Podcasts about emperor's new clothes

Last March the digital artist Beeple made headlines with an NFT sale at Christie's for a whopping $69,3 million. The world took notice and so did the music industry. NFT's were quickly branded as a new asset class for artists. The lucrative aspect of NFT's appeals to artists who've seen their touring income evaporate due to the global pandemic. While many adepts praise the NFT as the great equalizer of the music industry, the critics are passionate to argue the contrary: NFT's are nothing but a bubble and it has imploded after a short hausse in the beginning of May. With all new technologies, they yay and naysayers often but heads. In this podcast episode we have a closer look at what NFT's actually are, what is their true value, what their potential could be and wether or not regulation will be the new frontier. We are joined by Mr. Faisal Khan, who is the CEO/founder of Nomisma digital. Faisal is an expert in cross border and crypto payments and exactly the person who can guide the NFT novice through the opaque world of NFT's.

A new MP3 sermon from Generations Radio is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Emperor's New Clothes Propaganda Speaker: Kevin Swanson Broadcaster: Generations Radio Event: Radio Broadcast Date: 6/10/2021 Length: 35 min.

Now 70- of the population supports same sex mirage, and make that 84- of young adults. How did this massive social shift happen in just twenty years- Almost nobody will oppose the narrative now, but why---The emperor's new clothes propaganda machine is operating now at full bore.--Pity the poor soul who says, -The dude's nude-----This program includes---1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus -Supreme Court- Illegal immigrants not eligible for permanent residence, 30th Texas city becomes Sanctuary for the Unborn, Nevada pays -175,000 in church's legal fees over COVID Tyranny---2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

ladyDawn recites one of Roald Dahl's best Revolting Rhymes --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/storyzestbyladydawn/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/storyzestbyladydawn/support

This week's episode of Random Lines joins Bartholomew County Public Library employee Jen as she reads from The Emperor's New Clothes. She then talks of why she enjoys this story, and encourages you to give it a shot.

Hello Children! Here is an interesting tale of an Emperor! Join in all Sweet Peas, big and small to enjoy this together. This is an interesting story on Radhika's Sweet Pea Tales. Am sure you have listened to the earlier episodes as well? If not please do so. After all each episode is a unique story / tale carefully chosen for you. Not only that, each tale has a moral and there are many other interesting learnings which Radhika takes you through. We would love to listen to your feedback as well. Do comment or record your comments and send. Would love to know how well you are enjoying the podcasts. You can also recommend an interesting story and I would love to share it with everyone else. So listen on..... and Enjoy. "My Sweet Peas, I would love to hear from you and understand more about you! You can reach me on sweetpeatales@gmail.com . Looking forward to great times with you all over Sweet Pea Tales :)" - Radhika #kids #Kidstories #Emperor #emperorstories #sweetpeatales #stories #tales #interestingreads --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sweet-pea-tales/message

Stock, Hausen & Walkman - "Flagged" - Ventilating Deer Mort Garson - "Bamboo City" - Didn't You Hear? Mort Garson - "Cathedral of Pleasure" - Music from Patch Cord Productions Robert Aaron - "Crystal and Infrared (excerpt)" - Datura Butthole Surfers - "The Legless Eye" - God's Favorite Dog v/a David Bedford - "It's Easier Than It Looks" - Nurses Song With Elephants Agnes - "VII (excerpt)" - no title Celtic Frost - "Dethroned Emperor" - Empoeror's Return Head Of David - "108" - Dustbowl https://www.wfmu.org/playlists/shows/98414

...and what it tells us about corruption and tyranny.

"The emperor loved his fancy clothes so much! Too much! He loved his fancy clothes more than he loved his people! (Gasp!)" The classic 19th Century story by a Danish "National Treasure", Hans Christian Andersen. Adapted by Lance Davis. Performed by PNT Company members Mary Chalon, Jill Rogosheske, Barry Gordon, James Calvert and John Rafter Lee. Sound by Lance Davis and Dave Bennett, courtesy of Creative Commons. Image by Edmund Dulac (1911)

Clothed in Christ. Obadiah 15-17 & Romans 13:11-14.

A classic children's story written by Hans Christian Andersen and read to you by Kevin Hayes the Story Man.Subscribe to the podcast and listen to a bedtime story every night. It's free.Visit our website for other types of stories at www.nightlybedtimestory.com.

Join us as Bridget begins reading from The collective works of Hans Christian Andersen. The first story is The Emperor's New Clothes. If you enjoy our podcast, please support us by subscribing, rating, writing a review, and telling your friends. You can also donate to our podcast via the "Support" link found at https://anchor.fm/bridget-reads Thank you for listening!!! If you own the rights to a children's book and would like us to read it on our podcast, please get in touch at: storytimewiththeshapirofamily@gmail.com If you would like your book professionally narrated for distribution email Bridget at: bridgetreads247@gmail.com --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/bridget-reads/support

A retelling of Hans Christian Anderson’s classic. A small boy bravely tells the truth and the emperor appoints him his heir… Comedy/horror/satire.Written by Nick Angel, read by Simon Johns, original music by Kati Brien, featuring Shannon Barnett on trombone and Arne Brien on drums

Two tailors come to town with a fantastic story about the beautiful cloth they make, and its magical properties; according to the tailors, only those who are truly wise can see the cloth. The emperor must have a suit of this remarkable cloth. The question is, can he see it?

Today's episode, we read the first chapter; and, see how deep the rabbit hole goes in Lewis Carroll's: Alice In Wonderland. Then, for the first time, we'll read Hans Christian Andersen's: The Emperor's New Clothes. A story that begs the question: Do we lie to cover over our insecurities? Enjoy this Reading. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brook-bereznicki/message

In today's episode of Sacred Love Lessons, Empress Imani discusses the correlation between self-deception and the level of loving relationships you attract into your life. This episode is sponsored by ManifestYourMagicWithin.com

The Emperor's New Clothes

Tonight's episode features a lovely edition of Anderson's Fairy Tales that my amazing spouse found at an antique shop in town! The illustrations are lovely and my old copy was so tattered (I read the binding glue off of my paperback copy) it was a wonderful surprise :) In this episode, I whisper two fairly popular stories of Hans Christien Anderson's to help soothe you to sleep. It's always a pleasure to read you a bedtime story! As always, you can follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bedtime_asmr Please feel free to let me know what else I can read to you as you fall asleep each night. I'm open to requests! Leave me comments, suggestions, and reviews wherever you listen to your podcast episodes! I greatly appreciate any feedback you give. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/asmr-bedtimestories/support

An emperor who loved new clothes more than anything is given a new suit. A suit that u can see only if you are worthy... Is this true? Is this possible. Hear the tale to find out.... --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/pri-mods/message

RotoWire's Chris Liss and Yahoo Sports' Dalton Del Don talk Liss' solo pod, DDD's Seslowsky pod appearance, DDD's misery doing pod, why projections need to be tailored to rankings, DDD's new dog, BTC vs gold, the history of money, Lightning Network, Three Gorges Dam, organized denial about Joe Biden's mental faculties, 2020 Election, DDD's pitching strategy, bet corrections, Marquise Brown, Michael Thomas, CEH, Drew Brees, George Kittle, Jamaal Adams, Sam Darnold, COVID T-cell immunity/vaccine, dystopian nightmares, "Bluey" and "Rick and Morty." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This panel discussion and extended question and answer session focuses upon troponin screening. Where is the latest evidence as regards this debate? Is MINS ( Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery) the most common postoperative complication associated with death and if so why is there a transatlantic divide as regards the evidence? Is there a place for troponin screening preoperatively for risk stratification? What should one do with an asymptomatic post operative patient with raised troponin? Does MINS cause hypotension? This is part 3 of 3 from The EBPOM 2019 TopMedTalk session which debated the issue. Chaired by Monty Mythen, TopMedTalk's Editor in Chief, with, Mike Grocott, Professor of Anaesthesia and critical care at the University of Southampton and frequent TopMedTalk contributor, Denny Levett, Professor in Perioperative Medicine and Critical Care, Consultant in Perioperative Medicine, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation trust (UHS), President of the Perioperative Exercise Testing and Training Society (POETTS) and Duminda Wijeysundera, Professor in the Department of Anaesthesia and the Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto and a Staff Anesthesiologist at St Michael’s Hospital.

The Emperor's New Clothes is a short fairy tale over 200 years old, but gives us some solid wisdom that still applies today. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rob-clark6/message

For our second episode we're joined by Fabian "Fabian" Hällsten - one of the most decorated and infamous men in all of Rainbow 6 Siege. 2 World Championships, 3 Season Championships, 1 Major Championship, and a handful of other awards give Fabian the distinction of being one of Siege's most successful players ever. Beyond his achievements in-game, Fabian is equally recognizable as being one of the most outspoken, brash, and notorious figures in the community, never failing to share his opinion on whichever topic is being discussed. Over the course of 2 hours, Fabian shares details of his time on PENTA, G2, and Vitality; his views on in-game leadership and how he has excelled and/or stumbled in that area; the impact that his teammates and coaching staff had on him as both a leader and player; his role as a villain within the Rainbow 6 Siege esports scene; and the legacy he's left behind over the past four years. 

