Ezra Levant critiques the UN’s push for an "International Day for Countering Hate Speech," calling it a censorship ploy to stifle online dissent, despite its humanitarian claims. Shee Van Fleet compares today’s ideological suppression—like Canada’s "sensitivity training"—to Mao’s 1960s cultural revolution, where "re-education" crushed free thought. Listeners warn of similar trends: Ireland’s speech restrictions, parental exclusion in trans policies, and LGBTQ activists rejecting radicalization. Levant argues these movements risk repeating history’s authoritarian playbook, weaponizing emotion to silence debate rather than address real-world harms like war or dictatorship. [Automatically generated summary]
A very interesting show today, if I may say so myself.
A talk with Shee Van Fleet.
She lived through Mao's cultural revolution.
She lived through the re-education.
She was sent out into the countryside to build a dam with her own hands 50 years ago.
We'll talk to her.
We'll look at a photo from that and other photos.
I think she's a very interesting person we should learn from.
And I'd like you to see her and see her photos.
And to do that, I'd like you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
And you get the video version of the show.
Plus, the $8, it might not sound like a lot to you, but trust me, it's a lot to us.
It really adds up.
And that's how we pay our bills around here because we don't take money from the government, you know.
Please go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, the United Nations threatens to crush freedom of speech on the Internet.
It's June 19th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
I saw this tweet from the United Nations.
The Twitter bio of the account says this.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCA, helps humanitarian organizations save the lives of people caught in crises.
Wow.
Saving the lives of people in a crisis?
That sounds like a pretty tough job.
And so this is what they're up to.
Hate speech incites violence and intolerance, undermines diversity and social cohesion, harms peace and development.
The International Day for Countering Hate Speech.
Learn more about the impacts and actions you can take to say no to hate.
And look at that image.
A hand grenade that says words can be weapons, which is literally untrue.
I mean, it's a metaphor to figure speech, but they mean it literally.
A word is not a weapon.
You can use words like violence or assaulted or hurt about words, but you don't actually get assaulted or hurt like you do with guns or hand grenades.
Hurt your feelings, maybe, but nothing more.
And the very fact that they're trying to co-opt the words and imagery of actual violence sort of gives it away.
They don't want to admit that they're just coming in as censors.
They want to pretend it's different in some way, that they're actually coming out against violence when in fact they're precisely coming against just your speech.
But can someone please tell me what hate speech is?
I know what hate is.
It's a human emotion.
It's a natural emotion like love, contempt, respect.
These are feelings or emotions.
You can't just turn them off.
They're hardwired in you, by the way, after countless generations.
They're part of being human.
You can no more ban the emotion of hate than you can prescribe the emotion of love.
You just can't.
You have to govern your hate.
You have to control yourself, not like a baby, maybe.
You have to turn your feelings into something productive and positive, but you can't turn off your feelings.
And in fact, if someone simply tells you not to feel a feeling, don't you always feel it more?
Don't love him.
Don't hate me.
When you're told you can't feel a feeling, it doesn't turn it off.
So that's hate.
And speech is obvious, isn't it?
It's an expression of your ideas, what you think and feel, your imagination, your plans, your ideas, how you react to things.
Some of it will be motivated by love, some by hate, some by just the processes of your day.
But if you truly love or hate something, you will likely be moved to express it.
How many crummy pop songs are being written because someone felt in love?
Well, people speak out because they feel the emotion of hate, too.
And I think that on average, that's probably a good thing because peaceful, well, speaking is peaceful.
Speaking is not violence.
Speaking is a safety valve, or it can be, especially if you take your negative emotions and transform them into a call for positive action to fix the underlying grievance that has caused you the painful feeling of hate.
Hate typically comes from a sense of injustice or another grievance.
You're not going to get someone to turn off those feelings until you fix the problem underneath it.
In a psychoanalyst's couch, you might have to dig deep into a person to find out what is causing them feelings of anger.
In the political sphere, people often tell you what is causing their anger.
And they may be wrong and they might be right and they might be mistaken.
They might be unfair.
But in our democratic society with our civil liberties, we invite people to air their grievances in the public square and to negotiate with others and to find a harmonious outcome.
