You will be able to inquire of yourself and one another What is it to be human?
	How is it that you want to live?
	How do we best manifest the divine?
	Is God real?
	And if God is real, how do we live like it?
	And if God is not real, then from where do we derive principles like kindness and service, fraternity and love, unity, togetherness and the rights of humankind?
	Because without God, with just reason as your little tool, it's pretty hard to summons up any gusto for such notions.
	I think he got lost somewhere in the middle of that.
	Yeah, so we've got his usual bullshit that rationalism and secularism are terrible and only Christianity and God are the way forward, because without God there is no moral framework, according to this guy.
	I hate that argument for so many reasons.
	Not least of all is the fact that it's been scientifically disproven and human beings are born with an innate sense of morality.
	Um, but... It's also profoundly un-American, by the way, if you read the Constitution.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Arguing about what God is is a great way to distract everybody from actual practical application of politics.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	No, if you can keep relitigating the same fucking argument over and over without ever really reaching a conclusion...
	Yeah, that's actually the distraction tactic that they're always accusing others of.
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	Shouldn't be politics.
	No!
	Just shouldn't be.
	No.
	And beyond that, Russell's idea of direct democracy or whatever will apparently allow us all to To accept that there are many ways of being human will allow us to return to the profound questions of the classics and ask ourselves and each other what it is to be human, how it is we want to live, how do we best manifest the divine, and if God is real, how do we live like it?
	And I had a series of thoughts.
	Firstly, I can do all of those things within the current system we have now, and I'm quite sure most of those questions are covered in high school philosophy classes.
	Secondly, what on earth does this have to do with voting?
	Is it just we'll suddenly have all this free time and brain space and can then disengage in any sort of political activism?
	Because the second part of that sounds bad and is usually a recipe for tyranny to run rampant.
	You know, I would much rather be agitating for genuine positive change than asking the deeper questions of the self in this proposed scenario, if it is in fact a binary choice like the way Russell is presenting it.
	Like, well, you can't do that now, can you?
	Yes, but I can though, can't I?
	You can't under a populist authoritarian.
	Yeah!
	You can if, like, Yeah, that's what universal liberation is literally all about, is being able to flesh out your whole experience as a human being.
	Yeah, kind of the point.
	This, like, capitalist, like, new, like, fiefdom is the opposite.
	Like, that's the thing, is he's appealing to the reality that, like, We do have to just like get through a day to day and it is a struggle and it is getting worse and worse.
	Yeah, that's real.
	This is not the solution.
	He's conflating two things.
	I mean, yeah, I bet if Russell thinks like, well, you just fuck around and you be kind of a doofus until you get super rich and famous and then you have all the time in the world to pontificate into a microphone.
	Yeah, I bet that you think that's a great plan for you.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And he's saying all of this while propping up the people who are the most aggressive kind of capitalist authoritarians in the world.
	The people who are actively making the system worse.
	It's just great.
	So now we actually get to a segment of the conversation between Elon and Trump discussing migration.
	Let's have a look at them talking about Kamala's policy around the borders.
	Let's have a look at that, or listen to, because it is for the audio senses.
	Would it be accurate to say that you're supportive of legal immigration, but that we obviously need to shut down illegal immigration, and especially unvetted illegal immigration, because you know, and that's not the same as saying that everyone who's an illegal immigrant is bad.
	In fact, I think most people who are illegal immigrants are actually good, but you can't tell the difference unless there's a solid banning of who comes across the border.
	Does that actually represent your position?
	I say it very simply.
	They have to come in legally.
	They have to be checked.
	Kamala was the border zone.
	Now she's denying it.
	Everything that I do, she's saying she was strong on the border.
	We're going to be strong.
	Well, she doesn't have to say it.
	She could close it up right now.
	They could do things right now.
	It's horrible.
	No tax on tips.
	And all of a sudden she's making a speech and saying there will be no tax on tips.
	I said that months ago.
	And by the way, they had just the opposite.
	You know, they had not only tax on tips, but they hired 88,000 IRS agents.
	And many of them were assigned to go get waitresses and caddies and all of this on tips.
	They have a policy.
	They had a policy.
	They were really going to go after you.
	And we're really harassing people horribly.
	And then all of a sudden for politics, she says, you know, she comes out with with what I said, which I think is terrible.
	And I think it's also hitting them very hard.
	These people are fake.
	Now they're also saying they did a good job on the border.
	We had the worst numbers in the history of the world, not of our country.
	There's never been a country in history that has had a catastrophe like this.
	We've had, I believe, and I think you believe this too, you know, you hear 12 million, 13...
	I believe it's over 20 million people came into our country, many coming from jails, from prisons,
	from mental institutions, or a bigger version of that is insane asylums,
	and many are terrorists.
	Hey, I wonder if the real battle is not the battle between the Democrat Party, the Republican Party,
	the MAGA movement, and globalists, but really about how
	bureaucracies that are unelected ultimately want to be able to control media narratives and
	have the right to legitimately censor.
	So, thank you.
	So, Trump here appears to be saying more than 20 million illegal immigrants are living in the US right now.
	I believe that's what he was trying to say rather than 20 million last year or whatever.
	And many of them come from jails, prisons, mental institutions or insane asylums.
	And he also said many are terrorists.
	And Russell just glides past it without comment.
	It's obvious, but I'll say it anyway.
	None of what Trump said is true.
	The true figure is, yes, somewhere around 12 million.
	And generally speaking, the illegal migrants in a country are incredibly well-behaved individuals because they have to be because otherwise they get deported.
	Now, I've seen people put on Twitter that, you know, sharing or retweeting something doesn't always equate to endorsing that thing, even though that is usually the case, but I think that when it's on your daily show watched by millions, that same principle cannot be applied, particularly when the people saying these abhorrent things are people Russell has actively endorsed.
	He is playing this clip and not saying he agrees with it because, let's face it, it's ugly, But him playing it without comment is a silent endorsement of these ideologies.
	I think that's the the without comment part is the important part that if you're just retweeting or you're just you know you're reposting whatever like yeah that's that means you agree unless you're like hey this is wrong yeah yeah exactly this is wrong because I feel like there was a ratio out there of the actual interview with Musk and Trump where like the the there was Basically, making fun of it was more popular than just watching and enjoying it.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	That makes a lot of sense.
	Yeah, you don't get to measure hate watch or watching for your job, which a lot of reporters and analysts had to do.
	Yeah, that's a bleak gig, huh?
	Different.
	Well, I mean, you know, that's also ours.
	I know, also accurate.
	But yeah, wow.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely.
	That completely makes sense.
	Oh, dear.
	Is Russell, is he trying to, I mean, I don't know, it doesn't seem like he's, he's just being vague.
	He doesn't sound like he's distancing himself from it necessarily.
	No, he's just leaving it there without comment.
	That's all he's doing.
	He's just like, well, I'm going to just charge ahead.
	Like, yeah, OK, OK.
	I see what you're doing.
	All right.
	Now, finally, Dave Martin is wheeled back into focus.
	And this is a bit of a long clip, because he kind of likes the sound of his own voice.
	I don't know if you could tell from the bio.
	I don't know anybody like that.
	That's crazy.
	But he has a real gotcha moment to present to us.
	Thank you so much for joining me, Dave Martin.
	You know, Russell, I love the fact that you give me so much time to prepare that I take what I thought I was going to talk about and I actually have data that's just going to throw a monkey wrench into the EU's plan And you couldn't have done a better setup than this because it seems to me I recall in 2012 the European Union decided to do a very interesting thing which they called the no disconnect strategy.
	I want to read this just because I think Donald Trump and Russell Brand and Elon Musk and others just need to have this in their back pocket because it's sometimes helpful to to use the perpetrator's own words To help remind them of how important...
	Policy statements that they make are.
	So I just want to read this.
	In 2011, the EU decided to come up with what they called a no disconnect strategy, released as a tool to support activists who use social media for democratic ways at a time when authoritarian regimes try to shut down the Internet.
	This is the same Thierry Breton, I just want to be really clear, who warned Elon Musk not to use social media to have a political conversation.
	The same EU in 2011, not only passed the No Disconnect Strategy, which was a policy for the European Union that said that no one could interrupt a conversation about activists who were actually discussing and promoting democracy, but I want you to hear this 2014 EU Human Rights Guideline for Freedom of Expression online, which, and I'm going to read right from it, All human rights that exist offline, in particular the right of freedom to expression, must exist online and must be respected and protected equally online as well as offline when it comes to execution of measures largely soft tools with no mandatory implementation or oversight.
	I just want to be clear on the fact that the same Thierry Breton who actually sent a warning letter Failed to read the 2011 and 2014 European Union Policy Commission and the EU Human Rights Guidelines for Freedom of Expression online and offline.
	These are documents that you can pull up, 2011 and 2014 respectively, where it turns out that when we were trying to overthrow, I don't know, governments in the Middle East, we were more than happy to allow activists to lie, cheat, steal, activate, everything else.
	We were happy to do that.
	The EU was so concerned with democracy and freedom of expression that they passed a regulation saying that every right that's available offline has to be preserved online.
	And somehow or another, when that very policy might include conversations that they don't sanction, they apparently forget it.
	But how do they forget it?
	They forget it because we, collectively, fail to remind them of their own policies.
	Uh-huh.
	That's why.
	Yeah, Dave's got the EU now.
	He's got them by the shortened curlies.
	Got them using their own policies to silence people they don't agree with.
	Well, good thing that it didn't actually silence anybody.
	There is that.
	I love that Dave Martin supposedly had all the time in the world to prepare this information because it either makes him an idiot or someone willfully lying about what the no disconnect strategy was.
	Well, we'll see.
	Announced in 2011, the No Disconnect Strategy was specifically a piece of human rights policy.
	It came off the back of a Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean, which committed the European Commission to develop new tools to allow the EU, in appropriate cases, to assist civil society organisations or individual citizens ...to circumvent arbitrary disruptions to access to electronic communications technologies, including the Internet.
	This followed evidence of such disruption or attempted disruption by authoritarian governments during the Arab Spring Uprising, for example, in Egypt.
	Enabling citizens of authoritarian countries to bypass such surveillance and censorship measures depends on two basic conditions.
	Availability of appropriate technologies, particular software programs that can be installed on a desktop, computer, laptop, that kind of thing.
	And awareness slash knowledge, both of the techniques used by the authoritarian regimes to spy on citizens and censor their communications.
	And of the appropriate countermeasures to use.
	And the No Disconnect strategy set out to assist these people in four specific ways.
	So developing and providing tech tools to enhance privacy and security of people living in non-democratic regimes, educating and raising awareness of activists about the opportunities and risks of ICT, in particular assisting activists to make Best use of tools like social networks and blogs, etc.
	Gathering high quality intelligence about what is happening on the ground in order to monitor the level of surveillance and censorship.
	And cooperation, so developing a practical way to ensure that all the stakeholders can share information on their activity and promote multilateral action, right, to protect human rights.