This week we took a small break and adapted a traditional fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen. The story is about a king who was obsessed with his clothing, and it eventually got him into some embarrassing trouble. Do you want to be on What's the Moral, or send us a story idea? If you do, email us at wheneverwherepodcast@gmail.com and we'll get back to you as soon as possible! Support us on Patreon! You can get ad-free, early episodes, bonus content, a shout out on the podcast, a chance to be on the show, and so much more! Plus, a portion of your funds goes to St. Jude’s Research Hospital. Find us at https://www.patreon.com/wheneverwhereverkidspodcast See our website and episode art at wheneverwhereverkidspodcast.wordpress.com --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In tonights episode we take you through a short meditation before leaving you with a relaxing sleep story called The Emperor's New Clothes. Thank you for joining us. In this episode we lead you through a short meditation to help reduce the feelings of stress, anxiety, and help you set the stage for a deep sleep. This is followed by tonights sleep story where we travel to medieval Europe for the classic Hans Christian Anderson tale, The Emperor's New Clothes. First time listening to Sleep Tight Relax? Please subscribe and follow us on Spotify. Connect on Instagram and Twitter to receive updates on all our podcast news. Please write a review if you enjoy Sleep Tight Relax. Review on Apple Podcasts. Please listen to our sister podcast, Sleep Tight Stories, for an alternative bedtime listening experience. ❤️

Welcome back to Planet Storytime!We hope your enjoyed PSP23 throughout the month of April! Many people did as it became our most downloaded episode in only a few short weeks!We are happy to return with a truly timeless classic, written by Hans Christain Andersen, The Emperor's New Clothes, with narration from Thomas Mitchell and soundtrack by Pax Stanley. We really hope you enjoy the new podcast!Thank you once again for your continued support. Our podcast continues to gain more and more new fans and we could not be happier about that! We have decided to continue to provide our podcast free or charge and without advertisement. These are challenging times for families who need quality children's content and we want to do our part to provide good stories without the distraction of ads or paywalls.We would, however, very much encourage you all to reach out to us with your thoughts and ideas at planet.storytime@gmail.com. Thanks again for your love and support!Thomas & PaxSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/planet_storytime_podcast)

'POLITICAL CORRECTNESS' at its finest ! Adding a whole new dimension, to CAREER POLITICIANS !!! Website Link : Harmonic Dimensions (June 2010) http://www.harmonicdimensions.co.nz/ Recommended Links : Kiwis of Snapchat : Simon Bridges on "Limogate". The Spinoff TV (19 August, 2018) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXuQgOBRZUI The Eagles - Long Road Out Of Eden https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYcxFjbppUw

a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent - while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new "clothes", no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/hmphaudiobooks/support

Three stories this week from the Danish fairy tale writer Hans Christian Andersen about people that are matchless. The first is the tale of the emperor and his new clothes, where an emperor who needs a new coat every hour gets an offer he can't refuse. The second is about a boy who wants to marry the daughter of a monarch and all the cool gadgets and racially insensitive cosplaying he'll do to win her hand, and the third is the story of the little match girl. That one literally has matches in it. I still do puns. The creature is the scariest couch potato in the world. If the seas have couches. I mean, they probably have lots of couches with how much trash we throw into them. Ok, I'm sad now. The store: https://www.mythpodcast.com/store The post on mythpodcast.com: https://www.mythpodcast.com/14116/176-the-emperors-new-clothes-matchless/ -- Sponsors! Looking for another side of Vegas? Visit Aria.com for more. Check out Simplisafe and get free shipping and a 60-day risk-free trial. Go to http://simplisafe.com/legends Check out Motherland: Fort Salem on Freeform, premiering Wednesday, March 18th! -- Sources: The Emperor's New Clothes: https://www.mythpodcast.com/sources/the-emperors-new-clothes-by-hans-christian-andersen/ The Swineherd: https://www.mythpodcast.com/sources/the-swineherd-hans-christian-andersen/ The Little Match Girl: https://www.mythpodcast.com/sources/the-little-match-girl-hans-christian-andersen/ -- Music: “Symphony No. 1: II. Truth” by Steve Combs “Thom York (At Home)” by Podington Bear “Symphony No. 1: IV. Hope” by Steve Combs “Delican’t” by Podington Bear “Twosome” by Podington Bear “Introduction to Part 1” by Steve Combs “Despite my Empathy” by Steve Combs “Sex and Death and God” by Steve Combs “April” by Kai Engel

Listen as Louis Kerman talks with the team behind Little Door Theatre's production of The Emperor's New Clothes. For more information on Little Door Theatre visit littledoortheatre.org. This podcast has been brought to you by MI Warren. To learn more, visit MIWarren.org. Go here to listen to more MI Warren podcasts shows. Go here, to listen to more Warren Upstage podcasts.

The Emperor's New Clothes

This panel discussion and extended question and answer session focuses upon troponin screening. Where is the latest evidence as regards this debate? Is MINS ( Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery) the most common postoperative complication associated with death and if so why is there a transatlantic divide as regards the evidence? Is there a place for troponin screening preoperatively for risk stratification? What should one do with an asymptomatic post operative patient with raised troponin? Does MINS cause hypotension? This is part 3 of 3 from The EBPOM 2019 TopMedTalk session which debated the issue. Chaired by Monty Mythen, TopMedTalk's Editor in Chief, with, Mike Grocott, Professor of Anaesthesia and critical care at the University of Southampton and frequent TopMedTalk contributor, Denny Levett, Professor in Perioperative Medicine and Critical Care, Consultant in Perioperative Medicine, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation trust (UHS), President of the Perioperative Exercise Testing and Training Society (POETTS) and Duminda Wijeysundera, Professor in the Department of Anaesthesia and the Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto and a Staff Anesthesiologist at St Michael’s Hospital.