Sometimes, by the way, people just want to be heard.
They want to feel like they have some control or power over their own lives.
By the way, we lost a lot of that over the last three years.
People had terrible grievances, genuine grievances and injustices done to them.
People were attacked by the folks who claim they care.
People's funerals and weddings were canceled.
People's churches were closed.
Their businesses were closed.
Their schools were closed.
They were fired if they didn't take a medicine they didn't understand or want.
And don't tell me the government didn't whip up hate itself.
Look at this hate monger.
Sir, you deserve a government that's going to continue to say get vaccinated.
And you know what?
If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice.
But don't think you can get on a plane or a train beside vaccinated people.
The small fringe minority of people who are on their way to Ottawa or who are holding unacceptable views that they're expressing do not represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other.
Yeah, we were lied to for three years about everything.
We were harmed economically, socially, even physically.
There are feelings of hate out there, and the answer is to air it out, to give people a forum, to hear them, and to address their concerns.
Truth and reconciliation, as they say.
Trudeau's move, of course, is to denounce anyone with concerns as racist or whatever.
He always does that, doesn't he?
Always.
Always.
So that's hate and that's speech.
But you put the two words together and they come up with some new idea.
Hate speech.
What is that?
Words are words.
Ideas are ideas.
The facts are correct or not.
The opinions are reasonable or not.
But what does hate have to do with it?
Can you say the exact same words, the exact same sentence twice?
But the first time you have hard feelings in your heart, and the second time you don't.
Is the first instance illegal and the second is fine?
Why does it make a difference what you feel in your heart, what words you say?
Can you oppose vaccine mandatory jabs if you're full of love, but not if you're full of hate?
And who can tell, by the way?
Isn't the whole notion of hate speech just like the notion of disinformation and misinformation?
It's just a way for one side to denounce the other side.
I have an opinion.
He has disinformation.
I am motivated by passion.
He is motivated by hate speech.
Really, isn't it just an attempt to criminalize disagreement, to shut it down, shut it off before it even begins?
Isn't it just a form of cancel culture, a form of nationalizing the language, of having governments in a position to tell us what we can or can't say, and therefore what we can or can't think?
And imagine the United Nations doing that, the UN, an unelected body dominated by Russia and China and Iran and every dictatorship in the world.
Not that Joe Biden or Rishi Sunak or Justin Trudeau are much better.
So let's look at what the UN has to say.
If you click the link on that tweet, you come to this page on the UN's website.
Countering dark age of intolerance starts by tackling hate speech.
While there's so much in so few words there, a dark age of intolerance, really.
And the way to stop it is by tackling hate speech, really?
By censorship?
That's the way to bring us out of the dark ages is censorship.
So censorship is not the problem.
It's the cure, is it?
Let's read a bit.
From institutionalized racism to genocide, the roots are the same, according to people on the front lines of change who shared their stories with UN News ahead of the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, observed on Sunday.
Hey, did you observe the holiday?
But hang on.
Institutionalized racism, I know what that is.
That's like South African apartheid, or it's like genocide, which means murdering people who are part of a particular ethnicity.
That's not hate speech.
That's actual physical violence or actual actions, like racist laws.
The very headline shows that the problem isn't words, it's laws or physical violence.
And the absence of laws to protect people from physical violence, in both cases, free speech is the solution, not the problem.
But look at this next line, and this is said with approval.
Social media's role in crushing hate speech.
They love the idea of crushing hate speech.
They love saying crushing.
They want you to think they will only crush bad speech, but they get to define what that is.
From COVID-19 to climate change, hateful exchanges among those with opposing views is a growing concern, said Latifa Ackerbach, president of the high authority of audiovisual communication in Morocco.
So right there, if you disagree with COVID-19 policy, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, travel bans, closed churches, whatever, you're hateful.
If you disagree with climate action, but of course.
And who would know better than someone from the high authority of audiovisual communication in Morocco?
That is such a wonderful job title, isn't it?
You might think that you are an authority in audiovisual communication.
I mean, you watch TV and you listen to radio and I bet you surf the internet a lot, including on your phone.
Do you think that Latifa Ackerback, president of the high authority of audiovisual communication, or Morocco, no less, has any special knowledge, let alone moral authority, more than you do?