	This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or freedom of expression in the way that Dave Martin is saying it does.
	It's saying, hey, we need to provide internet access tools to activists in countries with authoritarian and totalitarian governments.
	That's what's happening.
	Then-Vice President of the EU Commission Catherine Ashton said, quote, human rights policy is not just an add-on.
	It is a silver thread which runs through everything we do.
	The right to communicate freely is a key part of basic human rights.
	The internet and social media have become an important way of promoting freedom of expression.
	That's why the EU is determined to resist any unjustified restrictions on the internet and other new media."
	Moreover, the EU already has laws about freedom of expression and freedom of speech, which he pointed out.
	Except in the cases of hate speech or incitement to violence.
	These are big exceptions.
	And the Digital Services Act Elon may or may not find himself in violation of is very clear that freedom of expression is perfectly fine up until the point it crosses one of those boundaries.
	And that is the letter that Breton sent to Elon Musk.
	It wasn't, well, you're having a political conversation.
	Nah, nah.
	Let's avoid, you know, getting into, you know, inciting violence, please.
	It's also not just anybody, like, to categorize under activists the most rich man on earth and CEO.
	Or like, owner in charge of owns the website, broken though as it may be, where they're hosting this conversation, and a former president?
	No, they're not activists.
	I don't feel like they fall under the law, you know, under that particular policy.
	It's not even a law, it's a policy.
	If anything, like, right, exactly.
	But like, that's the thing, is like, the issue that I think that can be, unfortunately, that can be taken, because again, it's like free speech here, Also counts as money, so fucking whatever.
	But the fact that Elon Musk owns the company and is using that company as a promotional tool for a specific presidential candidate could be construed as undue influence or as campaign contributions that Trump isn't going to pay for and could be sued over.
	Like, there are these legal, like, There's legal limits, we thought, I'd hope, on conflict of interest.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Like, just, that could be, like, that could be it.
	That could be, like, listen, this is a conflict of interest that you cannot legally do because antitrust or whatever, like, FEC, I don't know.
	I mean, listen, all those protections, completely fucking blown to smithereens, but like, I don't know, man.
	I know that there's at least people trying to make this shit stick.
	Like, that's...
	Yeah, you're right.
	It's not about free speech.
	It's about human rights.
	And obviously, I mean, can you imagine how different the internet looked in 2011 versus now?
	We had more than four websites!
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we did.
	We did.
	We had a bunch.
	Yeah.
	And Twitter wasn't owned by a friggin', yeah, Looney Tune.
	Yeah, good lord.
	I've seen some reaches in my time, and this is up there, you know?
	This is really, really reachable.
	I'm gonna find this archaic piece of EU policy.
	Well, yeah, and I do want to address that, like, the, you know, the illegal alien thing, whatever, like, I'm, I don't think that that's the right, I don't, that's not how I see people, I'm engaging with what's being said, right, like, on the quote itself.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Elon Musk tells stories about how he showed up and didn't do the paperwork.
	He showed up here and didn't do the paperwork.
	Oh, and it's cheeky.
	That's the hypocrisy.
	That's the thing.
	We're not complaining about the right things here.
	You are obfuscating and you are distracting from the issue.
	It's how all this hypocrisy is allowed to fester.
	Is Dr. Martin here?
	Old Doc Martin, Reverend Dr. Martin, thinks that it's a gotcha when it's not.
	That's a distraction.
	You are obfuscating the reality.
	You are not elucidating the reality for people.
	It's a bait and switch, Sutter.
	Mmm, interesting.
	He'll be bringing that up a little bit later, actually.
	I bet!
	Speaking of gotchas, so that was Dave's gotcha of the EU.
	Now he has one for Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz.
	Could we pull that part of the legislation, create an asset from it, like just that clause or that subclause, and then we can like post it around?
	We'll do that today.
	Yeah, and this is the thing.
	This is exactly the point.
	The point is, Listen, I mean, Musk should have had his team do this last night.
	He should have posted it with the letter.
	Because the fact of the matter is, I want people to understand the European Union is violating its own law.
	Let's not be, you know, dancing around the edges of it.
	They're violating their own law, just like Vice President candidate Walz is violating the Supreme Court's 1964 decision.
	And by the way, 1964, that was a while ago, Russell.
	That feels like a while ago to me, at least.
	That feels like it's almost 60 years ago.
	Stop wasting my time.
	When he said that you actually are not allowed to do misinformation online, despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in 1964, in the case New York Times v. Sullivan, in 1964, ruled that not only can you misinform on the internet, And in public speech and in anywhere else, in this case it was New York Times Publications, but it actually said, you can lie!
	That's a protected First Amendment free speech right, as determined by all of the precedent cases following the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan.
	So somehow or another, these people who are allegedly going to take leadership positions In the European Union case, Thierry Bertrand, in the United States, Kamala Harris's Vice President candidate, who can't even read the law in the country in which they preside.
	And I wish that I was making any of this up, Russell.
	I wish that this was some sort of mysterious Dave Martin whimsical flight of fancy.
	But the problem is, it's actually that nasty little detail that you come to expect from me, which is The facts.
	I've gotta say, I don't need the person I'm debunking to be an arrogant jackass, but it does feel good when it happens.
	Dear oh dear.
	So, the thing he's complaining about is an old interview where Tim Walz said, quote, Years ago it was the little things, uh, telling people to vote the day after the election and we kind of brushed them off.
	Now we know it's intimidation at the ballot box.
	It's undermining the idea that mail-in ballots aren't legal.
	I think we need to push back on this.
	There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.
	Unquote.
	So his argument is like, we are allowed to lie, goddammit.
	How dare you make a passing statement that you don't want me to lie.
	Yes, that's exactly what he's saying.
	And boy, it sure would have been helpful instead of saying 1964 eight times, which, like, listen, I get it.
	I repeat myself.
	Like, fine.
	But if you had all this time... I'm sorry.
	I haven't been a public speaker for fucking 20 years.
	Get your shit together, Dave.
	Goddamn.
	Like, really, really.
	Come on.
	He's like, oh, Tim Walz, like you're taking issue with a specific person and a specific quote, and you can't even get, you can't even like land the plane.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	The New York Times versus Sullivan in 1964, that was indeed a landmark case, not particularly for free speech, mind you, but for defamation cases.
	Specifically, they adopted an actual malice standard when it comes to defamation of public officials when covered in newspapers, meaning that if a newspaper got something wrong about someone, they could no longer be sued unless the newspaper was knowingly and intentionally lying and attempting to cause deliberate harm or actual malice.
	This wasn't, hey, newspapers can just lie with impunity now!
	This was, eh, people get things wrong sometimes, but the ones who lie deliberately can fuck off.
	That was essentially where it came down to.
	And Dave Martin is, again, either an idiot or intentionally lying about what this precedent means.
	Because it does not say you can intentionally lie about people and misinform in newspapers, let alone the internet or public spaces, which is in no way included in that piece of precedent, by the way.
	That would be a whole separate fucking case.
	Like David's trying to claim here, it's about the burden of responsibility for intentional
	lies versus accidental ones.
	And then he has the balls to say that Tim Walz and Thierry Breton can't read legislation.
	Like the stones.
	He's like, I can read the shit out of it.
	Comprehending is not what I'm discussing.
	I can read the ass out of this legislation.
	Now, hate speech is technically protected by the First Amendment.
	That is true.
	But some of the categories of speech not protected from government restrictions include Incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, fighting words, and threats.
	And a lot of those things end up in the alt-right media sphere, often alongside hate speech and conspiracy theories.
	So in the full context of what he's saying, Waltz is absolutely correct.
	It's like, oh yeah, no, all of this is a problem.
	Especially, you know, fraud, that feels relevant to what he was talking about, you know?
	The thing is, I don't think that this guy is stupid.
	I don't think he's an idiot or stupid at all.
	I think that he's doing the thing that has worked, which is arguing.
	That's like, okay guys, let's talk about lawyers again.
	Lawyers argue to win.
	Lawyer, debate, whatever.
	Forensics, if you're in a fancy school.
	You are arguing to win.
	Your argument, being right, being correct has nothing to do with it.
	Absolutely.
	That's what he's he's got like and this is it's just taking me back to fucking like after Thanksgiving with like the worst arrogant ass family members that think they know and will argue and will shout you down the second that you have like learned a thing and want to share it.
	Yeah that's yeah oh you want to argue with 14 year olds make yourself feel Feel big?
	Okay.
	Cool.
	Yeah, it seems like the guy, doesn't it?
	Vary that.
	Vary that.
	Also, he made a big deal of 60 years of precedent there, and it is weird how he's complaining about that now, because Dave Martin didn't seem to give two shits about the decades of precedent the Supreme Court has overturned in recent decisions.
	That have been actively harmful to the very fabric of the country as a whole.
	He didn't give a fuck about that, but oh, in this specific case when it comes to the Sullivan thing, we should worship the fact that it's precedent.
	Fuck off with that.
	Yeah, but also not even the thing.
	Like, not even the thing.
	That he's obfuscating and is being hypocritical on that regard as well.
	Great.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, oh dear.
	So next up, Russell goes on his usual spiel about unusual alliances, blah blah blah, before we get a bit of a, what feels like a weird perspective from Dave.
	It seems that in a way that is the interface that we're all either side of, Dave, and that it's in a way now becoming clearer.
	Do you see any evidence or examples of alliances being formed Beyond the battle lines that are typically drawn, in the US it's become a kind of libertarian versus progressives argument.
	In the UK you can see that there are attempts to make these arguments entirely about race, again by sort of amplifying outliers I'm pointing out only particular aspects of the dispute decontextualizing the information that's important to understanding the broader reasons for these disputes even though of course as I'm always keen to point out violence ought never be advocated for for so many reasons not
	At least that it's sort of an ineffective way of achieving success as well as being at odds with the principles that we're supposed to be supporting anyway.
	Do you feel, Dave, that there might be ways that people that are sort of irretrievably alloyed to one side of this movement or the other might start to reform alliances that are opposed to centralized authority
	or do you think that because of the way the information is controlled those alliances are
	impossible? Well I think if we take a step back and look at our own experience during the run-up to
	the 2020 elections in the United States Russell, it was very important to have public health fear
	in It was very important to have social discourse that broke down into riots and all of these kind of unspeakable destructive acts.
	And to your point, the idea of conflict for the sake of a genuine A genuine sense of disagreement where there's a sense of discord that gives rise to mobs in the streets and everything else one can make historical arguments that say that there are times when repressed individuals feel that their voices are unheard and they feel that the only outlet they have.
	is to appeal to violence, but that's not what this is.
	These are contrived events.
	The fires in the United States were contrived events.
	The riots in the UK are contrived events.
	These are not legitimate conflicts between competing ideologies that then give rise to this kind of outbreak.
	This is orchestrated and it is manipulated no different than it was with the fires that took place in the summer of 2020.
	FALSE FLAGS!