https://youtu.be/qPnk57P2dhM Recorded on: January 9, 2020 Ben Hunt, the co-founder of Second Foundation Partners, joins the show. Topics: Bitcoin, central banks, boom bust cycles, and how they all relate to his small family farm Twitter @epsilontheory SHOW TRANSCRIPT (edited) Albert Lu: From the NXT Studios in Southern California, this is the Power & Market Report. I'm your host Albert Lu. My guest today is Ben Hunt. He's the co-founder of Second Foundation Partners, the publisher of Epsilon Theory, an online source for financial market commentary. Ben, this is your first time on the Power & Market Report. Thanks very much for joining me today. How are you? Ben Hunt: It's great to be here. Thanks for having me. AL: Ben we met, sort of briefly, a little over a year ago at the New Orleans conference, when I was moderating a panel that you participated in with Peter Schiff and Mike Larson. I thought your ideas were very interesting. Unfortunately, we were sharing the time, of course, with other people. I didn't get a chance to delve deeper, so I was hoping to take this opportunity to delve deeper into your thoughts and maybe how they've changed in the last year and a half for my own edification. I want to say, as we start, that I wasn't familiar with your work prior to New Orleans, so in preparation for that panel I did do a little homework and came across your interview with Grant Williams of Real Vision. I'm a big fan of Grant and what he and Raoul are doing over there, and I thought it was just a splendid interview, really nice. Maybe share with the viewers first what you do, but also your background as what you called, I think, a dilettante farmer. Get into that a little bit. BA: That's me. That's me. You know, I've done a lot of different things in my life. You know, my wife says I can't keep a job. So that’s what’s been the, I'll say, the strand that goes through all of them — trying to be … I'm a puzzle solver. I like to figure out puzzles. And, you know, I started as an academic. I got my PhD in political science, of all oxymorons. And because they're trying to figure out the puzzle of, you know — how do countries interact with each other, right, or how do voters, as in sort of the behavior of crowds, how does that work? And, for ten years I was in academia — I was a professor. And, you know, the issues I wrote on — the research I did was trying to figure out how are crowds, in this case, voting crowds, how are they impacted by the words we hear, the stories we are told, right, the narratives as I like to describe them? The problem, of course, with academia, is that the puzzles you're trying to solve, you’re locked in your little garret, and you're publishing it, maybe, to a very small audience. And so, I always was interested in a much larger puzzle, which is the puzzle of markets, the game of markets. So, I had the opportunity to leave academia, first with starting a software company. We did well with that — sold that. Then I got into the investment world, first from venture capital, some private equity, but finally into public markets, I say the biggest game of them all. And, trying to understand that puzzle, ran a hedge fund for seven or eight years. We got that up to about a billion dollars and never lost money for clients, and still very proud of that. Had a tremendous year in 2008. But from March of 2009 onwards, it was like you went to the switch on the wall and you flipped off the lights. Returns really flat-lined. They say we never lost money, but the investment world really changed. I can point to the date in March of 2009 when I'll say, not just, the Federal Reserve, but central banks all over the world, took this very interventionist policy, I think probably smartly, rightly in March of 2009. But what do you see both in our recent past, but also in every time when you have these emergency government actions, they always become permanent government policy. And, that's certainly what we've endured over the last decade in markets. It's what we endured in my hedge fund, where the fundamentals didn't seem to matter anymore. And, they say, didn't seem to matter — they really didn't matter anymore. So, you know, we gave all the money back to our clients and I decided I'd really take some time off to try to figure this out. You know, what does matter today, in either of managing other people's money or investing our own money? And, that's why I started writing Epsilon Theory. I'll get back to, and we tell what that means: Epsilon Theory. But, the whole idea of Epsilon Theory is that, it's not alpha and beta — it's not looking at the fundamentals of this or the, in terms of beta, the overall market of that. What is really driving both our political, but also our investment games today, I think, is that first research puzzle of mine, the use of narratives — the way that we, as a crowd of in this case investors, respond in systematic ways to what we are told, whether it's called forward guidance from central banks, whether it's Trump tweets, whether it's Cramer on CNBC, you know? We’re immersed in this ocean of messages and stories and narratives to a degree that, you know, I don't think has ever existed. And so, that's the puzzle I'm trying to figure out. That's the puzzle that I write about. It's to focus, not on the fundamentals, but actually on the narratives, because I really believe, more and more, that's the answer for figuring out the game of markets. That's what I do. That's what I do, Albert. AL: I think, and tell me whether or not you agree with this, Ben, but the reason that narratives have become so important, and I do agree with you on that point, is because the Federal Reserve and the federal government — you know, together controlling fiscal and monetary policy — wield so much power, and they are accountable in some sense to public opinion, and public opinion is swayed by narrative. So, you don't have independent investors — you have one big investor in the Federal Reserve that can buy trillions and trillions of securities. And then, you have a taxing authority that can tax and spend on things. And they just make too big of a splash, so you have to respect that. Do you agree with that? BH: Well, I do, Albert. But I would go even farther frankly, because it's not just, what I'll call, the mechanistic impact of, in the case, central banks buying securities — you know, adding to their balance sheet by buying financial assets. Yes, that has an impact right. It is the tide that lifts all boats. It is the avowed purpose of large-scale asset purchases. But, what I think is even more important today than the mechanistic impact of the actual purchasing of securities is, what I'll call, what we would call in game theory, the common knowledge game — the role of words, of forward guidance, of what they call in the Federal Reserve: communication policy. And, I say this not in some tinfoil hat conspiracy notion, but I often talk about how Ben Bernanke, in his last speech as Fed chair — it's interesting what people say in their last speech right? You know, George Washington talks about the dangers of entangling alliances. In his farewell speech, Dwight Eisenhower talked about beware the military-industrial complex — I mean Dwight Eisenhower for God's sake is warning about a military-industrial complex? Well, Ben Bernanke kind of had a similar moment in his very last speech as Fed chair. And, it’s a wonderful talk. He says, well you know I’ve been here for eight years. First four years, all right, seem to be steady she goes, right? Those last four years, because the last four-year term started and it’s been quite a doozy, right? And he said, well, the first thing we did in response to the great financial crisis, we used the toolkit that the central bankers have always had, right? We took interest rates, short-term interest rates, down to zero. We didn't know at the time we could have negative interest rates, we just took it down to zero. And, that's what we thought we could do. It wasn't working for us, so he came up with a second set of tools: the quantitative easing or the large-scale asset purchases. And, Bernanke says: look, I think QE1 was really successful. Yeah, speaking myself, Ben Hunt, I agree. I think you won, actually saved the world. I think that's what central banks are supposed to do, right? They are supposed to provide that emergency liquidity, that emergency shot of adrenaline when the heart of the global market economy stops beating. But, like I say, the problem is that emergency government action always becomes permanent government policy. And, that's certainly what’s happened. Today, we now have a permanent IV-drip of adrenaline in the form of these large-scale asset purchases. And, the crazy thing is Bernanke agrees with this. In his last speech he says, you know, frankly QE2 I thought was kind of a wash, you know had some puts and takes. I don't think it really did anything. I think he goes on to say QE3, what we did after that, you know the twist and QE-infinity whatever you want to call it, Ben Bernanke, the outgoing chair of the Federal Reserve, says I think these were counterproductive. Imagine that, right? Yeah, he says, I don't think it had a real-world impact. Certainly, it had the impact of inflating financial asset prices, but it wasn't accomplishing what we thought we could in the real economy. But then he goes on to say that, well in his words, fortunately, my view not so fortunately, he says they had a third toolkit, and this third toolkit was what they call, [what] the Federal Reserve calls, communication policy. It's expressed in this notion of forward guidance. And, it is, as Bernanke says, the intentional use of our words to try to change investor behavior — to use our words, not because we really believe the words but, because we think the words will have an impact, or an effect, in changing investor behavior — you know, what we might call lying in other circumstances. And, this is why we have a calendar, where we send out — every governor of the Fed goes out with its calendar of the interviews they're going to give and the talks they're going to make. It's all coordinated. It's all coordinated. This didn't exist before, but it is absolutely an intentional, and very effective way, at changing investor behavior. I'll tell you it's something that politicians have known forever. But now, everyone is in on the act. Everyone now uses their words and carefully constructs their messages, because they want to have an impact with their words alone. So, this [is] what you see from CEOs, whether it's Marc Benioff or Mark Zuckerberg right? This [is] what you see from central bankers, whether it's our own Fed leaders, whether it's Mario Draghi or whoever is running a central bank. Everyone knows now this [is] how it works — that you can use your words. And, there's a pattern for how the words are used. And, that's what we're trying to measure in the research company that I set up. How are these words used? How do they have an impact on us? Because, we're hardwired to respond to this stuff, and that's what I think has an impact, even more than what you correctly point out is, what I call, the mechanistic impact of buying stuff. AL: That's very interesting. I actually agree with you in the sense that they've just invented this new tool. It's related to the tools that existed before that, just translated through time. The forward guidance and the expectations actually become the policy, and then the follow through, or lack of follow through on that, becomes a backward revision. So, I agree with that. And, the markets are behaving the way they would if you did that with your children — if you promised a trip to Disneyland [and] then later you said you weren't going to do it. They would throw a tantrum. BH: Children and markets are very effective, and they're very effective at learning how to turn your words against you. AL: That's exactly right. I actually don't come down hard on my kids when they try to do that to me, because that's preparation for the real world — to manipulate situations like that. So, that's very interesting, and the way you write, because I have sort of dipped my foot in Epsilon Theory, I can see why it's so popular because it's very well written, it's very clever and, if you read carefully, it's a tad bit rebellious, which we love. You talk a lot about, at least on the interview with Grant Williams, you talked a lot about your farm and the animals. I really enjoyed that. I have a friend who is in a similar situation as you — has a career in engineering but has a farm which doesn't produce a lot, but is a legitimate, authentic working farm. He also has these analogies and I want to ask you if the links that you see — between the farm, ecosystems, animals, biology and markets — are you just seeing them because that's what you're immersed in? I mean, you know, human beings are programmed to recognize faces, we’re just sort of evolved and hardwired to recognize faces, so we see faces in the clouds, in food, in the dirt, the beach and the ocean. Have you become soft-wired to see analogies and connections to farms in markets? BH: Well it's the word you used just a second ago Albert. Used that word “authentic.” What I love about my dilettante farm, our animals are pets. I mean I like animals that pay the rent, like the bees, like the chickens. But our sheep, we shear them and we use the wool, but they're basically pets. This not a working farm. This, for me personally, is trying to get back to a world, of your word, authenticity, because there is a realness to the real world that is so distant. And, I think it's such a healthy corrective to the world of artifice that we live in today — playing the game of markets. I think that distance, that gulf, between the world of artifice — the world of words and stories and narratives — and the real world of fundamentals has grown so dramatically over the last decade, again, intentionally so, in every aspect of markets. So, for me, not just a respite, but the reconnecting with a world of cycles — the seasons, a world of Earth, a world of real life where, yes, you must eat, you must drink, [provide] fresh water for the animals. You can't tell them a story, right? No, they'll die. It is that authenticity, of even a dilettante playing at being a farmer, that I find is just enormously, intrinsically rewarding. So, you ask about the stories? My effort is to try to communicate to a broader audience these stories of the real, to bring into sharp contrast the stories of artifice — this world of artifice that I think we live in more and more in our market existence, our existence as investors. So yes, I intentionally look for, and identify, patterns in nature that I can then write at to draw contrast with our world and markets. I do that intentionally because I do find that these stories of the real of the farm and of animals are so powerful and evocative to people, like you and me who otherwise spend all their time in markets. I think we all know that something is wrong, right? I'll use this phrase or this great line from one of these spaghetti westerns of Clint Eastwood, Outlaw Josey Wales, where, pardon my language here, where his character says, “Don’t piss down my back and tell me it's raining."  