When it comes to the internet, what a laugh that title is.
But they say it with complete seriousness.
Now, I like Morocco.
I've never been there, but I like what I know.
As dictatorships go, it's probably one of the gentler ones, but it does have a hereditary king who runs the place.
He is a dictator, maybe a friendly one.
Freedom House, which ranks the freedom of the world's countries, calls it partly free.
Here's their summary of their in-detail report on the country.
Morocco holds regular multi-party elections for parliament, and reforms in 2011 shifted some authority over government from the monarchy to the elected legislature.
Nevertheless, King Mohamed VI maintains dominance through a combination of substantial formal powers and informal lines of influence in the state and society.
Many civil liberties are constrained in practice.
Yeah, so the UN is really picking the right people to tell us how to use our freedom of audio-visual communication.
Super gross.
Anyways, back to the UN website.
The international community's failure in managing and regulating migration fuels the sponsors of hate speech and helps them follow through with their plans, she said, calling on governments to adopt fair positions in the face of separation movements, terrorism, and violation of human rights.
I honestly don't even know what that means.
I've read it three times.
I don't know what it means.
But apparently, social media is responsible for everything from separatist movements to terrorism.
Some of the separatist movements she no doubt is talking about go back centuries.
How does social media, which is basically 10 years old, blame?
Or just hear me out, maybe, just maybe, she's part of an unfree dictatorship that's looking for a way to justify cracking down on the freedom tool of the internet that her boss doesn't like.
Here's someone else the UN wants us to listen to.
Had social media existed in 1994, the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda would have been much worse, according to survivor Henriette Mutegwaraba, who recalled the hate speech propagated via radio at the time.
A message that used to take years to spread can now be put out there, and in one second, everybody in the world can see it, she said.
If there was Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram, it would have been much worse.
The bad people always go to youth whose minds are easy to corrupt.
Who is on social media now?
Most of the time, young people.
But you heard her refer to radio, and that's the thing.
I mean, look at this study here.
There's one story.
This is a study from Concordia University.
Here's a study from Duke.
It is very well documented that the genocide in Rwanda was whipped up by radio, which is instant, of course, and easy for everyone to hear.
Newspapers too, of course.
Obviously, the same thing in Hitler's Germany.
You don't need social media for a genocide.
But the difference between a radio station and a newspaper on the one hand, and I'd add in TV stations or movies, like, I don't know, Lenny Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movies for Adolf Hitler.
The difference between TV and movies and newspapers and radio stations on the one hand is that those are hard to get and hard to use.
No ordinary person can just get a radio station or a TV station or a newspaper.
In Rwanda, in Hitler's Germany, in Soviet Russia, those were owned and controlled by the government and their allies.
Tucker's Toxic Trends00:03:54
There was no people's press to talk back.
There was no opposition.
That's what TikTok and Twitter and Facebook and Instagram are.
Ordinary people can use them to fight back and can connect instantly with people around the world.
TikTok wouldn't have caused the Rwandan genocide.
It was caused by violence from the government.
But maybe TikTok could have helped ordinary people fight back by giving them a voice, by spreading the word.
Hate speech laws in Rwanda and hate speech laws in, I don't know, China, the Soviet Union, they wouldn't help you fight against hate or genocide.
Obviously, they're used against the enemies of the state.
You are called the haters.
China is committing a genocide against the Uyghur Muslims right now.
They are denounced by the Chinese government as the haters, as the hate speechers, as the terrorists.
Don't you see?
When you boast about crushing social media, you're boasting about crushing individual people, not crushing the state, but it is the state that is the greatest killer of all time.
Let me read just one more excerpt from the UN dark age of intolerance.
Mita Hosali, deputy director of the UN Department of Global Communication, said young people are often seen today as vectors of such toxic trends as online hate speech.
Increasingly, we are entering this dark age of intolerance fueled by polarization and myths and disinformation.
And there are all kinds of facts swirling out there, she cautioned.
It's like a ladder of incremental extremism, Ms. Hosalli said.
You start at the bottom with a stereotype, move on to emojis and memes that lead to harmful speech.
Harmful speech leads to hate speech.