	FALSE FLAGS!
	Oh, this guy's just... That's 100% where we're at.
	Griffin!
	Oh boy!
	Yeah, so the race riots taking place in the UK are apparently being orchestrated and contrived, supposedly in the same way as the, well, it sounded initially like the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, except that's not what he said.
	He said the fires of 2020, which is more specific.
	And what he's talking about is the alt-right militias who went around committing arson during the protests.
	The most famous example being the Texan Boogaloo Boy going to Minneapolis to set fire to a police precinct during the George Floyd protests while firing shots into the police station.
	Several Boogaloo Boys were arrested that year for arson and murder as well as for the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
	Wait, is that what he's actually referencing for sure?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Even, like, reading the Second Amendment forums that were bitching about, like, Black Rifle versus 1775 Coffee, they were referring to the 2020 protests and uprising and all that, like, as fires and cities burning down because they don't live here and they don't care to know that the city's fine.
	Um, like, that's just not, like, a couple of gas stations went up, dawg.
	Yeah.
	Like, that's, that's not cities burning or cities burning to the ground.
	The great fires of 2020.
	Yeah, like, they're, they're just, they're like, come on.
	I mean yeah it just feels like the fires of 2020 is like that invocation and this like perpetuation this like ridiculous narrative that there were these you know like riots in the streets that were that like that I don't know, man.
	It's not... We're not talking about, like, Tulsa, right?
	That was fires in the streets that destroyed a piece of a city that happened to be black, owned and operated in success.
	That's what we're talking about, right?
	This is like... Come on.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I just hate the rhetoric, you know, that's around it.
	I was here the whole time.
	I lived in the city.
	Yeah.
	So all of that, as well as the race riots in the UK, it's all a false flag, basically, is what we're getting at.
	That's the insinuation.
	Yeah, and we'll get to why, actually, in this next clip, because expanding on this, Dave teaches us all about migration.
	Oh, goody.
	All of these stories are manipulated.
	So we're told what the issue is.
	So we are distracted from any of the shenanigans that are happening behind the scenes.
	And lo and behold, what gives rise is a suspension of the actual Broad, middle, conscious group of democratic participants who would be willing to engage in normal democratic processes.
	They are sidelined and they are actually set into a corner where they're not allowed to have conversation because, as we now know, opining on any of these outrages paints you into an extremist corner.
	If I say I'm anti-immigrant, I'm suddenly pro-extreme right.
	Well, it turns out that's simplistic and fallacious in its simplicity.
	It actually is a simple relationship that actually Donald Trump and Elon Musk did address last night.
	One of the things they talked about was actually this question of Are you anti-immigrant?
	Well, the answer is no, you're not anti-immigrant.
	That's a ludicrous proposition.
	What you are anti-immigrant is the absolute erasure of controls of who comes in and who doesn't come into a country.
	The reckless abandon of having open and porous borders Nuance is something that has presented a series of problems.
	That's a true statement, but that doesn't make you anti-immigrant to make that statement.
	But here's the problem.
	Really?
	Nuance dies in the fires of these contrived violences.
	Yes.
	And nuance is the basis of democracy.
	Yes.
	Yes, it is incredibly significant and important.
	Uh, yeah, nuance is not in fact the basis of democracy.
	I would more pin that on something like, you know, equal rights to vote.
	I don't know, something along those lines.
	You know, something to do with the voting portion.
	That feels pretty essential to democracy.
	Oh dear.
	So...
	What he's claiming here is that the race riots in the UK are a contrived piece of violence or false flag event in order to prevent people from discussing migration.
	Because now, if they do, they're extremist or racist!
	And I will say, if you're describing the US border as open and porous, you're probably somewhere closer to the racist side of things.
	Just saying.
	Yeah, the claim is like, oh, being anti-immigrant, you're associating me with the far right.
	No, you're just a racist.
	Yeah.
	You're just a racist.
	Sorry, Doug.
	Which a lot of people are!
	Yeah.
	And you can work, like, that's, listen, you can do work.
	You can work on being less racist.
	There's a lot of options that are available.
	May I suggest a Libby app, for instance?
	Listen, there's a lot of things you can do.
	It's true.
	It's not the length of your toes, sir.
	You can do something about this.
	This is very, very specific.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And he's just sidestepping.
	Genuinely, his rhetorical style is like, I mean, it's not the dumbest uncle at Thanksgiving.
	It's the smartest uncle at Thanksgiving.
	He knows exactly what he's doing.
	It's absurd.
	It's absurd.
	He does 100% know what he's doing here, because all of these claims are unsubstantiated and minimise the very violent actions based on the very violent rhetoric of the alt-right, while also allowing Dave to freely propagate his views that he doesn't like migrants and pretend that his words are in no way connected to the white supremacists who've been causing the violence.
	In reality, Dave Martin here is contributing to the violence by providing cover for it and writing it all off as false flag operations.
	Yeah, it's a classic playbook, but it works.
	I mean, yeah, the nuance, that's the thing, is like the nuance that he's advocating for is moving the goalposts.
	You want to move the goalposts so you're still right, no matter what you say.
	You want You're like, no, no, no, nuance.
	But nuance, I'm going to make an argument, and I'm going to jingle these keys over here, and I'm going to move the goalposts enough to where I'm actually not wrong, and I don't have to listen to you.
	That's all of it.
	Because if he's got an excuse for fucking everything ready to go, then he's not interested in a consensus view or any kind of cooperation.
	He's interested in using whatever technicalities and words that he can to move the goalposts so he's actually not wrong if you really think about it and if you just give me a minute to nuance about it.
	No.
	Yes.
	Those are not the same things.
	Yeah, no.
	He doesn't want to engage with the subject at all.
	He just wants to further his viewpoint and that's it.
	That's the whole thing.
	He wants to find a way that he's still right.
	Mm-hmm.
	Exactly.
	That's not nuance, everybody.
	Just saying.
	No, it is not.
	So from here, Russell has a bit of a bramble for a good five minutes, and there's a specific section of it I wanted to highlight.
	But of course there are the challenges that rise up from mass migration.
	It seems that, in a sense, rhetorically everyone is agreed on that.
	Even the centralist parties, like, you know, Kamala Harris's Democrats or Keir Starmer's Labour Party, won't try to have a sort of a face down on the subject of migration.
	They know that it's a vote losing position.
	The other challenge, though, is the kind of top-down transposing of culture that comes with globalism, corporatized globalism.
	Because one of the things I felt, Dave, when I was thinking about, you know, assimilation, I was saying, well, of course you would say, you know, legal and managed migration should be part of, there's no problem, As long as there's assimilation.
	Then I thought, what is this culture now in a country like mine, or perhaps yours, that you are inviting various refugees or migrants, legal or otherwise, to assimilate into?
	Because Since the culture has been co-opted by a kind of global ideology, one wonders if there's anything there to preserve.
	Everything being vilified, the tag racist itself becoming almost a synonym for working class culture.
	At one end, of course, you could say people that set fire to a building that's got asylum seekers in it.
	That is a violent act of terror.
	But at the other end, concerns about migration, as you have pointed out, it seems to be a reasonable position.
	On the one hand, violent acts of terror.
	On the other hand, they do seem to have a good point, huh?
	Oh dear.
	For anyone who missed it, among the race riots last week, a bunch of the fucking Nazis set fire to a hotel containing refugees.
	No refugees were physically harmed, but ten cops were injured with one knocked unconscious, and many of the refugees are suffering some pretty extreme PTSD, understandably.
	Yeah, they're being hunted.
	Yes, but hey, it's fine, because all those people have reasonable positions.
	Oh dear.
	There were a series of things to take issue with in that little chunk.
	The first thing that I'll tackle is that racism is synonymous with working class, and while it is typically the white working class being riled up into race riots thanks to people like Tommy Robinson, it is also Predominantly the working class who came out to counter-protest en masse, far outnumbering the Nazis.
	So, you know, it's not accurate, but Russell bringing this up is very much him trying to claim that he is on the side of the working class by also being against migration.
	It's very much like, well, I'm with the working class, you know, we're on their side because we're the populists, we're against the system, like them.
	He also took issue with globalism infringing upon culture there, which we will get to in just a moment, but But I do want to highlight Russell claiming that Keir Starmer and Kamala Harris won't have a face down on the issue of migration, meaning they won't support greater freedom of movement or more open borders or whatever because they know they'll lose votes if they do.
	And this is completely untrue.
	The reason neither of them will do that is because neither of them want to.
	Um, that's, that's just, that's where we're at.
	They, they are, they are liberals, um, not leftists, and I know these two kind of words can get a bit lost in the source at times, but fundamentally on the sliding scale of it, liberals are closer to the center than leftists, and if we make that sliding scale into one of how much socialism should we have, leftists will be like, all the fucking socialism, please, while liberals will be like, yeah, a bit of socialism sprinkled into my capitalism will be just fine.
	Um, The reason that distinction is important is because if we had actual full-throttled socialism, the very concept of borders wouldn't matter anywhere near as much.
	You know, the things that people are worried about, like doctor's appointments in this country, jobs, housing, infrastructure, education, welfare, if these things were fully and properly funded to the fucking max, people wouldn't be so concerned about migrants coming in because everybody would have a serious social safety net.
	But neither Keir Starmer nor Kamala Harris want to properly fund these things like that, and so they are also very much fans of these severe migration restrictions.
	And as ever, it's not that they can't afford to fund these things, they definitely can, it's that they don't want to.
	And, like, in this country, if I go back ten years, the things that anti-migrants were complaining about were the numbers of mosques and brown people about the place, right?
	Now, however, they're complaining about the state of the roads, that they can't get a doctor's appointment, that there's no social housing available, that they can't find work, and the people they're being told to blame are the migrants and the refugees rather than the government that caused all of the fucking problems.
	Like, the issue is not brown people being here, it's the absolute gutting of the social safety net and infrastructure and the liberal politicians refusing to actually restore funding to those things that have been gutted.
	Oh dear, sorry.
	Yeah, it's almost like, well, it's almost like rich people are more likely to be fucking racist.
	And they have the power, because they have the money.
	That's an interesting thought.
	I mean, genuinely, as far as... I mean, I don't think that any of this false flag nonsense... I think it's nonsense.
	There was organization behind the protests to some degree, and the race riots to some degree, which was evidenced and tracked and actually researched by the cops, and also kind of They acted on that information in the UK, which is crazy.
	What are you guys doing?
	Any kind of effective sort of enforcement of laws?
	Oh my god, that's nuts.
	I am surprised when I see it as well, to be fair.
	It was wild.
	But yeah, that like, I mean, okay.
	All right, guy.
	I just, yeah, what?
	It's so hard for me to engage with this because every single thing they're saying is totally wrong and wacky.
	I don't have anything to add.
	that like they're just being like they're they're they're moving the goalposts like
	oh no nuance nuance nuance I'm not racist like maybe you're just fucking racist
	Maybe we're all a little racist or a lot racist and it's not, like, and it's not going to fucking kill ya.