I feel like we live in that world, that world of people telling us stories in our market existence. And, that's why I find it so powerful to bring forward stories of the real — of animal behavior, of farm behavior — and it immediately throws our market world into such sharp contrast. It immediately gives a point of purchase for someone to read the article [and] say: What? This market world is not real. It is what I like to call fiat world, where opinions are presented as fact, where we're told the way the world works in sharp contrast to what we see with our own eyes. So, yes, Albert it's all that. I do intentionally look for these connections precisely because I find them so powerful in bringing into sharp relief this world of artifice that we're immersed in, and markets. AL: Ben, I want to try out an analogy of my own on you, and then we'll move on to some, maybe, practical discussions on the markets. When you're going through your farm, you say you talk about how each of the animals sort of pull their weight in a sense — they produce. My friend who has the farm is very proud of that fact as well. Everyone has a role, and if you don't, if you don't have a role, then you better watch out because an axe may be coming. You talk about the chickens, the sheep and so on and so forth. They all pay their way. They produce eggs, wool. In a sense they're producing earnings and dividends. And, when you talk about the suspension of reality that happens in the public markets, but it really happens in the private markets, when you talk about WeWork and Theranos and companies like that, these, to use the phrasing that you used on the farm, these are pet stocks. They're not working stocks, they're pets. And, your daughters may have had some role in classifying so many of those animals as pets. Why are we tolerant of that in investment markets? Why are we willing to put up with so many pet stocks? BH: You know, it's always the byproduct, Albert, of the hothouse environment that one lives in. At the end of a nine-year bull run, you are looking for stories, for entertainment, because your survival is not at stake. I mean, we've got a couple of goats on the farm all right. Goats do nothing. They are a pleasure. They're a joy. Goats are fun. They are, they're dancing around. I like to think of it like mobile art. They're a luxury. They're a luxury, right? And so, I love my goats. I can't imagine not having the goats, but they're absolute luxury. And this, what always happens in markets at, again, the end of a long bull market is that we find our pleasure, we find our art, in these crazy stories like WeWork. It's how humans are wired. Then again, you expect this. This is what I try to write about, and what’s really driven me, in all my, kind of, figuring out games and puzzles — whether it was in academia or software or markets. It's how we, as a human animal — forget about the farm animals let's talk about the human animal — how the human animal is hardwired, and, as you say, softwired, to respond to stories, whether it's the story of the gamboling goat or whether it's the story of WeWork. These are the stories that, I think, if we continue to bring them to our own attention — you know we're not immune to the any of this stuff, not all of us — we can be more resistant to that — by remembering these stories and remembering that what we think is only natural is, frankly, a creation by somebody who understands how we are wired as a human animal. AL: Ben, I don't know if it was the panel that we did together in 2018, but I distinctly remember asking for predictions as to when the bull market would end, and possibly end in a recession or a depression. And, before I received the responses, I joked that everyone always says two or three years away. And, sure enough, the answers were all two or three years away. I had the same folks on the same panel this year, and I was thinking, well I mean it's got to be one or two now, right? I mean, it's a year later. It's the same guys. And I thought, one? I count myself in that group as well. I've been concerned about this for a long time. I thought the hallmark would be something like WeWork getting shut out of public markets, and those valuations coming down. The closer you get to the end, the more ridiculous the story is that we're being asked to buy into. That was truly a ridiculous story, and it was shot down. Do you agree with me? I mean, is this sort of the first sign that this, at least this chapter of the story, is over? BH: So George Soros, you know whatever you think of George Soros, he's a great investor, right? And, he has this wonderful line. Somebody was asking him about, I don't think this was about when he and [Stanley] Druckenmiller were making one of their fortunes on shorting the pound, I think another currency. But somebody asked him to talk about what he was doing. And so, he started explaining what was going on and how he’s positioned. And, somebody (the reporter) said, “Why are you predicting that? Why do you think that's going to happen?” I’d duplicate the accent if I could, but I can't do my old Hungarian accent very well. Soros said, "Young man, you know I'm not predicting — I'm observing." I'm not predicting I'm observing. And, that's really stuck with me a lot. And, the way it's stuck with me is that, I think, when you think of things in terms of a game, and here I’m using game theory in that rigorous sense, it does not lend itself to a prediction. That's why I always hate this kind of exercise we feel like we're forced to go through: to predict something. What I can do, though, because I am focused on observing changes, and directions, the narrative, you know — I might want to try to pretend to predict when does this break, but what I can, I think, tell you is what we have to observe before it can break, before the story breaks. What I mean by the story breaking is basically an Emperor's New Clothes moment, which you're right we kind of did with WeWork, right? It was like: Wait, community adjusted EBITDA? What? Wait, you paid the guy ninety million dollars to get the name “We”? It was an Emperor's New Clothes moment. That is absolutely a hallmark of the story breaking. But, that WeWork story broke, but that was the company looking to go public. You didn't have public investors, and WeWork, who suffered the brunt. The brunt, was shouldered mostly by Masayoshi Son. You see, Son and SoftBank, you know I'm not going to cry for them and they're not, I think, suffering from this, right? The lessons of that, I don't think, are really realized in the form of SoftBank. They're going to keep on doing this, you know, forever. What we have to see is those sorts of Emperor’s New Clothes moments, not on a single company that's looking to go public like WeWork, we have to see that same sort of breaking of a story around one of our big institutions, like the Fed, like the ECB, like we saw in 2008 when the story broke about Wall Street banks. By the story breaking, I don't mean about being revealed. I mean about the confidence, the narrative that these guys were large and in charge, that story broke. It fell to pieces. We've got to see the same thing happen. It's kind of [an] Emperor's New Clothes moment, with a little girl and the crowd says: Hey wait, WeWork, that doesn't make any sense. But instead, it has to be that statement: Hey wait, Jerome [Powell], that doesn't make any sense what you're talking about, what the Fed is doing. That's when it changes, right? I can't predict when that's going to change, but that's what, when you observe that, that is when it will change. AL: That would be a serious development, though, right? Ben, you started this discussion by saying that you supported the Fed’s intervention with QE1. If the story would change and it were to be revealed that the Fed had no clothes, that they're no longer sufficient [as the] lender of last resort. That can't be something that you would want to see, is it? BH: Look, I very much believe that what the Fed did in March of 2009 was exactly what you want a central bank to do, because we really were on the verge of the entire system breaking down. What I think has developed in the decade since then is not a risk of the system breaking down again. Instead, I think it's the risk of the system overtaking — you know, use Star Trek, becoming the Borg and enveloping everything — so that there is no more market, so that capital markets have been transformed into a political utility. That's as much of a tragedy as the markets collapsing. I'd like to think there is something in between those two extremes. I'd like to think that we can have a functioning, break glass in case of emergency, central bank that, when that emergency occurs, as it did when Lehman was taken out in the street and shot, when the entire global financial system is on the verge of being ruined, you break that glass in case of emergency and you take those emergency actions. But I don't think that our choice has to be defined in either, well you've either got that or you've got this Borg-like central bank and Wall Street edifice that eliminates price discovery, eliminates the role of fundamentals and, again, transforms markets into this political utility. I think we can find something in the middle. And that's what I'm hoping for and, what I'm suggesting is happening, when you have that Emperor's New Clothes moment with what central banks are doing today. And, I think I know what that story might be. AL: I could argue that the banks were turned into utilities the minute Paulson said to Bank of America, you got to buy these guys, and Bernanke said to these other guys, you can't pay dividends unless we stress test you. I mean that essentially took the market forces out of banking. And, if we’re to go back [to a market system] you would have to concede that some of them would fail and other ones prosper and pay dividends and have rising stock prices. Correct? BH: I'm with you a thousand percent. What I'm saying, though, is this has been a process, right? It's a process that, look, I get it, if the choice is between Wall Street doesn't exist anymore and we're going to have this intervention, okay, I can get that trade off. What I can't get, again, is transforming emergency action into permanent government policy. And, that's what we've had. So, I’m hopeful enough to think that we can at least not exist at either extreme, because I do think that we have absolutely evolved into this extreme, where again Borg like you know, there is no more price discovery. There is no more role for fundamentals. It's all story. It's all story. And, I think that can be diminished, undermined. I hope, I think, I want to believe, right, without going back to collapse of asset prices and the end of the system as we know it. I think the longer we go on like this, the longer we go on without an Emperor's New Clothes moment, then the more painful the fall from these heights will be. Okay, none of this is going to happen organically, or on its own right. We saw that in December of 2018, or Q4 of 2018, where, oh my god, where we're raising interest rates to, checks notes, 2.5 percent. Oh my god, the world can't handle that. And so, we saw Powell and the rest totally turn on a dime and cave in to what are political pressures. And, you know, we saw what happened this past year, in 2019. So, it's not going to come from inside. It's going to have to come from the outside. And, the way it's going to happen is in a breaking of the story. And, I think what breaks that story, I really do, I think it's inflation, because I think it's coming. I think it's coming because of another thing you mentioned, Albert — which is not just what central banks are doing, in terms of their asset prices and what was happening in terms of the government in terms of its control over fiscal policy — I think that inflation is coming into the real economy, not just in the financial world as we've seen with central banks buying, and I think inflation is coming. Frankly, I think is already here, and I think that's what breaks the story of central bank control. AL: I want to shift the discussion now to an article you wrote about Facebook