A torrent of hate builds up and results in the incitement of violence.
And then you have actual violence.
Got it.
So don't worry about Vladimir Putin in Russia or the Ayatollahs of Iran, or don't worry about the North Korean dictator or China and the Communist Party.
Don't worry about Saudi Arabia or Cuba or Venezuela.
Don't worry about wars or prisons or domestic attacks on civil liberties.
It's the kids with the emojis, you know, those little smiley faces.
That's the danger.
Toxic trends.
That's pretty science-y, isn't it?
This is all the same language that Justin Trudeau uses.
No surprise, he's submissive to the UN.
Joe Biden uses this kind of talk too.
New Zealand, the UK, Canada, the U.S., all are trending towards censorship.
They hate Twitter now.
Twitter used to enforce censorship.
Now it defies censorship.
Just a quick example: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running as a Democrat to challenge Joe Biden in the Democratic presidential primary.
He's polling very well, but he's being blacklisted by social media companies.
YouTube literally deleted his interview.
He could be president, but they've already set the precedent by banning Trump, who was a sitting president at the time.
Of course, they ban Kennedy, who criticizes the CIA and big pharma.
But not Twitter.
They're platforming him.
Tucker Carlson now does his TV show direct to Twitter and gets tens of millions of views each time, sometimes more than 100 million views.
That's 20 or 30 times more than he got before when he was on Fox.
They're coming to stop Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson and RFK Jr.
There's no one they won't try to stop by any means necessary.
Don't think they won't come for you too.
Get Rid of Jordan Peterson's Influence00:06:27
Stay with us for more.
Twitter is free, but it is an amazing, fascinating, and valuable tool now more than ever, now since it is being turned into a free speech platform by Elon Musk.
Let me show you an interesting exchange from a few days ago.
It starts when our Canadian professor and public intellectual Jordan Peterson tweeted this.
He said, referring to the College of Psychologists of Ontario that's having a hearing on his political wrongthink, he said, a court in Canada is going to rule on the College of Physicians Ontario decision to sentence me to mandatory re-education on June 21st for my reprehensible political views.
The process is called a judicial review.
And then Elon Musk himself answered, saying, re-education is such an interesting term.
Where have I heard that before?
Well, someone who knows and someone who lived through it is our guest today.
Her name is Shee Van Fleet.
I'll introduce her in a moment, but here's what she wrote.
She said in reply, I not only heard about this term more than 50 years ago, I also lived through it.
Mao coined this term with his order.
Millions of urban youths and Red Guards were sent to the countryside to receive their re-education from poor peasants to be true communists.
And look at this.
This is terrifying.
This is the only photo I have of me in the center as a young high school graduate who was exiled to the countryside.
My re-education lasted for three years until Mao died in the PICS.
I was with friends at the damn reservoir we helped to build with our bare hands.
Never in my wildest dream did I imagine that this term would one day make its way to America.
Yes, re-education is indoctrination by coercion and force.
And just one last tweet, because it's so, you've got to follow our guest on Twitter, Shee Van Fleet.
But just one more tweet and then we'll get to her straight away.
She shows an old Maoist propaganda poster and says, old propaganda poster, educated youths should go to the countryside to get their re-education from poor peasants.
Well, what does that mean?
And how is it related to what they're doing to Jordan Peterson and others with wrong think?
Joining us now is Shee Van Fleet.
She is a survivor of Maoism and the author of the forthcoming book, Mao's America, a survivor's warning.
You can pre-order it on Amazon now.
She, it's a pleasure to have you back on the show.
And thank you again for weighing in with such an interesting lesson from history.
Tell me about what re-education meant 50 years ago.
How did you get selected for it?
Tell us your own story, first of all.
Yes.
And in order to understand re-education, I have to introduce another term.
And I think this term will make into American lexicon.
It's called thought reform.
The whole purpose of re-education is to get rid of the so-called bourgeois thoughts, the thoughts that is not pure communist.
So we have to get rid of, how do you get rid of those thoughts?
You do it by physical labor.
So we're supposed to work with the peasants, live with the peasants, but most of all, we have to think as the peasants do.
And what does that mean?
That means give up any critical thinking skills.
Get rid of it.
That's not good.