	Just like, it's not going to kill you to be wrong.
	And it's not going to kill you to like, realize like, maybe I'm a little racist.
	Maybe I should check out this Libby app that Laura keeps talking about so much.
	There's probably some books on there.
	Just fucking grow up.
	These children, these adult man children, just like, In this echo chamber to tell these two rich whites to tell each other how right each other is in the most inane and boring way.
	They're being cavalier with my time and energy.
	Which I don't have a lot to spare, so I'm pissed.
	I'm pissed at these fucking dudes.
	Get over it.
	Because they're rich.
	So they're probably racist.
	And they probably have a lot of negative views that are reinforced by their social status.
	Let's not fucking talk about the working class.
	How about that?
	But they can't.
	They can't.
	Bad branding.
	It's not lucrative for them.
	Yeah, the rich whites.
	But who will think of the rich whites?
	They do!
	Only!
	All the time!
	Woe is them.
	Now, Russell has some complaints about culture being destroyed.
	The fears that people have long had is that their cultures are being destroyed, not only by migration, although that seems to be a visible component, but also by the homogenization that happens through bureaucracy and corporatization.
	Every high street or every main street looking the same.
	And a sense that culture isn't bubbling up through the soil.
	We are no longer the people of the land, the spirits, protectors and inhabitants of our nations.
	We are just being kind of stewarded by corporate and global interests.
	We have no stakes in our cultures.
	We are consumers.
	Offered anodyne solutions to complex spiritual problems.
	And I wonder Dave, you know, we touched on bureaucracy earlier when we're talking about the reflexive and hypocritical power of a bureaucrat like Thierry Breton implementing measures that are opposed to his own ideals and his own legislation.
	Where else is this top-down homogenizing force evident?
	And isn't that perhaps the greater problem, even compared to a challenge that most people now accept, like migration?
	Okay, so at the top there, and I do want to make note, he did just say that migrants are visibly destroying the culture.
	He did say that right at the top and then just slid past it.
	Just want to make note of that.
	As to his broader point, we've discussed this a number of times before, but the thing he's actually complaining about is capitalism.
	That globalist corporatization, that top-down homogenizing force, is in fact just capitalism running fucking rampant until there are about five companies left in the world.
	And the irony here is that Russell is talking to a walking symbol of capitalism.
	Like, Dave Martin is a financial analyst who has worked with governments around the world, supposedly.
	According to him, like 160 of them.
	Mongolia!
	Mongolia.
	As well as working with the World Bank, and he has ties to Davos as well.
	Like, Dave Martin is as big a globalist capitalist as anyone could reasonably be without literally becoming Klaus Schwab.
	We're watching two rich white globalists have a little chat about how they aren't.
	I mean, if this is how Russell wants to come out with his new eels and treacle diet, because if you don't want any outside influence or immigration to benefit your life, well then you let me know what you want to ingest from where you're from and who your culture is all about.
	Truly.
	Get a grip.
	I swear to God, I wish they would, like, lightning should strike them if they try to enter a Mexican restaurant.
	This is so nuts to me.
	And I get that, like, that's, I'm oversimplifying to make that point.
	Because, like, if you take their These thoughts, their logical conclusion, it is so absurd.
	Like, that's the nuance that needs to be in this conversation.
	Not moving goalposts so you feel better about yourself.
	That's not helping anybody.
	That's motivated reasoning.
	That's not someone being stupid.
	That's someone finding evidence to support their point.
	Their motivated reasoning.
	That's all I'm seeing.
	And it's so infantile.
	Yes, yes it is!
	Now, like, you and I can be pretty confident that the thing Russell was talking about is capitalism, but Dave Martin, as he is a capitalist, has something of a different perspective.
	But here's the challenge.
	The challenge is, to your point, when Kim and I travelled through Europe over the last two weeks, Russell, I lamented the fact that whether I was in Greece or whether I was in Italy or whether I was in the UK, wherever I was, I walked past exactly the same shops, and exactly the same duty frees, and exactly the same airports, regardless, by the way, of the economic status of the town that I happen to be in.
	And I found it somewhat fascinating, and I asked Kim, as we walked through one of the airports, which, let's just say, was not at the socioeconomic peak of a European city.
	And I walked past the Chanel's, and I walked past the, you know, Mont Blanc, and I walked past all these shops.
	And I saw shopkeepers in the shops.
	I saw no one, by the way, not a single person in any of the shops.
	And I asked Kim the question as we walked past.
	I said, this has to be an aspirational brainwash.
	Which is a fact to tell the people who are local that one day if you succeed, you will actually walk around with a $5,000 handbag or you'll walk around with a $1,500 pen or you'll walk around with, you know, an Armani scarf or whatever.
	And my point is not to bash a particular corporate entity.
	My point is, You should!
	That we traveled to locations to take in the local community, the local fair, the local food, the local events, the local artisan work, the local things.
	And what you're bombarded with, no matter where you are, is this very interesting aspirational target that says, forget your culture.
	Forget your identity.
	Forget the who you are and the what you are and all of those things and actually assimilate into this kind of this montage of corporatocracy.
	Okay.
	Well I'm a professor too because I know more than him and it should be like Highlander and there can only be one and I'm taking it.
	This is stupid.
	Jesus.
	Now Lauren, you've bopped around Europe a bit and I've seen quite a bit of Europe more recently and I can't help but think this ding-dong just isn't leaving the airport.
	Um, you know, like, well, these places all have the same stuff, and I came here to experience culture, but the airports all look identical and have the same shops in them.
	That's what he said.
	He's complaining about the airports all looking the same.
	Um, because, like...
	Outside of the airports, the thing about Europe is like, yes, there'll be a McDonald's in most cities or whatever, but that will be an outlier.
	And most European cities are full to the brim with character and the culture from their country, from food to bars to retail to all of it.
	He's talking about America.
	Yeah, right?
	Yeah, that's what he's doing.
	He's talking about America.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And there are areas over here that have a similar problem, to be perfectly honest.
	And whose fault is that?
	Dave Martens.
	SG Well, that's the thing, it's like, okay, go ahead, say your piece. I've got my feelings.
	MS. I was just going to say, there's so much that is fundamentally stupid about what he just said,
	but the main thrust is that all airports looking the same and being filled with luxury brands,
	that is to serve as an aspirational brainwash to the local populace of whatever country it is,
	and to get them to assimilate with globalism, because, you know, they might get those luxury
	brands themselves someday. And I don't think Dave Martens realizes how little time regular
	people spend in airports, especially in Europe, where...
	Like, I might be at an airport maybe twice a year if I'm really lucky, you know?
	Well, but also, you're not stuck there for fucking... Okay, I had a very specific experience in Germany where we were losing our minds because we were terrified that we were going... Like, not terrified.
	Stressed.
	We were maximally stressed that we were missing this flight and we're gonna be late because in America you have to be there hours early and shit happens that is crazy all the time with our flights and that's before COVID like shit's even crazier now like yeah I spent we spend a lot of time in airports and we hate it but we have to do it whereas Every German just could not give less of a shit about our stress.
	And they're like, oh, silly Americans.
	One of them could have said, it's different here.
	You'll be fine.
	One.
	Ever.
	Yeah, probably.
	They're fucking socks and sandals asses.
	But, and then we get there like, oh, y'all don't put us through the same shit that we have to deal with in America to get on a plane.
	So we weren't late.
	We thought we were America late.
	We were Germany on time.
	So yeah, y'all probably don't hang out in airports nearly as much.
	I mean, it's just, it's like the fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening here.
	First of all, yeah, locals aren't buying Chanel, dummy.
	Nor are they spending any time in the airport looking at it, you know?
	Genuinely, there is a massive issue to me that I think is completely crazy that most resort destinations will have their own little Rodeo Drive, and there'll be a fucking, what is tantamount to a favela half a mile away, and you go to these very specific places for the Richies.
	I was never a Richie whenever I'm traveling around.
	So, I could not have, I'm not trying to shop at, like, maybe your wife just really wants to shop at Chanel, dog!
	Because they're not just in the, genuinely, they're not just in the airports.
	What they are doing is draining money from the local economy that has, that probably, in years past, Still not great, but at least they thrived on making their own stuff and selling it in the local community, in the local population.
	And I know because I hunt that shit down at thrift stores like a bloodhound.
	And so I'm very aware of what is available or what was available when you went on vacation somewhere.
	Not anymore.
	It's being replaced.
	Even like the Starbucks mugs that are from every single town.
	You're not buying the thing from the independent, you know, little tourist trap.
	You're buying The Chicago Starbucks mug or the Los Angeles Starbucks mug.
	Tourist money is being funneled to fucking Bob Chanel because they figured out how to do it and they knew where the money was and they could afford like, oh yeah, they can't afford some like Jamaican real estate?
	Get bent, dude!
	Of course!
	Just because you can't find the cool shit, and just because you're okay with and have supported the world that has stamped out local color, flavor, and culture, doesn't mean that it's not there just because you can't fucking find it or aren't willing to.
	But he knows who he's talking to!
	He's talking to other rich white people!
	And people that aspire to be rich and white and buy stuff in Chanel.
	I genuinely think that Chanel, like, they're there to exploit labor!
	That's what Chanel is there to do!
	Yeah!
	The reason that it's all luxury brands is because what he's talking about, like, is the duty-free section, right?
	So people can get expensive shit for slightly cheaper because it's not taxed.
	Right.
	Putting the cheap shit there would be pointless and make less money for the capitalists who own it, so that's why it's all fucking luxury brands.
	That's why it's all fucking boozed!
	That's the thing, it's like, yeah, within the airports, yeah, oh, fucking Chanel figured that out.
	Yep.
	Y'all are still cheap too, which is amazing to me.
	Y'all just don't want to pay taxes.
	You can't pay fucking sales tax.
	I remember the first time that I like went into a Duty Free store and then I was like, I am not saving that much.
	This is dumb.
	Like, it was just really like, I was like, why are people excited?
	Like, you gotta be spending a lot of money to be excited about Duty Free.
	Well, it depends.
	It depends what country you're in, because obviously over here, for instance, tobacco is really fucking taxed.
	It is very, very heavily taxed.
	So if you can get that and duty free, then you save a bundle.
	And alcohol is taxed a fair bit over here as well.
	You wouldn't think it, given how much we drink, but you can still make some good savings.
	But that's the thing.
	If you're buying a keychain, On your way to connecting flight?
	Yeah, you don't give a shit about duty free.
	But if you're trying to stock up your alcohol cabinet on your private jet, yeah, you'll probably save a bunch of money.
	Come on.
	It's just, I have a very, like I have, I am, because I love, I love like road trip culture.
	I love the spontaneous creativity that happens around tourist destinations when there's a little bit of money sloshing around seasonally.
	Human creativity truly blossoms in the weirdest and most fantastic ways that gives us places like Branson and the Wisconsin Dells, like the dumbest, weirdest shit that's extremely fun and cool.