and Bitcoin. You titled it, The Spanish Prisoner. I thought that was very interesting and I’m actually again, I'm on the same page with you on that. I'll take it one step further, but basically, you're saying that Libra was designed to co-opt Bitcoin. Libra is the cryptocurrency currently being promoted by Facebook. Can you just go over the thinking behind that? BH: Sure, absolutely. I'm a fan of the, I'll call it, the positive energy that comes from Bitcoin true believers and the crypto-community more generally. I share so much of the sentiment, so much of the animus that directs that community, which is to say, look [at] our current monetary policy, it's being used against us, not for us. So, I understand the interest in finding and developing this alternative to fiat currencies, and in the form of Bitcoin, or crypto, or the like. I think there are real issues with that because I don't think the government, any government, will ever willingly give up its ability to control money. I think that's why governments exist — to control money, taxes that come from that, the seigniorage that comes from the printing of money, the control of taxation. So, it's the political risk around cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin that leads me not to be a big participant. But I get it and I share, again, the energy and the sentiment that underlies so much of crypto and Bitcoin. What I think Bitcoin, the real power of it, and much of crypto, is, if [it's] not censorship proof, it is censorship resistant. That's a phrase you hear a lot of times when you talk about Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies. What that means is that, because it has this underlying distributed ledger technology, Bitcoin being one of those powerful and elegant distributed ledger technologies, the record, the history of that Bitcoin, or that coin that is censorship resistant, [is] you can't, easily at least, a government can't, come in and control it. It's censorship resistant, if not censorship proof. What I thought we would see — I think Libra is just the first of these attempts to co-opt censorship resistant coins like Bitcoin. I think Libra is intentionally set up to be a censorship-embracing coin. The idea behind Libra is not that it is somehow in opposition to a government or separate from a governmental sphere of control and censorship. No, Libra embraces the idea that it is compliant with the government. So look, maybe it won't be Libra. Facebook's got its own public relations issues, but beyond Libra there will be others, other coins, other cryptocurrencies, that are promoted specifically by corporations, not in a resistant way to the government, but in a [collaborative], cooperative way. That's what I mean about how, in my view, Libra and these censorship-embracing coins are trying to co-opt the idea of Bitcoin in crypto, but do[ing it] in a way that's non-threatening to government. Hence my point of view — [it] loses all of its appeal. AL: Exactly. It seems to strip Bitcoin of its most desirable features and saddles us with some of the worst features of the cryptocurrency. BH: Absolutely. It becomes, it becomes an electronic fiat currency, which is where governments want to go. They don't want cash money. They don't want paper money floating around to be in existence. The whole effort is to continue to exercise control. I'll call it soft control using their words or, if we can't have that, well let's have currency being represented just as digital zeros and ones. It's all part and parcel, I think, but the same impetus. And again, I get it, right? But, [that] doesn't mean that I have to go along with it. I find by talking about it, relating it in stories that connect with people and their real-world experiences, I find that's the most effective way for me at least to try to ring the bell and bring people's attention. AL: I appreciate your conclusion — that is, that real, authentic, Bitcoin sort of becomes analogous to gold. It becomes gold, basically, which is what people said it was going to do, at least [what] proponents said it was going to do. But gold hasn't solved our problems. As much as I like gold, and advocate gold, and hold gold, it hasn't solved the world's monetary problems because it's just not in high enough circulation. And, your conclusion is that Bitcoin is going to become one of these commodity currencies over time. Is that true? BH: Yes, and frankly I like Bitcoin as a trade, in the same way that I like gold as a trade. I have, I'll say, real concerns with making it a core investment because of the political risk that I associate with Bitcoin. But, Igiven my view that I think inflation in the real economy is coming, frankly, I think it's already here. Right? But I think that the narrative around inflation is going to grow. I think that's extremely threatening to the prevailing central bank narrative: that we've got your back, market. We got this under control. I think that once the genie of inflation is out of the bottle in the real economy, it's very difficult to put back under control. You really think the Fed is going to raise interest rates from here, when in Q4 of 2018 they tried to raise interest rates 2.5% and they were basically taken out in the street and shot? The Fed says, oh we have all these tools to control inflation. Give me a break. They do not. They do not. Politically, they cannot. So, as a trade, I like gold a lot here. I like, God help me, I like Bitcoin a lot here, but it is — particularly when it comes to the political risk associated — a place where governments have enormous control, just enormous control. So, that political risk keeps me from having it as, I'll call it, a core, lifetime holding. But, it's absolutely something that I think is very attractive right here as a trade. AL: I understand almost everything you said there. I definitely understand Bitcoin as a trade. I understand gold as a trade in some circumstances. But, why not gold as a store of wealth? That’s sort of its traditional use. BH: Yeah, and I think gold can have use as a store of wealth. I think, I want to talk for me personally again, my store of wealth is in the land, in the farm. I find it, for me personally, that's where I want to try to store my wealth. I have a very broad conception of what real assets mean. Real assets can include intellectual property. I prefer real assets to have some sort of cash flows associated with them. I like that, but I'm not opposed, or I don't disagree, with any of these conceptions of real assets. What I am opposed to, to the degree that I cannot be immersed in it, is that world of artifice, that world of narratives and story. So, what I'm increasing, what I want in my investments, I'm just speaking for me, is I want to be closer to the real. In public markets, what does that mean? It means getting closer to real companies that still offer real fractional ownership share in real cash flows — harder to find in public markets today. That's the same thing I want in private markets. That's the same thing I want in my own life. So, I look for that notion of storing value and real assets. For me, it's tied up more with land. It's tied up more with knowledge — intellectual property. But I get it. I'm not opposed to [gold]. It's just, for me, that's how I like to express. AL: I’ve got two follow-up questions. Unfortunately, we have to get going because you're running out of time. One of your conclusions was that Bitcoin was going to become more like gold. And, one of the things that involves is, sort of, the stigma associated with gold, or the stigma we attach [to] the type of person that would invest in gold. That's the type of person that's going to invest in Bitcoin. Is the stigma part of the reason that you don't see gold the same way as you see other assets or is there some political risk associated with gold that you don't see associated with other assets? Why do you put gold in a different category? BH: Well I think gold has this, you call it, stigma. I would describe it as the intentional narrative that is created by government to stigmatize gold. And you saw the same thing around Bitcoin. When Bitcoin started to grow in popularity — oh Bitcoin, that's used by terrorists; you must be for the terrorists if you're engaged with Bitcoin. We all saw this stuff. And so, what I'm trying to do is, again trying to, observe rather than try to predict. What I'm observing is the government has a powerful vested interest in trying to control the adoption of gold as an alternative store of value, as an alternative currency, as a cryptocurrency. And, they certainly have an incentive to try to control digital cryptocurrency, like a bitcoin. I think of it as a trade in that, look their efforts to control that are limited, right? I think that, having seen with our own eyes its value in an inflationary environment, yeah, I think I'd like to own some right now, again as a trade, but for me to devote my wealth, my family's wealth, my children's well-being to something that I think is always going to be under this sort of assault — I'd rather find other ways I think are less risky of the government, through soft methods or hard methods, coming after me or that store of wealth. That's where I come out on this. AL: This all makes sense. I would expect to hear a former professor with a family, at a certain point in life, talking very conservatively like this. But you also ran a hedge fund, so there is a speculator in you. I want to close the interview just by asking you about some of the ideas you have for the next year on where people might look for returns. You talk about safer, cash-flowing types of assets. You know Netflix was the stock of the decade in the public markets. And, we know what it does with cash — it just burns it. But the return was phenomenal. So, if not those types of companies, where would you look for out-sized returns in 2020? BH: So look, I've been levered long personally because when the rules change it's going to be a political utility. That’s what you want to be, so we've had this past ten years. For me, personally, it’s levered long and to go with this flow. So, what I'm talking about in terms of narratives and the story breaking, it’s not because I want to fight the Fed, it's because I don't. I want to be able to observe and react to how the world is changing. I think we're on the cusp of a change from a 40-year deflationary cycle into the beginning of an inflationary cycle and everyone's investment playbook from the 1970s needs to be dusted off. Most people don't have that playbook. I wasn't a professional investor in the 1970s, but I can read and I could try to understand what works. That's what I think. That's the playbook I think we need to dust [it] off. I will say this: When you're talking about an inflationary environment, the worst place to be is in fixed income. We got to get that right. What you're looking for are companies that have pricing power. It's like they say, in fast food what are the three most important things? Location. In an inflationary environment, the three most important things are pricing power, pricing power, pricing power. I think that fundamentals will matter again in an inflationary environment because I don't think that the Federal Reserve has the tools really to combat that genie once that gets out of the bottle. And so, in the way that fundamentals matter again for looking at individual companies, you need to look at pricing power. Your multiples are going to suffer as interest rates go up. That's just a mechanistic issue — that high multiples mean that you're pulling forward growth from the future and into today. So, I think that high-flying profitless, cash burning unicorns are under a lot of threat and a lot of pressure in an inflationary environment. I think that the companies that [possess pricing power], whether they're commodity focused, or their story has some sort of percent perceived pricing power alongside it, I think that's where you want to be. I say I'm not predicting but I am observing. I think that's going to be the story of 2020. This inflation in the real world — which we've been told ad nauseam over the last decade, “oh there is no inflation, there's no inflation." That isn’t true. There absolutely is. And, once we get the spending, that's going to come out of whoever is elected in 2020, well that's when I think that inflation genie gets out of the bottle of the real economy. And, that's what I think changes everything in terms of the story for the game of markets. AL: You didn't say this, Ben, but it sounds like a good argument for gold, silver, commodity currencies and non-US dollar denominated assets. BH: It is actually, absolutely with the exception of the non-USD currencies, because what we're talking about here, this not just a US phenomenon — it's a global phenomenon. I think, in terms of currencies, the US is always going to be that best house in a bad neighborhood. So, I don't have a prediction on where the dollar goes, up or down, because I think that's the hardest thing to predict. What I can predict is that, in a global inflationary environment, everything you mentioned in terms of that traditional playbook, I think it's going to be a playbook worth holding on to in 2020 and beyond. AL: So, you are at EpsilonTheory.com and on Twitter @EpsilonTheory BH: The website, Twitter is free to read. We publish a lot and I appreciate you introducing me to your audience. AL: Thank you very much, Ben. Definitely go to his website and check out that Real Vision interview. It was very enjoyable. Ben, I’ve kept you on long, so thank you very much for joining us and I hope we can do it again sometime soon. BH: Be my pleasure. Thanks again.    

Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lyin' eyes?

In this classic fairytale from Hans Christian Andersen, two tricksters tell a vain emperor that they can weave him the most beautiful suit of clothes that will be invisible to fools and those who are unfit for their jobs. When the suit is finished and the Emperor parades through the town to show off his "invisible" suit, it is a little child who has the courage to speak up and tell the truth. A perfect tale to spark discussions on the importance of overcoming fear and vanity to speak the truth.  (Duration 10 minutes)  Ages 4-10

The Emperor's New Clothes Series: Life as We Know It Preacher: Graeme Shanks Sunday Morning Date: 27th October 2019 Time: 11:30

Randy and Jason are joined by Jon Gwyn where they break down the spoilers of the week about Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. Jason talks a bit about why it took so long to start doing YouTube videos. The guys also discuss the Jedi Paxis'leaks on the first part of The Rise of Skywalker and add a few minor details and connect some of the elements to tiny things they heard during the production that seem to backup the elements Paxis describes in his posts. The video described in the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQmW5cinIhU&t=176s

Join us this week as we pull back the loincloth on this classic tale of swindling and subservience. Learn why our big human brains make us susceptible to delusion, why children always say the darndest things, and how to make sustainable clothes! In the studio this week: psychology researcher Holly Blunden and fabrics enthusiast Stephanie Terwindt.Recorded by Sarah-Jayne Robinson and Tim Newport at CPAS Podcast Studio.Edited and transcribed by Tim Newport.Intro music sampled from "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/--TranscriptSJ: Many years ago, there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed.[Intro Music]S: Hi , everyone . My name's SJT: And my name is Tee.SJ: And we're Crumbs of science. And this week, if you couldn't tell, we're talking about the Hans Christian Andersen tale the Emperor's New Clothes. This is one that you've probably heard about before in school and it's really quite a simple tale, very easy to tell the morals in this one.T: There's no Disney version of the Emperor's New Clothes, although there is the Emperor's New Groove, which has similar morals?S: You've got an emperor who is not that nice .T: Yeah , quite vain . And he learns to -- I don't know if this one learns anything.S: He does! He's learned something at the end. The tale goes that the Emperor didn't care anything about caring for the kingdom or making sure that he was being a good ruler. The only thing he cared about was making sure that he had a good looking outfit on. They had a lovely saying, which was "The king's in council, the Emperor's in his dressing room.” He lived in a place where everything was good, so it's all right that he was a bit of a sucky ruler because life was going okay for them. One day there came to town two swindlers who said that they were weavers, and that they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. And there was something very special about these clothes: Not only were their colours and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office or who was unusually stupid.T: “Those will be just the clothes for me,” thought the Emperor. “If I wore them, will be able to discover which men in my empire are unfit for their posts! And I could tell the wise man from the fools! Yes, I must certainly get some of the stuff woven for me right away.” So he forks over a large sum of money to start work immediately.S: And the swindlers, they've got him, hooked him in. They set up their looms, which is what they used to use in olden times to weave and they put nothing on there. They demanded all the exciting materials to make this cloth, so fine silk and gems, gold. But they put all that into their bags and still just set up on this empty loom. Clickity clack going ahead, weaving nothing, which really is a great deception, it seems.T: And so the emperor thought I'd like to know how those weavers are getting on with their cloth, but felt slightly uncomfortable because he remembered that those who were unfit for their position, would not be able to see the fabric. Now it couldn't be that he doubted himself. Yet he thought he'd rather send someone else to see how things were going. The whole town knew about the cloth's particular power now, and they're all impatient to find out how stupid their neighbours were.S: So the first person that the emperor decides to send is his minister because he thinks he's very smart, fit for his job. Minister turns up, can't see anything. But the swindlers, because seems like they were pretty good actors, described the cloth to him, saying it about the excellent pattern and the beautiful colours. However, this poor old minister still couldn't see anything, but he didn't want anyone to know that he was a fool, so he just pretended that he could see it. So he said, it's beautiful, it's enchanting, such a pattern, what colours! I'll be sure to tell the emperor how delighted I am with it.” The minister went back to the emperor and pretended that he saw the fabric, and described to him how amazing and wonderful it truly was.T: The swindlers, of course, merely asked for more money, more silk, more gold threads so they could make more of the clothes. But all of it went straight into their pockets--never a thread went onto the looms, though they worked their “weaving” (in scare quotes) as hard as ever. The emperor then thought I'll send another trustworthy official to see how it's going. That official? The same thing happened as to the minister: He looked and he looked, but as was nothing on the looms, he couldn't see anything. The swindlers went “Isn't it a beautiful piece of goods?” and they displayed and described their imaginary pattern, and this other official thought, “I'm not stupid, so it must be that I’m unworthy. Hmm, I mustn't let anyone know.” So he praised the material he didn't see, he said he was delighted, and to the emperor, he said: “It held me spellbound.”S: So finally the emperor decides that he's got to go see this cloth. So he goes along with a band of people--two of them the ministers who had already gone to see the fabric--and he couldn't see anything. He didn't want anyone to realise that he was unintelligent and unfit to be emperor, so he pretended that he could see it as well and said “Oh, it's very pretty. It has my highest approval.” The whole team he brought with him stared. But not wanting the emperor to think that they were foolish, they continued to compliment the clothes and say how wonderful they were. The emperor even gave the swindlers a cross to wear in their buttonhole and the title of “Sir Weaver.”T: All the Emperor's advisers advised him “You need to wear these amazing clothes in your procession that you were going to do tomorrow.” And so before the procession, the swindlers stayed up all night and burned more than six candles to show just how busy they were finishing the Emperor's New Clothes. They pretended to take the cloth off the loom. There had cuts in the air with huge scissors. And at last, they said, “Now the Emperor's New Clothes are ready for him.” Then the emperor himself came with his noblest nobleman and the swindlers raised up their arms is if they were holding something, saying “here are the trousers, here is the coat, here's the mantle. All of them are as light as a spider web, and one might always think that he had nothing on, but that's what makes them so fine.” “Exactly,” all the noblemen agreed, though they could see nothing, because there was nothing to see.S: So everyone complimented him. He assumed that he was ready, assumed that he looked fantastic, went outside and everyone who was to carry his long train behind him-- Because, of course, that was the height of fashion at the time--they reached down to the floor and pretended to pick it up. And so the emperor went off in his procession under his splendid canopy, and all of his subjects were in the streets and saying to each other, “Oh, how fine are the Emperor's New Clothes? “Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train?” Although no one could see anything, no one would admit this because they didn't want to be seen as unfit for their positions or a fool.T: But then the tiny voice of a child was heard through the clamour in the crowd, saying “But he hasn't got anything on.” “He hasn't got anything on?” “A child, says he hasn't got anything on!” “But he hasn't got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last, and the emperor shivered because he suspected they were right. But he thought “this procession has got to go on. So walked more proudly than ever, as all his nobleman held the train that wasn't there at all.S: A very simple tale of morals. I think of honesty, vanity, don't trust swindlers. So this is a Hans Christian Andersen tale, as we said it was first published on the seventh of April in 1837 was part of his third and final instalment of his Andersen's Fairy Tales Told for Children. The original version of this story was published in 1335 in the book “Libro de los ejemplos”, which is book of the examples by Count Lucanor or Juan Manuel, who was the Prince of Villena and this version of the story was “the king and the three impostors”, and it's very similar in terms of the king is presented with a cloth, but the people who can't see the cloth in that version are actually people who are off illegitimate birth so everyone says that they can see it, especially the king, because he doesn't want to think that he's a bastard and therefore would not be fit for his position. And at the time being of illegitimate birth was considered quite a controversy, So everyone pretends that they can see it until finally, it's not actually a child who steps forward, but it is a black person who at the time was considered to not have anything to lose by admitting that they couldn't see anything. And then suddenly the whole the same thing happens: The whole crowd swells, and everyone realises that the king is actually wearing no clothes. And Anderson didn't see this the original Spanish version, but he did see a German translation of it, which I had to Google. Translate this, because I do not speak any German, but the translation was “That's the Way of the World. When Andersen wrote it, he originally gave it a different ending: He originally had that the emperor's subjects just admired the clothes, and everyone in the town pretended to lie and continued on with it, and the manuscript was actually already at the printers when Andersen went up and said that he wanted to change the ending Historians think that there's a couple of reasons why he might have wanted to change it such as when Andersen himself met the King when he was a young child and he met King Frederick the sixth, and Andersen supposedly said afterwards “Oh he's nothing more than a human being.” There's also the idea that Andersen presented himself to the Danish bourgeoisie as a naive and precocious child, and the Emperor's New Clothes was his expose of the hypocrisy and snobbery that he found within the Danish bourgeoisie. There was also a lovely anecdote that said that after he had written this tale, the king then presented him with some gifts of rubies and diamonds. Because in the Emperor's New Clothes and another of Andersen's tales, the Swineherd, he actually voices a satirical disrespect for the court. So the king was trying to pay him off so that he stopped writing tales of political satire and instead wrote lovely storeys like The Ugly Duckling, which is actually one that he made up entirely by himself and didn't come from previous stories.T: What happens in the Emperor's New Clothes is basically an almost textbook case of mass hysteria. In this case, it's mainly motivated by trying to please the royals. Everyone's trying, to, you know, not get fired, which happens in workplaces a lot. But historically, there have been many cases off large groups of people, all behaving in a strange manner all at the same time. We've actually spoken about this on the podcast before we spoke about the dancing plagues of 1518 in StrasbourgS: in relation to , the pied piper of Hamlin .T: The main mechanism through which they work is still largely unknown. What happens is basically people transmit illusions of threats or rumours, and that influences the behaviour and especially in the small, tight-knit communities. This can happen quite fast. There's an example of this recording 1844 medical textbook, speaking about something that happened in sometime in the 1400s, where a nun in a French convent began meowing and all the other nuns also began meowing, eventually, all the other nuns began meowing together at the same time every day, and that this meowing and didn't stop until the police threatened to whip the nuns for disturbing the community. Other examples include one of most famous ones, The Salem Witch trials, which often gets carted out as the dangers of false accusation, dangers of isolationism and the dangers of mass hysteria. This resulted in the execution of 20 citizens accused of practising witchcraft. Going further forward in 1938 we had the Halifax slasher in the town of Halifax in England, two women who claim to be attacked by a mysterious man with a mallet and bright buckles on his shoes. And then further reports of a man wielding a knife and a razor came in, and the situation became so serious that Scotland Yard was called in to assist the Halifax police to catch this Halifax Slasher. But then one of the victims admitted that he'd actually inflicted the damage upon himself just for attention. Soon after that admission, other people came through, and eventually, they determined that none of the attacks has been real. But everyone in the town had been whipped into a furore because of this fear of this attacker.S: So we've been talking about the psychology of mass delusions, which are pretty relevant to the Emporer's New Clothes, and we decided to get on an expert. So we asked our friend Holly, who has an Honours in psychology and then has spent the last five years working in population health research. So thank you so much for coming on our show, Holly.Holly: Thank you for having me, it's lovely to be here.S: So we have a couple of questions for you in relation to the Emperor's New Clothes. Holly, how does mass delusion work?H: Such a cop-out way to start an answer, but that is a really good question. And I think that’s the-- sort of like group psychology and anything to do with this, sort of, thinking of lots of different individual people is something that's really interesting. I think these stories , like the Emperor's New Clothes, remind us of some of the really dark aspects of humanity and what it means to be ah, part of a species that's this intelligent but also this, sort of, social and so dependent on the impacts and the outcomes of these sort of social hierarchies and the way that we interact with one another. It's hard not to see parallels with those real-life examples when you talk about things like you know, the Heaven's Gate cult and things like that, where there are these otherwise sort of educated, functional members of society committed a mass suicide, in order to like ‘graduate’ --quote unquote-- from their human form and transcend their consciousness as an alien spaceship was passing by the Earth .S: So I haven't heard of the Heaven's Gate cult before. How many people was that they were part of that mass suicide?H: Well, it was actually 39 people who all at this one moment in time, it's very much that kind of Jonestown punch sort of approach, where there was this ‘Hale-Bop’ comet, I think it was called, that was like meant to be passing overhead at this specific time. And the members of this cult believed that they needed to sort of transcend their physical forms at the time that this comet was passing over the Earth in order to transcend, I suppose, and become one with this, like, greater existence. And like it's really interesting as well because as we talk about delusions, I think it's important to kind of differentiate between like like mass delusions and mass hysteria. And like, there's something else, that they called like mass psychogenic illness. So there have been these cases where otherwise healthy people have come down with these sort of like physical ailments of different kinds, so whether it's like twitching or fainting or weird physical behaviours, or like different types of pain and things like that, that could just spread through a community with no attributable physical cause. But a delusion is a bit different, it's more an idiosyncratic belief or impression that you maintain, despite contradicting evidence. This is a delusion because --and this is what made me think that we needed to sort of differentiate-- some of the members of this court were actually returning their telescopes, and things like that, because they bought telescopes to see this comet coming and its trajectory, couldn't find it, and so they've then returned their telescopes because they've rationalised this as the telescopes need to be faulty, because the comet is there. So it's the maintenance of that belief despite contradiction, sort of, evidence or reality.T: Are there any factors that lead to the sort of mass delusion? Like any common factors?H: I think this is one of the reasons that these sort of things are so interesting to people because there's a lot of debate about, like, what the possible reasons for this actually are, because obviously whether it's the psychogenic illness or the mass delusion, like, just the logistics of how this actually happens is really complex. Because you can sort of you can understand how one person's thinking can become, like, disordered or deluded, based on their experiences, or like mental illness… Brains are complicated, and if different things go wrong, like, we can see how that can manifest in lots of different ways. What's really hard to explain about these sort of mass delusions is how does how does a whole group of people go down this same idiosyncratic path of thinking? And how do they all sort of not respond to the evidence and things like that? So there's --I don't know if you've heard of it-- something called