You need to follow the party line and be just like the peasants, follow the party.
And that is what the re-education is for.
So today, The bourgeois is really the conservative ideologies, the American founding principles.
Those are the bourgeois thoughts that need to be corrected through re-education camp.
Well, why were you chosen?
How old were you?
What did you do to make you singled out?
Or I guess there were millions of you.
Why were you?
It's millions.
It's all the urban youths that graduate from high school and we're all sent to the countryside.
First of all, there's no jobs.
So it's basically a way to get rid of this youth and put them into countryside and work with the peasants.
I was 16 when I went to the countryside and I worked with in the fields in a very primitive condition.
And one of the jobs we did is to build a dam.
And I later added a picture.
I don't have my own of how we did it.
We dig the dirt, carry the dirt, and dump it into another place.
It was a bad breaking task.
So what I learned, I learned nothing.
I learned that life was so hard.
And I learned that it is a good idea to get rid of any critical thinking skills.
So you just don't think.
You just do it.
All you need to do is follow the water.
And that's the purpose of re-education.
And can you compare that?
I mean, you weighed in with this personal revelation, this personal story, and even a photograph.
When Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson were talking about thought reform or re-education, how are modern day thought reforms comparable to what you lived through under Mao Zedong?
What are the common elements?
In Jordan Peterson's case, his professional association condemned him to re-education.
Promoting the Party Line00:07:55
How is that the same as what Mao did?
It's the same thing.
It's like, you know, one of the training is called sensitivity training.
It's basically get rid of what you had in your mind that does not agree with the party.
And the party, which is in China, the CCP, here's the Democratic Party.
And they had their own ideology, the woke ideology.
If you have a thought that's contradict to it, you need to go to the camp and re-educate it and reform your thought so that you'll be on board with what they're pushing, which is accept their lies and follow their orders.
Do they do things like that now or do they have different tools and tactics now?
Oh, they have.
That's called a study session.
And it's not to send you to the countryside yet, but Mao did that.
But now it's study session.
Every company or organization have to devote so much time a week to political study.
Study what?
Study Xi Jinping's thought.
Now, not Mao thought anymore, so Xi Jinping's thought.
And the book that you have to read, it's no longer a red little book.
It's Xi Jinping's book.
Same thing.
Caught reform.
Never stopped.
I want to talk about another one of your tweets, if I may, because you make these comparisons and they're fascinating and terrifying.
One of the things that's happening in North America and the UK as well and Australia is transgenderism and sexualizing of young children in schools.
And let me read a tweet that you posted that chilled me to the bone.
You said too many Americans are clueless about communism.
Communists will ban whatever and promote whatever in order to seize and maintain power.
And here, I didn't know this.
The CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, promoted free sex to destabilize the society before it took power in 1949, then criminalized it afterwards in order to have a tight control of society.
People were jailed or executed for having free sex.
And then you have a picture.
You say, this 26-year-old girl was shot for the crime of sleeping with multiple men.
And then you make the comparison, and I'll ask you to expand on this in a second.
You say, American Marxists, not capitalism, promote queer theory because it is a useful tool to destabilize society.
When they achieve absolute power, they will ban everything they are promoting now if it does not help them to maintain power in their new order.
You won't be allowed to be your authentic self.
You can only be what they allow you to be.
Not to understand this will be lethal.
You know, I suppose it's another way to tap into the enormous energy of young people, teenagers, people who are just discovering their sexuality.
And instead of restraining it, saying, be a communist and you can do free love, whatever you want, you're unlocking a lot of power because, you know, I suppose the sexual interests and appetites of young people, if you say, come with us and we won't have any limits on you, maybe that's what they're doing with this queer theory.
They're telling young people, don't control yourself, but do whatever you want.
We'll use your energy to smash the establishment.
Is that the point you're making?
Well, that's only one way.
Yes, they use race and they use other ways to divide people and to get them into their camp to be revolutionaries.
Okay, I can tell you a little bit about my father.
He joined the revolution and he had an arranged marriage and they were told to break away from those old tradition and join the revolution.
You can have your authentic self or you can choose whatever partner you want.
And it's the, you know, and just what I said in Twitter, they promote freedom, freedom, and that appeal to so many young people.