	I mean, and that is absolutely being stamped out, and I've watched it happen and it breaks my heart.
	This is something that I take really seriously and I care a lot about, because I just...
	The one place, again, that we went, Roswell, they're selling handmade bullshit.
	They're selling magnets that are rocks painted like alien heads, and let me tell you, they're great.
	It's such a good thing, and that's essentially what his complaint is, but he's coming from the totally wrong angle about it, and it sucks.
	Mhmm, yeah.
	100%.
	100%.
	Oh, and just to circle back to airport experiences, I once arrived late for a flight from Liverpool, and shit you not, from the front door to the plane I was there in half an hour.
	And I didn't miss my flight.
	Just because, yeah.
	Just a whole different experience.
	Well, that's been a fun show.
	I've gotta go.
	Between this and, you know, most people not having to do taxes over here, that's it.
	That's it.
	Game over.
	See why I don't have so much time?
	Yeah, right?
	You spend it all in airports or doing taxes!
	It's expensive and time-consuming to be an American and we've been convinced that it's our fault.
	Sounds terrible.
	Oh, boy.
	Ah, dear.
	Somewhat inexplicably from here, Dave pivots to discussing the Westphalian Treaty.
	In my point that I've made going back to the early 2000s, The central argument is the Westphalian Agreement, which says we're going to take maps and we're going to draw lines on maps.
	The Westphalian Agreement is over.
	It has been over since the Second World War.
	It definitely ended in 1944 at Bretton Woods.
	But the Westphalian Agreement that said that we are defined by borders and nation-states was supplanted by a corporatocracy that said we are actually dictated and ultimately managed By the consumer corporate interests that dictate what not our freedom of choice is, but our freedom of selection.
	And here's the challenge.
	We have, for the last 70 years, blurred the line between those two things.
	We have actually failed to understand that we are offered a series of selections from which to choose.
	Thoughts, behaviors, products, markets, etc.
	Curated for us, and then we are told to choose.
	But Russell, what we don't do is consider the fact that we're not choosing, we're selecting from curated options.
	And selecting from curated option is not freedom of choice.
	That's infecting our democracy institutions, that's infecting our consumer behavior, it's infecting our social discourse, it's infecting everything because we're told what the topic of conversation should be and then we are told we have freedom to have conversation within the four walls of the approved selected narrative rather than inquiring outside of that narrative.
	And centrally, to your point, we're left in a position Where our capacity to think with a full unrestricted thought framework is unfortunately impounded by a series of curated options and boundaries
	To which we are not even fully conscious.
	I love that.
	I love that definition.
	I'd like a little bit more information on the Bretton Woods, because I love the breakdown of the Westphalian Treaty and the way that these ideas have become negated and no longer relevant, and perhaps, in a sense, they were always obfuscating more profound truths.
	Yeah.
	Russell wants more information on Bretton Wood and the Westphalian Treaty because he has no clue which side of it he should be on.
	Dave Martin is saying, hey, the Westphalian Treaty has fallen and we need it back, while Russell here is like, hey, maybe that was always obfuscating more profound truths in the vaguest sentiment of all time.
	The Westphalian Treaty, as we discussed in the Steve Bannon episode, is the idea of, you know, absolute sovereignty of a country, even in the case of things like humanitarian crises or whatever, you know, so there is to be no intervention in another country's business no matter fucking what, right?
	That's the That's the idea they're shooting for.
	And Dave Martin is lamenting the slow dissolution of the Westphalian Treaty here, whining about Bretton Woods in 1944, which was a meeting to agree on a system of economic order and international cooperation that would help countries recover from the devastation of the Second World War and foster long-term global growth.
	And at its conclusion, the attendees produced the Articles of Agreement for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund.
	And this led to the creation of the World Bank, as well as broader global financial cooperation.
	And this came in tandem with the creation of NATO, the UN, the WHO, and a lot of systems that were fostering cooperation with the aim of not only growth, but avoiding a third world war in the future.
	It went great.
	Yeah, it's going well.
	Being pro-Westphalian treaty amounts to wanting aggressive isolationism and authoritarianism, which is why the Russian and Chinese governments are big fans.
	But Dave Martin and Steve Bannon specifically wanted to prop up Donald Trump in the US.
	That's the line they're going down.
	Also, as to Dave's wider point, he said selecting from curated options is not freedom of choice, and we're told what the topic of conversation should be and we're not allowed to inquire outside of that narrative.
	He's merely mouthing his way around it, but what he's actually complaining about is wokeness and not being allowed to say bigoted shit anymore, like, ah, we're put in this box where we can only have these conversations, it's just...
	Dammit, I want to be able to say the N-word.
	It's exactly that same line of thinking, just phrased a little bit more palatably, you know?
	Yeah, well, let me tell you, anti-capitalist analysis of any kind can explain the illusion of choice.
	Do you really want to talk about that?
	Because he was going down the route of like, oh, so you're like a big antitrust guy.
	Oh, you trying to break up monopolies?
	Uh, no, that's not what you... Okay.
	All right.
	Second half.
	Yeah.
	There's that nuance again.
	Not really saying what he's saying.
	Yeah.
	That's, that's what's tough is like, this guy I think is very skilled at what he is doing, which is debate.
	Not debate in like a, it's debate in like winning an argument for the sake of winning the argument, right?
	Like that's debate in like the debate club, debate team sense.
	Picking a position and being able to fill the air until he wins.
	So he's saying things that are dumb because we know other stuff outside of what he's saying but if you just have to commit to the conversation that's happening in the moment.
	It's perfectly valid within the point he's trying to make.
	So he's like seeing dumb things, but he's not stupid.
	And then he's mad.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	He's very frustrating.
	Well, and I think that Russell knows when to check out.
	Like Russell is the, he's the mirror.
	He's the backboard.
	He's like, okay.
	So he's like, tell me more about the thing.
	Like, oh, you're citing specific things.
	And that makes me feel smart.
	And it makes my, Audience feels smart, so I'm not going to go figure out what Bretton Woods is or the Westphalia Agreement.
	I want you to tell me what I should think about it, and then we can make hay.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Russell is very much enjoying checking out because, you know, he does have a few kind of brambly questions, but other than that, there's not a single answer of Dave Martin's that ran under like seven or eight minutes.
	You know, he was, yeah, just Maybe his meds didn't get refilled either.
	Maybe.
	Maybe.
	Sorry, Ross.
	Oh dear.
	They're with you, buddy.
	Yeah.
	He had something close in his eyes and I was like, oh, I feel that.
	Oh no.
	Oh man.
	I don't know.
	If I was sat in front of Dave Martin, I think I'd be closing my eyes too.
	I haven't, so sure.
	Yeah.
	So next Russell asks another bramble of a question.
	Now that Olympic, uh, the fiasco and debacle around the Olympic opening ceremony, Dave, I thought it was interesting because when the Olympics have been politicized before, it's been as a result of, uh, uh, identifier...
	Political movements that are either international, i.e.
	the Soviets not participating because of the Cold War, or opposition within a nation because of civil rights, like the black athletes, black power salutes during the civil rights movement.
	And I wonder what it means when a kind of an ideology that's not connected to a particular nation It appears to have hijacked a significant global ceremony.
	Some of the points I'd like you to touch upon is, what does it mean for a culture when there
	is now no longer even such a thing as games or entertainment or neutral spaces of recreation
	that everything is heavily politicized?
	Was it ever thus, Dave?
	And also I wonder if you have any thoughts on the occultist idea that in order to enact
	certain ideals or agenda there need to be overt sigils and symbols due to kind of arcane
	principles, i.e.
	that you have to, if you are part of some occultist mass movement, declare your attentions publicly in order that they are legitimized, which is an odd word to use when I'm talking about something that is somewhat ephemeral and certainly semi-sacred, or at least sacrilegious in this case, but I'm not talking about, you know, material principles.
	Russell is getting into some Alex Jones shit here.
	He's asking about the metaphysical idea of whether, you know, the Satanists or whatever have to tell the good guys their plans before doing them.
	Um, as, you know, that sort of weird rule of the universe.
	Um, which is what Alex bases his whole, you know, movies are predictive programming thing on, right?
	That's... and so... Yeah!
	So Russell's like...
	Hey Dave, what do you think about that?
	That sounds interesting.
	Well he's asking the right person because this guy was on fucking Project Camelot.
	Right?
	Yeah.
	And false flags.
	This is a kindred spirit to Alex Jones in a nicer fucking package.
	More expensive, I should say.
	This is honestly not where I thought this was going to go, but here we are.
	Dave's answer to this question came to a full uninterrupted 12 minutes, so I had to cut it up a little bit.
	Anyway, here's his perspective on the Jonesian metaphysical proposition.
	I do genuinely have familiarity with individuals who actually believe in an occult requirement That says, for the forces of darkness to execute their plan, it is a necessity for them to alert the forces of light.
	And this is very important, because it is up to the forces of light to actually meet on the battlefield those conflicts.
	And if they don't, the true evil is to sit and do nothing when you were told something was going to be done.
	So there is this interesting Kind of honor among battling thieves on a field of battle, which says, I'm going to do a bad thing, but I'm going to alert you to it so that you can actually prepare and countermeasure the thing.
	So we meet in a free and fair conflict.
	On the battlefield of the thought or the ideal or whatever else.
	And there is a very ancient principle that goes back to the Assyrians that actually reinforces the importance of this.
	So there is an occult practice that says before darkness can implement its plan, it has to alert the light so that the light can either meet it and engage it and potentially battle and suppress it, or
	the light can be apathetic and do nothing, in which case the evil is not the evil intent of the actor,
	it is the failure of the light to respond.
	Okay, so Dave Martin is all in on this proposition to start.
	He's definitely on board, and it's definitely Alex Jones and Cary Cassidy.
	He's talking about the individuals he knows.
	I'm like, I know exactly who you're talking about, buddy.
	Because there are only a couple of people who talk about this kind of stuff.
	But I do find that ending there a little bit alarming.
	Like, if darkness and light doesn't do anything, like, if darkness acts and the light doesn't do anything, then it's the fault of the light, right?
	It's the light that is the evil, right?
	This is the metaphysical rendition of victim blaming, essentially.
	This is, well, sure someone assaulted you, but did you fight back?
	You know, argument.
	You know, which is...
	Fucked up on its face.
	From an activist standpoint, I do understand the perspective of, you know, if you sit idly by while bad things are happening, then you are in some way complicit.
	But this is taking it A step further and saying, oh, no, no, this goes to making the things your fault, and you are the evil in this scenario.
	Whoa.
	Okay.
	Well, so what he's doing here, he's doing a Blavatsky, right?
	He's doing a Theosophy.
	He's taking a very digestible, mono...
	You know, monotheistic idea and obfuscating it.
	He's saying Assyrian because he knows that no one that is listening to him has even a vague notion of the Assyrian religious practices, which I'm sorry, are all the Assyrians doing the same religion?