Folie à deux, which is like ‘dual madness,’ and so it's this idea, and it's often between people who are in, like, romantic partnerships, or like these very close, sort of like one on one relationships, where they will have these sort of shared dual kind of delusions. And there's this really quite an active debate as to whether this is a real concept, whether it's actually possible for two people to be deluded in the same way, or whether there's like one person who's like fully in the delusion and another person who either, like, sort of you wants to believe, or is kind of enabling those beliefs--T: --acquiescing to those beliefs.H: Acquiescing is a very interesting word choice, and I think I think there is a really core question there, which is is a mass delusion something that can exist? Or does it have to be something that's got a bit more to do with that acquiescence and that natural tendency for people to sort of want to fit into a group and have that sort of sense of place and social cohesion?S: We wanted to ask you about the psychology of acquiescence because from the sound of it, a bit more into acquiescing rather than [delusions].H: It's hard to really tease it apart because obviously like, you know, 39 people isn’t everyone in the world sort of thing. So there are limitations to how kind of compelling this sort of acquiescence or delusion can be. So I think, like, you could put forward a solid argument. Humans are really social species, and our societies often tend to gravitate towards hierarchies. In evolutionary psychology, there's an argument that we actually feel social rejection in a similar way that we would feel physical pain. So because of that, we go to great lengths to avoid feeling rejected by social groups. It is important to acknowledge that evolutionary psychology, while it gives us some really compelling kind of ideas, doesn't lend itself to the kind of falsifiable hypotheses that we do really love in a lot of science. So that's difficult one. But we do have a lot of-- there is a lot of research on acquiescence and how humans will respond in these kinds of social situations. And one really famous example is the “Ash Line” studies from the 1950s-- really straightforward, really powerful kind of social psychology experiments. So they put people in this kind of like classroom environment and, you you'd be like one participant in this class full of other people. The experiment was that, other than the one participant in the room, everyone else in the classroom was in on the experiment. And so they'd hold up two lines that were like, really, really obviously very different lengths. And every single other person in the classroom would be like, oh, they're the same. And so what they found --and I'm sure you know where I'm going with this-- is that most people would actually acquiesce and would be like yep, no, they're the same length, even like knowing that it's wrong. Like there's nothing ambiguous about this situation's very much, I think, comparable to that sort of Emperor's New Clothes situation. It's just being directly confronted with, like, just wrongness. And one of the things as well is that people often tend to have a bit of that, kind of, like self-doubt. So we often look to other people in our social group for answers when we're not sure of the situation. So in something like this you might start off pretty sure. But when everyone else is like convinced that these lines of the same length (or so you think) there's a natural kind of tendency to assume that maybe we've got something wrong and to sort of check yourself. And like often people will go with the group answer, especially if there's someone else that they perceive as like an authority or an expert in that group, because they'll second guess themselves. But they'll trust the group, and it sort of again, like, leads back to that whole, sort of, humans are pretty much useless on our own. But we have very good once we're in a society and we're all sort of working together. But that does come with some pretty interesting drawbacks, which I think you know. What's really highlighted by this Emperor's New Clothes story is that sometimes it's so damaging, and the consequences are so high, of violating these norms or disrupting these hierarchies that exist in the societies that we exist in, that it's easier to either just like acquiesce and agree with what's being said, or potentially to convince yourself that you are wrong and they're seeing something that you know you're just missing, because clearly you're an idiot, and everyone else can see that the lines are the same, that the Emperor is wearing fantastic clothes, and you must be the one who's like screwed something up. Unless you want to end up off on your own.S: so there is one person who in our story doesn't really fall into this power of acquiescing. And that is the child, who instead, even though everyone around him is saying that the Emperor's wearing his delightful suit, says no, he doesn't actually have anything on. So we thought that we would ask you about children and how they don't particularly fit into that power of acquiescing...H: Well, right off the bat, I think there's a definite truthiness to that, isn't it? I'm sure we've all been asked a question or heard a child ask a question every now and then, where we'll be like, hoo, you did not think about the effect it would have on that person to ask that question, did you? Well, first of all, it is pretty demonstrable that it takes a little while to become an adult. There's a lot of processes and brain development and things we need to learn, and neural pathways that need to be consolidated as a function of that learning.S: It takes until you're 25 before your brain is fully developed.H: Absolutely right. And so the last part of your brain to develop, because it sort of happens in stages, are your cortical areas, which are the outside bits that do all the human stuff. These are the sort of structures that have evolved later in development, but they also develop later in your life, so it tends to start from the back and move forward. So things like motor function and things like that will be refined a lot more quickly than some of these more complex social processes. So you see, you know, like a 12 year old or something, and physically in a lot of ways, like they could do most of the stuff that adults could do, especially if they practise a specific skill set and things like that. But emotionally, cognitively, there's still a lot more development to happen. So a lot of things obviously happen during puberty, a lot of emotional kind of attachment and regulation and reward systems and things like that. But this processing of, like, the sort of longer term, higher-order, more abstract connections and consequences of your actions is one of the last things to develop. So that's one of the ones that actually comes in right around that 25 mark, so kids don't have that same kind of like a reason to take pause and sort of consider, like, what are all the things that could happen. And, like biologically and experientially, I don't know about you, but I feel like a lot of people have a real crash course in social politics and hierarchies, and the potential unintended consequences of small things that people say when they go through high school. And by the time you come out of that, you sort of, you know, you're not prepared for a lot of situations that you’ll have at work, but you kind of get this mental map of like, these are the potential consequences that these actions can have.S: If someone turns up naked, you can't tell them that they're naked!H: It's not what people do! It's just it's not the done thing.S: Thank you so much for coming on and having a chat to us, Holly, We really appreciate it.H: Thank you for letting me!S: So the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes, It is about mass delusions, but I also think it's a lot about and I suppose the inventiveness of creativity of these tailors. And at the time, making a fabric that was invisible to some people but visible to others wasn't particularly possible, but nowadays we're almost on the verge of making it be able to make something like that happen. So we decided to speak to Stephanie Terwindt about her passion project, which is making clothes.[phone rings]S: Hi, how's it going?Stephanie: Yeah, not bad.S: Steph, I've known you for a number of years now, and you're a bit of talent at making your own costumes.ST: I am , although don't just do costume, so I also do daywear, and arts and crafts--bit of everything, really.S: And as someone who uses a lot of different fabrics, we thought we might talk to you about some of the current innovations in fabrics and how people make fabric. So I’ve just been doing a bit of research and there have been some amazing innovations. We've come very far from the original using flax fibres to dye clothes. Do you have a favourite fabric that you like working with?ST: Well, see this is a hard one. Because I have fabrics that I like to wear and that I like in clothing, but they're actually probably some of the most horrible fabrics to work with as a seamstress. So, for example, I really, really love chiffon as a fabric. It drapes beautifully. It looks glorious when you're making skirts or dresses and it just has a really nice wow factor. But it is so slippery and so hard. to pin together and to keep in place while you're sewing it, that it’s actually the worst and probably my most hated fabric to use in sewing, even though I love it as a garment.S: So usually worth it in the end, but while you're making it, sort of hating the whole thing.ST: Absolute agony.S: At the moment, personally, I'm trying when I'm looking for clothes, looking to buy clothes, I try and go for ones that are made sustainably, because the actual process of making fabrics can be really harmful to the environment. Do you have any knowledge of current sustainable methods of making clothes, and how that might differ from traditional methods?ST: Definitely. So I guess there's a couple of elements here, and if we think to really more traditional clothes in the modern sense, you're thinking of natural fibres like cotton or linen or silk. They aren't always produced in the most sustainable way, particularly a fibre like cotton. It's a highly water-intense crop to grow, and traditional cotton farming actually uses a lot of chemicals and pesticides in its production, so there's that whole element of producing the cotton. But there's also the aspect of how the fabrics are produced, once you have your thread elements, I guess you could say. So that's the more traditional side of things, and then you get into the synthetic world. Then we're into the area of, you know, single-use plastics almost, and your clothing can almost be regarded that way because as much as you use clothing over, you know, the period of a couple months or a couple of years, depending on your taste and your preferences, once a garment is used, it's very hard to recover those plastic fibres that have gone into making the polyester or lycra that is making up your garment. So there's a big issue around re-using the plastic fibres as well, what we are starting to see. There is a lot of businesses that are looking to alternative natural fibres, though. There's a fibre called TENCEL which was actually developed in Australia, which is made from eucalyptus tree pulp, I believe. And they used that to make the threads which they will then weave into the fabric. And it's a much more sustainable crop then something like cotton, while still being a natural fibre.S: What you're also saying is companies trying to reduce waste the way they make the garments.ST: Traditionally, when you are making garments, you have a large piece of fabric. You cut pattern pieces out of it, and you connect all the pattern pieces together to make your shirt or your dress or your pants. What some companies are doing is weaving fabric or knitting fabric specifically to the pattern pieces so that they don't have to cut the pattern out, and they also won't have any excess fabric as waste. So they're really able to cut to make all of their garments and also reduced the waste in the manufacturing process.S: So I know that people are also making fabrics from a lot of really, really you'd almost say bizarre things nowadays. So one of my favourite brands, Allbirds, which makes shoes from merino wool first. But then they've also started making shoes from tree fibres, and most recently, I think, from sugar plants, they started making flip flops, I think. There's also some companies that will make clothes out of plastic bottles.ST: Funnily enough, a friend of mine has started her own swimwear label, and all of the bikinis in her swimwear range are made of Lycra that is produced from recycled plastic like plastic bottles or fishing line stuff like that. And it's actually becoming increasingly common in particularly swimwear, I think is that connection to the ocean, and people are talking a lot about, you know, cleaning the oceans and removing the plastic from our oceans, and so they’re moved to take that plastic, repurpose it into fabric and then make swimwear out of it, which is fantastic.S: I realise that we can't predict what's gonna happen in the future. But if you were to try and predict what will happen in terms of fabrics, where could you see it going?ST: Ooh, this is a hard one! Because I think there's a lot of work that already underway or that people are already starting to test that I think in the very near future we’ll see and it will be a reality. So I think we're going to continue saying this push towards recycling fabrics I know that H&M has actually been testing recycling garment fabric, pulling apart old garments, re-using the threads from that and creating new fabric from scratch. So I think we're going to see more of that. We're going to see more reusing other natural fibre sources or plastic or whatever to create your fabrics. I think we're also going to start testing or playing with other ways of making fabrics there, not just weaving in a traditional sense, but 3D-printing or a mix of 3D-printing and weaving, and we are also starting to see that happen.S: Thanks so much for chatting to us about that, So the history of clothing is a very, very long one, and people have said that people have been wearing clothes for between 500,000 to 100,000 years ago, and of course, it's evolved a fair bit since then. About 30,000 years ago, people made needles, when people used to make fabrics, and this is how they would have done at the time of the Emperor's New Clothes. You would harvest and clean your fibre and wool, then you'd cart it and spin it into threads, weave the threads into the cloth and then finally fashion and sew the cloth into different clothes. And this sort of technology, people have said that you can find it from about 30,000 years ago, but it's pretty hard to find a lot of history about fabrics because , of course they rot. People have mainly guessed this based on the tools that they found and imprints that they found about things. Nowadays, there's actually-- I went down such a rabbit hole when I was looking at this, and Tee has seen the amount of pages of notes that I have. I found a whole bunch of odd things that I'd never would have suspected that you could use to make fabrics such as orange fibre, which is this company in Italy who's trying to find a way to use the 700,000 tonnes of orange peel discarded yearly in order to create juice. And they make a material similar to viscose blended with silk and cotton and, if you know anything about brand name Salvatore Ferragamo, who makes beautiful, amazing high-end clothes, actually used this fabric to create a capsule collection. There are also companies making bioplastics from potato waste, which is this company Chip[s] Board, which makes a fabric Parblex, and they are working with the potato company McCain's in order to use their potato waste from their wedges and, so on, all their other potato products. And the company has a zero-waste production system because even the offcuts of their material production is incorporated back into the system. There are legitimately so many weird ones out there. I found ones using grape marc to make leathers to make vegan leathers. There are lots and lots of different types of ones, you can make them from pineapple skin. There are hemp fibres --now have turned out to be a very fantastic material because they're antibacterial, durable, resilient. However, there are a few problems with using hemp fibres because the growth is often limited, as people are a little bit worried about that whole connection to cannabis. There are clothes made out of coffee ground fibres, so just think the next time you have your coffee that the grounds could also actually be used by a Taiwanese company to turn into a different type of yarn. And that company, Singtex, is working with Starbucks to take the coffee grounds and use them to make fabrics. Banana fibres, lotus fibres is a super high tech one, and also supposedly makes really high-end ones. And then there's even just new companies that are making different types of fabric, like Stone Island, which is working with reflective glass microbeads and temperature-sensitive outerwear.S: So we've come a pretty long way since the Emperor's time, and though we might not have invisible fabric just yet, there are some really cool options,S: Alright, so hopefully you've learned a little bit about the Emperor's New Clothes. How to avoid being caught up in a mass delusion. And also if anyone tells you that the fabric you're wearing looks fantastic, but you can't see it, do not trust them because it is most likely that they are lying.T: This is actually the final episode of Crumbs of Science. We hope you've much fun listening to this is we have had recording it, and we just like to thank the ANU Centre for the Public awareness of Science for the use of the recording facilities, we’d like to thank Will Grant for getting us set up in the space.S: To all our guests that came along and gave interviews and answered such bizarre questions.T: We hope we didn't get anyone fired. Yeah, that's it from Crumbs of science.S: If you have any questions in the future, please feel free to email us at crumbsofscience@gmail.com.T: Until next time we hope you have--T&S: a happily ever after.[Outro music]