And they joined the revolution.
And what happened?
Afterwards, it's total control.
You don't have any freedom to choose whatever.
You have to do what you are told to do.
And this is something that people don't understand because they promote it as freedom.
It's not.
It's only freedom right now because the reason they're promoting it is that's how they destabilize a society.
Once they achieve their goal of having complete power, absolute power, everything will be under their thumb.
You won't have any freedom and you won't be able to be whatever authentic self you want to be.
So once they are used to destroy the establishment, I guess that's what Lenin called useful idiots.
Useful idiots.
Yes.
Was that a term that Mao's Communist Party used as well?
No, no, no, no.
They don't tell you you're useful idiots.
I learned the stem here.
Yeah, and that's so that term is so descriptive what happened to all those followers communism.
Yeah.
Hey, let me ask you a little bit more about your book, Mao's America, a survivor's warning.
It's available for pre-order now on Amazon.
It won't be out until this fall.
Tell me a little bit about what's in the book.
Is it your story starting in China, moving to America?
Is it an autobiography?
Is it a political warning?
Tell me a little bit about what the book is.
Yes.
I quit my job in order to write this book.
It took me a year.
That's not about biography.
It's not, it is about parallels, parallels of these two cultural revolutions.
It is based on my personal story, the stories of my parents, of people I know, and also based on historical research.
So the goal is not to tell what I experienced.
Yes, some part, some is my personal story, but it's really to let people know what is going on today is absolutely a repeat of history, the history that they never taught, the history that they do not know.
And that is my warning to them.
It is communist, it is Marxist cultural revolution with one goal, to destroy America.
Wow.
Well, we've been talking with Shee Van Fleet.
Her new book coming out this fall is Mao's America Survivors Warning.
I can't recommend highly enough her Twitter feed because it's personal anecdotes from Mao's China that are so applicable today on Twitter.
You can find her at X Van Fleet, X V A N F L E E T.
She, it's great to see you again.
Thanks very much for joining us.
And thanks, as always, for your history lesson and your warnings.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for having me on your show.
Well, it's our pleasure.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Here's a letter in response to the Irish censorship law.
White Leper says, that's silly and illogical.
Radical Changes in LGBTQ+ Rights00:02:54
You can't legislate feelings.
Besides, the Constitution is designed to restrict the government so they don't become oppressive and intrusive to ensure the common good and freedom of the people.
Well, says you, but boy, it looks like the Irish government is set on restricting your freedoms for the common good.
We'll see how that goes.
I'm interested in Ireland.
They're going through a lot of radical changes these days.
Cthulhu Loves You says, I'm pretty sure parents' feelings get hurt when you mentally kidnap their children and try to lead them down a path of depression, confusion, and potential suicide.
Arrest the government.
Yeah, I think the giveaway of a lot of these transgender activities is that they're explicitly done keeping the parents out of the loop.
Sexuality clubs at school that are kept secret from parents.
When a grown-up says, let's talk about sex, but don't tell your parents about our conversation, that's a sign something terrible is going on.
TCZ 7742 says these Muslims have the right to say what they are saying.
Even as a non-religious person that has no issue LGBTQ individuals, I do have issues with bringing such sexuality teaching into primary schools.
That was the point of the protest.
It had nothing to do with the fact that Muslims came to protest.
I think you're right.
And I think that I saw a poll the other day that support by Republicans for gay rights is falling.
How can that happen?
I think it's because the Q and the T and all those other letters are taking over the LGB.
I think that most Americans, including most Republicans and here in Canada, most conservatives, have accepted, tolerated, or welcomed equality for gays, including even gay marriage.
But now that those victories have been won by the gay rights movement, to move into far more aggressive, invasive, and radical trans and queer politics is appalling, and it proves the slippery slope arguments of the right correct.
And I think whereas before the message was tolerate and accept, now it's obey and submit, and some of the extreme activity that's being targeted at kids, I think it is bad.
And I think that you see some gay and lesbian activists desperately opposed to the trans agenda, including because the trans answer to being gay is, oh, you're in the wrong body.
We got to cut you up, which frankly would do great harm to a large number of gays and lesbians.
What strange days we're in.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home.