	Do we know about Assyria or is it just old brown people?
	And you are racist, and you can just say Assyrian, and you can say Moloch, and you can think that you know some shit when you fucking don't, dawg.
	What you're talking about is the duality of light and dark, good and evil, which is a monotheistic idea that was not particularly Assyrian, correct me if I'm, it was Zoroastrianist, but it was not particularly Assyrian, friend.
	I'm sorry, which chimera, What are you talking about?
	Oh, it's just old brown people so you can say whatever the fuck you want and people know better than Egyptian anymore?
	Because you used to be able to say Egyptian, and now people know more about Egypt, so you've got to say Assyrian.
	Yeah, you've got to obfuscate it with Aramaic, you know, you've got to really... Exactly.
	Not a language that's on the Rosetta Stone, a different language.
	Different pictograms, not hieroglyphics, nope.
	We can translate those.
	Yeah, no, dog, you're just being a fucking racist.
	You're just orientalizing a very basic monotheistic idea.
	Like an Abrahamic religion monotheistic idea.
	Now, not to say that these ideas of like, of dark and light and good and evil battling over human choices or whatever, not to say there wasn't versions of that in any number of religions, but like, I'm sorry, as soon as he said Assyrian, I was like, oh, I'm out.
	You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
	As a person that got a little obsessive about like, Assyrian chimeric gods for a hotman?
	Kind of big fan.
	Yeah, no.
	Get out of here.
	Get out of here, bald.
	Go away.
	I don't need this.
	You're just being racist.
	You're just playing Theosophy make-em-ups.
	Pretty much.
	Next, he pivots this into something at least slightly more grounded in reality, or at least enough reality to be able to engage with it in an argument anyway.
	And that's a very important esoteric twist.
	Because the evil becomes, did we do nothing to actually countermeasure the darkness that was coming?
	And so that's one category of response.
	I think there's a second category of response.
	And this is the world that I put Anthony Fauci in.
	And now I'm going out on my uncharacteristic limb, I'm going to actually state my opinion.
	I don't state my opinion very often, but I will in this particular example.
	I think Anthony Fauci was a sociopath.
	I'm not saying he was.
	I think he is.
	And I'll tell you why.
	I think like a mass murderer who leaves totems and talismans at the bodies or leaves a symbol or leaves a sigil or leaves, you know, an artifact that is taunting the law enforcement and taunting the police and taunting the public and saying, haha, I'm too smart for you to catch.
	Right.
	That sociopathic instinct that says I'm going to Egoically show you that I'm that dark and dastardly, that I know I'm too dark and dastardly for you to even think about how evil I am, so I know you're not going to find me.
	The same thing that mass murdering psychopaths do, I think Anthony Fauci did with the pandemic.
	I think he was delighted, delighted to know that he could stand next to the President of the United States Take all the power from the President and go, I'm going to declare what has has to happen.
	And by the way, everybody's gonna nod their head because I've created an emergency.
	I've created a bioweapon in 2005 funded by DARPA.
	I did all this stuff.
	And now I'm going to get away with it.
	And nobody's going to catch me because I am that sociopathically disconnected from reality.
	Okay, this is some classic COVID shit right here.
	So, to be fully clear, Dave Martin believes not only was COVID-19 a bioweapon developed by Fauci and funded by DARPA, which was patented back in 2005 and therefore, he also believes that the COVID vaccine itself is a bioweapon designed to kill people.
	What he said specifically was, quote, This is not a vaccine.
	This is an mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell.
	It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator.
	You are getting injected with a chemical substance to induce illness, not to induce an immunotransmissive response.
	In other words, nothing about this is going to stop you from transmitting anything.
	This is about getting you sick and having your own cells be the thing that gets you sick.
	Yeah, none of this is true.
	The vaccines do what they're supposed to.
	Covid isn't a man-made bioweapon engineered by Anthony Fauci.
	And there is no evidence to substantiate the claims that Dave Martin likes to make up.
	Up to and including calling Anthony Fauci an evil sociopath.
	I don't see much clear evidence for that either.
	Good lord.
	Alright, yeah, alright.
	True crime- true crimeys out there?
	My murderinos?
	We know that- first of all, mass murderer and serial killer, let's be specific about our- our words!
	Cause we're not being specific about our words.
	The notion of like leaving talismans and having all this esoteric kind of like attribution, that's satanic panic shit, bud.
	Like you just, that's, that's you.
	You've watched too many Unsolved Mysteries, baby.
	No, no.
	Most People that want to murder a bunch do it.
	And there's no breadcrumbs or paper trail or whatever.
	You're thinking of a story.
	You're thinking of a novel.
	You're not thinking of the reality of what people actually do in the world, which is ugly but totally different than movies!
	Movies are real!
	Yeah, yeah.
	Seven is a movie!
	Did the Zodiac Killer leave anything?
	It was just letters later, wasn't it?
	That was a difference.
	We don't even know!
	Okay.
	We don't even know.
	We have no idea.
	That could have been a fun game with journalists and a dude that shot people sometimes.
	Yeah, Zodiac.
	The thing is, there's a lot of stuff that's attributed to one person.
	I mean, okay.
	That's the thing.
	He's thinking of the Zodiac guy.
	Yeah, yeah, maybe, maybe, yeah, yeah.
	They, like, there's all this, and, and, you know, you get this, I think, I think that they're, they're certainly moving away from this.
	There's always been kind of, like, law enforcement that's like, yeah, that's bullshit.
	But, like, there are all these, like, little stories around kind of the motivations of, like, they attribute this kind of, like, motivational mastermind, like, and they also want Serial killers to be satanic.
	So they think that, you know, a grimoire from the 1600s is going to dictate how Gary Ridgway acts.
	It's not!
	It's a man who wants to kill women and buries them in places where he knows he can get away with it.
	It's not that much more specific.
	Like, guess what dictates where they bury shit?
	Where they go vacation, where they go hunt, and where they live and where they work.
	and they find places where they can hide bodies around those places. It's not the moon. It's not
	a it's not a zodiac calendar. It ain't none of that. It's...
	Now there was a cipher that was very interesting with zodiac but that could have just been
	another fucking journalist who knows but That's the thing.
	We don't know.
	We don't know.
	And that's one apocryphal story that is told over and over that is genuinely, extremely compelling.
	But that's not... It's more make-em-ups.
	He's talking about movies.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, he is friends with the people who are into predictive programming shit, so it does track, you know?
	It does make sense.
	Yeah!
	He has no reason to not ascribe to all of the InfoWars Project Camelot nonsense!
	And speaking of movies, um, you know the movie The Prestige?
	You know that one?
	Yes, I do.
	About magicians and shit, right?
	Um, yeah.
	Dave Martin thinks that we're all having the prestige done to us.
	We have been conditioned to reflexively respond to these triggers, these dog whistles of be ashamed, be alert, be afraid, be concerned, and everything else.
	We have been hijacked with our Olympic Games.
	We've been hijacked with the do you stand for the National Anthem?
	Do you not stand for the National Anthem?
	We've been hijacked with all of these very simplistic, reflexive tropes.
	Where we're not taking a step back and saying, hold on a second, this is not a real issue.
	We're being distracted on one hand, while something nefarious is happening on the other hand.
	And this is the third classification that I would put us in, which is, I think these are magicians doing a prestige.
	It is, look here, while I'm doing something over here that I'm not showing you.
	This is the reason why I started this conversation with pointing out the European Union's own law.
	that Thierry Breton is breaking when he sends the letter to Elon Musk. I don't say he's
	bending the rule, Russell. I'm saying he's breaking a law by sending the letter. And
	if I were Elon Musk, I'm not, thankfully, but if I were Elon Musk, I would actually
	prosecute that issue as a civil violation of the European Union's own law, and I'd bring
	a case, a civil case, against Thierry Breton for the very act of sending the letter, because
	that is in violation of the European standard that was passed in 2014. But why would that
	not happen? It wouldn't happen because Elon Musk and all of his billions of dollars and
	all of his followers don't know to do what I did at the beginning of the show, which
	is actually see if the perpetrators already had a law that made their action illegal,
	because we're left in this inertia story that says what's happening next.
	And by the way, your prime minister is phenomenal at this right now.
	Just steamrolling ahead with, I'm going to buy fiat declare thing.
	And I know nobody's going to go back and look to see if the thing I just said was legal, was appropriate, was anything else, because we're in this inertia of madness.
	And as a result, nobody's going to bother to hit the brakes and say, I wonder if he even has the authority to do that.
	I wonder if he's breaking any laws when he says that.
	So many people do.
	So many people do all the time.
	Literally all the time.
	What he's complaining about is Keir Starmer saying that the same laws that apply in person also apply online.
	And it's something that Russell is saying, well, I mean, he's just saying that this has always been the case and I don't think it has been.
	And it has been, and Keir Starmer is completely correct.
	Like, again, he's a former prosecutor who knows the law very well.
	He's written some of them.
	When it comes to arresting people in the UK for hate speech and incitement to violence on social media, we do in fact have very clear laws against that specific thing.
	And so that, you know, it's the idea that, oh, well, we shouldn't be able to arrest people for the things they say.
	Well, actually, yes, we have laws and we should be allowed to enforce them.
	That's how that goes.
	The idea that Keir Starmer is doing anything illegal in this specific case is Laughable.
	Elon Musk is an idiot and should have made that no disconnect strategy thing into a lawsuit against the EU.
	Except, you know, he just didn't know to do it.
	None of his followers knew to do it, but I, Dave Martin, I knew to do it.
	Yeah, except any lawyer would most likely look at that and laugh you out of the room.
	I would love to see it.
	I would love to see that case.
	Can we publish this at one half speed?
	Jesus Christ.
	This is just a lot.
	I hope y'all are listening faster than we're talking.
	Good night.
	This is a lot.
	But also the prestige thing, like the prestige movie was like a problem of cloning.
	But the prestige, I think, as a concept for magic is just, it's It's sleight of hand.
	It's sleight of hand.
	That's what he's trying to get at.
	The jangling of the keys or whatever and doing something of it.
	That's sleight of hand.
	He did a little hand motion where he's waving his hand and then doing something off screen.
	Literally sleight of hand.
	I do kind of like the idea of changing it.
	The more dire multiplicity of it all, of the films.
	No, I do I do kind of like the concept of changing it to like, oh no, I'm being prestiged, you know, I kind of like that But that's like just a term you like that's and he's but also like he's using terms kind of however he wants pretty much Yeah, yeah, I'm not really holding him to that standard at this point because he's just using words Yeah, like lots laws are real things.
	Hmm And I think that there can be like a natural law or spiritual law and like you can use those concepts or like Alex says all the time, like common law.
	Like, no, no, no.
	They're like, there are laws.
	Magna Carta.
	Right.
	Like there are laws and then there are concepts that maybe you ascribe to, but aren't necessarily universal.
	Like that's...
	Two different things.
	But if you use those words interchangeably, what are we talking about?