Organizations like Google and the New York Times have created a cacophony of distortions aimed at keeping your families and friends at odds over the election of Donald Trump; but the tighter these companies squeeze, the more they become naked and exposed. That's how we are kicking off the new week! All of that, your calls, and Things I Like to end the show. Watch the full episode: https://youtu.be/DcgcTnw6MOQ Sponsor the Show: Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/QuiteFrankly One-Time Gift: http://www.paypal.me/QuiteFranklyLive SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/quitefrankly BTC: 1EafWUDPHY6y6HQNBjZ4kLWzQJFnE5k9PK LTC: LRs6my7scMxpTD5j7i8WkgBgxpbjXABYXX ETH: 0x80cd26f708815003F11Bd99310a47069320641fC Episodes On Demand: Spotify: https://spoti.fi/301gcES iTunes: http://apple.co/2dMURMq SoundCloud: http://bit.ly/2dTMD13 Google Play: https://bit.ly/2SMi1SF Stitcher: https://bit.ly/2tI5THI BitChute: https://bit.ly/2vNSMFq Official WebSite: http://www.QuiteFranklyPodcast.com DISCORD Hangout: https://bit.ly/2FpkS11 Quite Frankly Subreddit: https://bit.ly/2HdvzEC Steemit: https://bit.ly/2FrNkyi Twitter: @PoliticalOrgy MINDS: @QuiteFrankly Live On: Periscope: https://bit.ly/2FmsOzQ Twitch: https://bit.ly/2TGAeB6 YouTube: https://bit.ly/2exPzj4 DLive: https://bit.ly/2PpY0k0