	Define your terms.
	And then there are policies, which are a different thing, because the things he keeps talking about are not laws.
	They were never laws.
	And there's suggestions and recommendations.
	And those aren't laws!
	No, they're not.
	They're definitely, definitely not.
	Now Dave, he finally gets around to talking about the Olympics because Russell brought it up and he gets to talking specifically about the Australian breakdancer that the right wing and misogynists in general have been so upset about over the last week.
	We have to, you know, yes the opening question which I think is very fascinating is what do we have to do and the answer is know that every single thing that's being produced and presented to us is a reflex triggering mechanism.
	And rather than responding to a reflex, the simple step is to take a step back and breathe just for a few seconds and say, okay, the reflex got my attention, but what's really at play?
	Because if you ask the question, which is the reason why the human body was wired to have reflexes, which is actually to say a thing happened, whatever the thing is, I kicked my foot into a board that had a nail on it, I don't think about the moral, you know, philosophy of nails, and I don't think about the metaphysical reality of wood and the fact it was turned into a board.
	At that moment in time, what I do is I actually recoil my foot so I don't actually push the nail into my foot.
	It's a very simple thing.
	Reflexes were made for a purpose.
	But when we are actually socially triggering reflexes, With intent, so that we actually distract populations.
	Then what we're doing is we're falling for a series of a cascade of social engineering manipulations, which has been rampant across the last several decades.
	And the fact is, whether it is the Olympic ceremony, whether it is, you know, something as ridiculous as the Australian breakdancer, who scored perfect zeros in absolutely every one of her performances, Who had the audacity of saying that while other athletes spend their entire lives getting ready for the Olympics, she prepared all of 37 minutes so that she could show the misogyny of the breakdance community in Sydney.
	I'm not sure that's what the Olympics were ever set up for.
	I'd like to dial back to Athens and I know 0.0 and go, hey guys, when you're naked wrestling, could we pause for a minute?
	Is this about?
	Misogynistic influence in the breakdancing community in Sydney, which last time I checked is really a hot bread of breakdancing more generally.
	The fact is that that particular athlete has actually become a social critique of the underlying decay of our willingness to consciously engage the question.
	Is there any merit to debating the misogyny Of breakdancing in Sydney.
	Yeah, I would say there probably is.
	What's fascinating about this whole thing is that Dave Martin has basically none of his facts straight and is essentially just regurgitating memes.
	So like, there is no point scoring system in judging breakdancing for instance, so she didn't get perfect zeros in all of her performances or whatever and she of course trained for far more than 37 minutes but there was a meme out there joking that she trained for 37 minutes and so that's what he's It'd be less embarrassing if that was true.
	It would!
	So I'm going to read from a BBC article about this whole debacle in case there's anyone who missed it, because it is kind of interesting as well.
	So Gunn, a 36-year-old university lecturer, lost all three of her Olympic battles in viral fashion.
	Her green tracksuit and unorthodox routine, which included the sprinkler and kangaroo inspired hopping, generated waves of memes and abuse.
	Gunn was always a dancer, albeit in jazz, tap and ballroom first,
	but it was her husband and coach Samuel Free that introduced her to the world of breaking
	when she was 20.
	She says it took years to find her place in the male dominated scene.
	"'There were times that I would go into the bathroom crying "'because I was so embarrassed at how terrible I was at
	this,' "'she told the Guardian Australia ahead of the Olympics.'"
	Yeah, stick with that.
	Eventually though, Gunn became the face of breaking in Australia,
	a top ranked B-girl and an academic with a PhD in the cultural politics of the sport.
	And at an Olympics qualifying event in Sydney last October, where 15 women from across Oceania competed, Rae Gunn emerged triumphant and booked her ticket to Paris.
	And from the moment the final B-Girl battle at the Olympics wrapped up, it was clear that breaking had indeed captured global attention, or more specifically, Ray Gunn had.
	Rumors and criticism of her performance spread like wildfire, particularly online.
	Gunn received a torrent of violent messages, and an anonymous petition demanding she apologize was signed by 50,000 people.
	She was accused without evidence of manipulating her way onto the world's biggest stage at the expense of other talent in the Australian hip-hop scene.
	Some people shared a conspiracy that she had created the governing body which ran the Oceania Qualifiers, and a lie that her husband, who is also a prominent breaker and a qualified judge, was on the panel that selected her.
	Taking to Instagram to rubbish all the crackpot theories, Tehiritango Wepeha, a Kiwi judge, apologies for the pronunciation, on the Oceania qualifying panel said that Raygun won fair and square.
	in the qualifiers.
	All Us judges talked about how she knew she was going to get smashed,
	absolutely smashed, at the Olympics. She knew it was going to be rough, so it's actually courageous of her. Gun
	herself had previously said...
	Gun herself had previously said she was never going to be able to beat her powerful
	competitors, and so she had wanted to move differently to be artistic and creative.
	But the impact of the controversy on local Australian beagles has also been devastating according to one of the beagles,
	Tiny Locks.
	books.
	So, like some others that the BBC spoke to, she didn't want her full name published because of the scale of the abuse that is going on currently.
	Beagle's videos are being trolled, their DMs inundated with insults and violent threats, young dancers are being harassed at school, and now many feel unsafe practicing in public.
	It's a whole fucking serious thing.
	So this is all going down and Dave Martin here is saying that actually Ray Gunn did badly intentionally, that's what he's claiming, at the Olympics to draw attention to misogyny within the breakdancing community in Sydney.
	All of which is absolute bullshit.
	It's completely, he's just making it up.
	Completely making it up.
	Okay, okay, okay.
	I'm gonna push back at this little article real quick.
	She sucks shit.
	Like, she sucks shit at the Olympics.
	I have yet to see a video of her not sucking shit.
	And her husband also not sucking shit.
	And granted, I haven't gone on a deep dive of all of their body of work.
	They're not good.
	Sometimes academics can get very far on their academic credentials and they aren't actually very good at the thing!
	The kind of response from other b-girls and breakdancers in general within that community was that, like, we've seen her do much better than this.
	Like, what happened?
	That was a lot of the response, as well as being disappointed in general.
	Okay, well, I've seen people that like I mean as far as like other like just videos of other people she's beaten.
	Listen, I also don't know the criteria of the judges.
	And I and I understand.
	Specifically, drag queens have taught me a lot about the criteria of what seems to be a subjective art form.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	In the form of beauty pageants.
	So I get it.
	Can be tricky.
	The other people that she won against did a better job than her.
	It's weird.
	It's weird that she got there, and I don't know.
	But yeah, also abuse of Female b-girls in general is fucked up.
	Abuse at all is fucked up.
	But like, she sucked.
	And that's just, listen, that's just a reality.
	She did a bad job.
	That's another thing is like, listen, all this other like flowery, like she just did a bad job.
	Sometimes people just, she's again, not dead.
	Definitely don't wish ill upon her.
	She's embarrassed enough.
	I would hope that she'd take the note instead of like, double down.
	Just maybe don't do it.
	You're not good at it.
	Like, this is, it's a lot.
	Genuinely the whole, and also listen, it's not coming back for the next Olympics.
	The nail's been in the coffin.
	That was already pre-decided anyway, yeah.
	That was decided before.
	But yeah, I wouldn't say she's doubled down particularly.
	I'm saying I hope she doesn't.
	ALICE No, no, no, she hasn't.
	Like, she said from the outset, y'know, this is gonna be a challenge, y'know, and I knew it was gonna be a struggle, but yeah, obviously, what she's been on the receiving end of, y'know, and- ZAC Yeah, it's fucked up!
	ALICE Yeah, yeah, cos like, I mean, It is entertaining.
	We've seen the memes.
	Some of them are pretty funny.
	But yeah, with the actual abuse, I mean, yeah, her family's been harassed and all kinds of shit's been going down.
	It's absolutely insane.
	And yeah, Dave Martin is trying to claim that she's done this all Deliberately to discuss misogyny, which he's literally just making that up.
	Yeah, because the argument, if you really want that to be the case, as a person who did have to carve through a lot of hard work and to carve out a place in a Wildly male-dominated industry.
	What you do is you show up and you make them all eat fucking crow.
	You do the best possible job that you can so that ain't nobody can say nothing to you.
	And she did not do that.
	I don't think she was capable, physically or mentally, of doing that.
	So she should not have... It's not that it wasn't hard.
	She shouldn't have done it.
	She shouldn't have done it.
	Because...
	I'm sorry.
	Like, that's just what was gonna happen.
	But his argument is trash, because he's never had to try, like, I mean, he's never had to do it himself.
	No.
	He just gets to talk and people pay him.
	So, like, he doesn't understand that what you do is you come ten times fucking harder, you work ten times harder, you close the fucking shop down every night working your ass off, and then maybe you'll get the same respect.
	Maybe.
	That's, to have a conversation about how stupid it is to be misogynistic is to come and do a good job.
	Yeah.
	Which is a conversation that has happened on many other Olympic sports.
	Yeah.
	Not this one.
	Yeah.
	That's all, that's absurd.
	That's absurd.
	Yes, indeed it is.
	And in the final clip we have of Dave, he puts the capstone on his tirade about Ray Gunn.
	I'm not suggesting that, you know, if you actually, you know, had some untoward comment made by a breakdancer in Sydney, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't necessarily raise an issue.
	I'm simply saying that if our world is to be defined by an alleged gender offense in a breakdancing community in Sydney, for which this woman got her PhD thesis in the breakdancing autoethnography Which is her term, autoethnography of the breakdancing community among B boys and B girls.
	I'm not sure that that's a good indication that we're actually engaging our higher order intellects and our higher order social narratives around something that has salutary benefit.
	I think we need to take a step back and say, that's a dog whistle, that's a trigger, that's a, are you going to fall for that conversation while we watch The European Union violated its free speech laws.
	What's more important?
	And the fact is, we as a society, globally, are failing time and time again.
	Every time we are told to talk about a ridiculous topic, we fall for the ridiculous topic without asking the question.
	This is a distraction for a purpose.
	That purpose is never examined.
	We do not take the time and say, who propped up this thing?
	Why did it get propped up?
	Why is this woman a professor of breakdance at Macquarie University?
	And what the heck does that even mean?
	I don't even know what it means to be a professor of breakdance at Macquarie University.
	But I do know that if you have a department of breakdance at a university, something is grossly off In the role of this idea of what the pursuit of free inquiry and thought is about.
	And we don't have that conversation.
	We have the conversation about the kangaroo hop, you know, mashed up with the witchy grub convulsion, which apparently was the inspiration for the breakdance routine.
	My point is simple.
	We are falling for the reflex all the time without doing the conscious consideration of saying, We are being distracted with intent.
	He is just making this shit up with the claim that Raygun is distracting everyone with the gender conversation intentionally.
	And the only way that gender has been brought into this equation is the litany of misogyny and abuse being thrown at her, her family, and Beagles more broadly.
	And Dave Martin here is doing his best to obfuscate that, saying, actually, it was Raygun who caused it all and did the whole thing intentionally.
	And oh, look, we're back to blaming the victim again, aren't we?
	Ha!
	That came back around quicker than I thought.
	Yeah.
	And of course, no one should ever study the arts, by the way.
	He seems to take a fucking issue with that.
	Well, I get what he's talking about, necessarily.
	I mean, it's very OK Boomer, right?
	Like, yeah, cool.
	You don't look at anything, so no one should study the arts.
	Fucking tight.
	Good for you.
	Cool.
	Cool.
	Yeah.
	If you never consume any arts whatsoever, then fine.
	Otherwise, fuck off.
	You know, that's my position.
	Maybe some PhDs Are a little less wiggity-woo than others.
	And maybe her PhD is worth about as much as yours there, dog.
	Like, I just, I would not throw stones while living in a glass PhD if it were me, is how I would feel about it.
	So specifically, Raygun is a lecturer in the Department of Media Communications, Creative Arts, Language, and Literature at Macquarie University Faculty of Arts, and her PhD was entitled, Deterritorializing Gender in Sydney's Breakdancing Scene, A B-Girl's Experience of B-Boying.
	So it's examining Gender influence within that scene, it seems to me.
	And, oh, related.
	She didn't invent the word autoethnography.
	I don't know why.
	There's no way.
	Yeah, no.
	Autoethnography is a very well-established form of ethnographic research in which a researcher connects personal experiences to wider cultural, political and social meanings and understandings.
	It is considered a form of qualitative Being an ethnographer, being a cultural anthropologist, being a historian, being an expert has nothing to do with physically being able to do the thing at the Olympics.
	Be an expert, be a historian, preserve the history that may get lost without it.
	That's crucial.
	But like, just yeah, writing a paper doesn't make you good at dancing.
	Jesus fucking Christ.
	It's ridiculous.
	Like it's just it's it's like and also this guy being able to talk good.
	And make people pay attention and pay him to talk.
	Yeah.
	Doesn't mean that his academic experience is what is validating what he's doing right now.
	Because obviously it has nothing, like, if he was, if he was on the Daily Show about patent reform, he's very far away from his field of expertise.
	Just know your field of expertise and then thrive within it.
	But deciding that you get to do all this other shit.
	Listen, I interact with a lot of academia, like art, art academics.
	Mm hmm.
	And I know how many pieces of art I sell to people who like it.
	And I get treated like a pile of shit, because I didn't go and finish my degree in the arts.
	But magically, I have only ever made a career out of the arts my entire life.
	My entire adult life.
	So, maybe just an academic...
	Academia in and of itself.
	You could be getting the most out of it.
	You could absolutely be an expert.
	And people that I know, a lot of people I know, well, most people I know, a portion, show up and do the work and do a great job.
	And they've earned these academic credentials.
	But you can also just pay to go to college.
	Like that's, you can, the issue is the squishy thing in the middle where somebody just kind
	of showing up and doing the bare minimum. Like it's that like C doctors and A doctors
	all get the same degree. Like.
	Bye.
	Writing a paper doesn't mean you're good at dancing.
	Sorry.
	And writing a paper doesn't mean you can paint a picture.
	They're two different things.
	There's a good point of cultural difference that's never actually occurred to me.
	Do you have degree classifications where you are?
	Like a grading system for like a bachelor's or anything at all?
	Like bachelor's, master's, PhD?
	No, no, no.
	As in for your bachelor's degree, is there like a grading system as to how well you did at your bachelor's?
	Or is it just pass-fail?
	Oh...
	You're talking just curious.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	That's, that's, that's probably unfair to put you on the back foot.
	No.
	Okay.
	I just said a C doctor and a doctor get the same piece of paper.
	So.
	Right.
	Which is, which is what threw me because over here, it's a different piece of paper.
	Um, there, there, there are different degree classifications, um, for your undergraduate degree, for your, for your.
	Well, you can get like magna cum laude, summa cum laude, like you can get, but that's, uh, That's like just if you did really well, though, isn't it?
	Right.
	And everything below a certain point is just like, ah, you know, you know.
	You showed up.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's interesting.
	And got the grades to pass.
	Yeah.
	Because we have first class degrees, second class.
	Yeah.
	First, we have a 2.1, we have a 2.2, and then a third, which is like the lowest grade you can get.
	And anything other than that, you've failed.
	Yeah.
	I can definitively say we do not have that.
	That's interesting.
	That's gonna change the perspective on studying arts and things like that as well.
	That's gonna be a very different scenario.
	That's a fascinating little thing that never occurred to me before.
	Especially in academia, you know the person I'm talking about.
	You know the phone-it-in guy.
	Because you can!
	And you get the degree.
	Because also, even doing a job, you gotta be good at doing the fucking job!
	There's plenty of people, you can show up with all the pieces of paper in the world, it doesn't mean you're gonna be good at the fucking job!
	As a person who is supremely competent in what they do, I am Acutely aware of both my strengths and my weaknesses, and I know what I can sign myself up to do, and what I can't, and what I shouldn't.
	And pieces of paper have nothing the fuck to do with it, and I interact with a lot of people that have that same piece of paper.
	Without a grading system or anything it's just it is a pass fail that opens the door for them that is I'm not even allowed to talk to like that that's I'm because I have done art.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	For money to live my whole life means literally nothing.
	Nothing at all.
	I mean, that's not really... I don't know.
	I got feelings about academia, and I think that she's an indictment of the system, frankly.
	That's how I see it, but that's also where I'm coming from.
	You get a piece of paper.
	Fascinating differences.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	That's, that's, that's interesting.
	That's interesting.
	Are you on another fucking planet?
	This is nuts!
	That's like... That's great!
	Because also, we can just lie!
	And they just won't check!
	Because everyone's too fucking busy!
	Because it also doesn't really matter!
	Like, if you can do the job, then do the job.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, no, I agree.
	I agree.
	I do think there is merit to studying the arts, or there can be.
	Yes, so do I!
	Massively!
	But yeah, yeah.
	But Dave Martin here disagrees.
	His assessment is, well, why would anyone ever study breakdancing?
	I'm like, oh, I can think of a ton of reasons.
	Well, we already talked about it.
	I mean, it's crucial.
	Yes, it's absolutely... I know people who've gone to performing arts universities and whatever, and I will say, I do feel like if you're going to take the position that no one should study the arts, you should be really shit-hot at it yourself without having done it.
	I feel like maybe those people can kind of make that claim.
	And I did run across a song that Dave Martin wrote for his wife.
	No.
	No.
	I'm not going to play it.
	I'm not going to play it.
	Good God.
	I'm not going to play it.
	You know what?
	Off-brand.
	I can't today.
	It was one of those websites where you write the lyrics and you pay someone else to do the music.
	Oh, I bet.
	I bet.
	The lyrics are interesting.
	I'm going to put it that way.
	For somebody who doesn't want people to study the arts.
	I saw the shit on his mantle.
	I know how he feels about the arts.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I got you, Grr.
	I got you, Grr.
	Drippy Lion.
	Yeah, man.
	It's really that's a lot and I mean just even like the nail on board.
	I do want to go back to that as far as like, you know, Dave just not Like, I mean, this wasn't during the conversation.
	This was whenever Russell was saying his own thing.
	Back to the beginning of how useless Russell's argument is.
	Like, what is gold even?
	And what is a board?
	Why is it nailed in the first place?
	Like, no, there are real, like, you want to relitigate everything that you don't want to actually engage in.
	Like, you can just be flowery and move your little goal, just scoot your little goalposts around on your little trolley.
	Nuance away.
	Yeah, just inject all the nuance in the world to re-litigate some shit that's just, it's a fucking nail on a board.
	Don't step on it.
	Don't like, you want to have a philosophical conversation.
	That's fine.
	That's not what we're talking about.
	Your foot is bleeding and there's a nail in it.
	This is like, there are concrete realities that we have to discuss and be fucking real about.
	That's the thing that also kind of gets me fucking big time is these dudes love to play around in like cerebral philosophical.
	If you don't actually like and that's what they're coming for the arts.
	Whereas there's a lot of folks that like want to play around in the cerebral.
	And again, and they're like in a really basic kind of like they're in like the kiddie pool version of like it's philosophy 101 shit.
	Yeah, you know, and it's like it's theology 101 feel philosophy 101 shit.
	They want to play around with that and not acknowledge the fact that like, No, people have already talked about this.
	You need to listen to other people.
	This has been done a long time ago, man.
	This is for your blunt rotation, not for content on the internet that is supposed to be information for people.
	Sorry!
	Socrates figured this one out, dude.
	Let's calm it down, you know?
	I mean, it's just so fucking stupid.
	Like, I don't know.
	Also, I did just figure out my own personal nightmare blunt rotation, and it's this guy, Russell and Jordan Peterson.
	Holy shit.
	I pray that conversation should never happen or worlds will end.
	Probably mine.
	Because I would have to listen to it for the show.
	What is even aboard?
	What?
	What?
	Oh, is it friends with the NEO?
	I don't... Come on, man.
	It's just a fucking... Well, the NEO is actually Marxist and here's why.
	It's because iron production in the Soviet Union in the 17th century.
	But it's women's fault, somehow.
	It is.
	That's the conclusion.
	It's definitely going to be a woman's, whoever, the woman in the room is going to be their fault.
	That's the Peterson way.
	Absolutely.
	Oh dear, alright, that's... They should be ashamed of themselves.
	Yes, yes, they absolutely should.
	That's our show, everybody.
	So if you want to support us on what we do, head to patreon.comslashownbrand, we would love to have ya!
	If you want to get in touch, drop us an email.
	It's theonbrandpod at gmail.com.
	We'll get back to you.
	If you're on Facebook, there's a Facebook group called On Brand Awakening Wonders.
	Some lovely human beings having discussions there.
	And if you prefer more anonymous browsing, head to onbrand underscore pod.
	Yes, that is the correct one.
	And there are some lovely human beings over there having conversations too.
	And if you want to find us on socials, we're the on-brand pod everywhere except for where we're not.
	Look for the logo.
	And personal socials, I'm at alworthofficial and Lauren is at made.by.lauren.b.
	And if you click the old link in the description, you can purchase a Maga Net with actual gold.
	There it is in all its beautiful goldy glory.
	Leafy glory.
	Goldy leafy glory.
	Um, and, uh, yeah, we can send one of those to wherever you like!
	Um, okay!
	I don't even need a degree to learn how to make them, what do you know?
	Absolutely!
	And, oh, it appears shit is kicking off over here, so that's, that's my sign, I've gotta go!
	Uh, so, uh, Patrons, uh, we'll see you Sunday for some off-brand goodness, and the rest of you we'll see you next week!
	Uh, take care of yourselves and each other, thank you very much, we love you, bye!
	Henry Kissinger's still dead, bye!
	Yay!
	That's not win-win-win.
	That's lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie-lie.

▲