Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 27, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:30

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #55

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of Low Seaters for Wednesday, the 27th of January 2021.
	I'm John Beck Callum, and we're going to be talking about lots of amusing things that are actually really quite breaking.
	So you're probably going to get the best coverage of GameStop stocks here today of anywhere on the internet.
	But before we do that, I've got a couple of announcements.
	The first one is that we are looking to recruit a new reporter to do...
	Direct news reporting.
	If you'd like to apply for the job, send your CV and your social media links and any other relevant info that you think is necessary to contact at lotusseaters.com.
	Remember, the positions that we hire for are all in-office positions, so you have to be able to work from the office at Swindon.
	So if you can't do that, please don't apply because we won't be considering you for the place, if that's the case.
	Also, we will have part two of the premium podcast, The Ethics of Social Justice, up hopefully today or perhaps tomorrow.
	But if you'd like to come and discuss how social justice works on a moral and ethical level with us, you can sign up at Lotuses.com and become a premium member.
	Anyway, in the meantime, let's begin with talking about Trump's second impeachment, which is a strange thing, because it turns out that they're going to be impeaching a private citizen, which...
	I mean, the jury is, I think, still currently out on that whether that can actually happen.
	But anyway, the looming threat...
	Of the impeachment.
	Because it's on the horizon, and it's going to be happening fairly soon, or at least the decision will be made, has meant that the politicians involved are afraid of a second attack on the US Capitol.
	Apparently there has been a surge in threats against lawmakers, and this has forced the National Guard to remain there.
	Somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 National Guard troops are going to be remaining there, because...
	They're terrified.
	The politicians have become a victim class, in fact.
	But anyways, the Independent Report.
	Excuse me.
	This is going to be the case because they have apparently received numerous threats against lawmakers.
	The Senate trial will begin on the 8th of February, marking the first time in American history a former president has faced an impeachment trial after leaving office.
	Naturally this is couched in the language of Trump inciting his protesters to storm the Capitol.
	This is a narrative with which I personally disagree.
	We've got Factual video evidence?
	Yeah, well, I was going to get to the...
	It's only because the evidence seems to show the opposite.
	Thankfully, Republicans are actually in the Senate now saying this, saying, actually, whoa, hold on.
	He didn't say storm in there and lynch the senators or anything.
	He actually said, peacefully march to the Capitol and make your voices heard, which is not...
	Incitement to violence.
	It's not even vaguely outside of the realm of normalcy for US politics.
	And so the narrative like The Independent and everyone really on the left is presenting is just false.
	And the riot which left five people dead.
	Well, one person was shot by a Secret Service agent.
	One officer died from wounds sustained in the Malie.
	but then three other people died of unrelated health complications, presumably because of their age.
	So this is being completely over-egged in an effort to essentially create a kind of validating narrative, which I don't believe actually exists.
	But 130 people are currently facing federal charges for their alleged involvement in the Capitol riots, and the FBI have said that they've received more than 100,000 pieces of digital evidence that have been submitted across the country about people who allegedly took part in the attacks.
	And you may have seen many of these on social media being young people dobbing in their boomer parents for taking part in these protests.
	And what I guess we could term a riot, even though it didn't seem very riotous as far as these things go.
	But that's only because, again, the previous examples of riots that we have, such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa, looked a lot worse, in my opinion.
	But anyway...
	Some of the people include those who allegedly made death threats against lawmakers, including a Texas man facing five criminal charges for his role in the riots.
	According to court documents, Garrett Miller seemingly referred to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a tweet when he wrote, assassinate AOC. His lawyer has since made the comment that the comment was made in the heat of the moment.
	But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez herself has suggested they do not feel safe returning to work, citing the numerous threats while raising questions about whether any of the Republican counterparts were somehow involved in coordination.
	So AOC is trying to turn politicians into a victim class.
	Politicians.
	They're just at the mercy of the public.
	They're just being persecuted by them.
	They can't do their jobs in peace.
	If only they had some power.
	Oh well, anyway.
	If only they had 7,000 armed guards at the capital.
	Yeah, if only there was something about accountability that maybe they were concerned about.
	But either way, right?
	I mean, like, being serious, if she is afraid to do her job and feels that she can't do her job, then really she should resign, especially given everything that's going on.
	And the fact that I would consider her to be one of the prime instigators in the radicalization of American political life.
	She is incredibly forthright.
	And then now that there's...
	I don't agree that it's acceptable to send death threats, obviously.
	But one can also say that, okay, it's not right to send death threats, but if you're going to be as divisive and inflammatory as AOC is, and this goes for the entire Bernie wing of the Democratic Party, the squad, Bernie, and all of their sort of radical left-wing supporters, then you are kind of inciting it yourself.
	I would suggest.
	In fact, a lot of Democratic rhetoric has been openly incitement, in my opinion, and thankfully we'll get to some of it in a bit, because thankfully some of the Republicans are finally calling this out.
	But anyway, the police are currently investigating.
	One of the people being targeted by the FBI is Brandon Strucker, who was the organizer and originator of the walkaway campaign, a previous Democrat who decided the Democratic Party had gone nuts and had left.
	Now, I haven't seen any evidence that has been claimed about Brandon Strucker, about screenshots of tweets that were reportedly posted.
	Now, this isn't to say that he didn't post these things.
	I'm just saying I haven't seen the evidence.
	And we all know how easy it is to fake screenshots.
	So I would like to see some proof.
	But basically, he was saying things like, for six to eight weeks, everyone on the right has been saying 1776.
	And if Congress moves forward, it will mean revolution.
	So Congress moves forward, patriots stormed the Capitol.
	And now everyone is virtue signaling their embarrassment about what has happened.
	Basically, the continual claim is that he was encouraging it, shouting, we're going in, go, go, go, take it, take it.
	Things like this, basically inciting people to go in.
	Like I said, I've not seen any evidence that he did that, but, I mean, maybe...
	To be honest with you, I always thought the Walk Away campaign was utterly milquetoast and in no danger of doing anything, so this was surprising, frankly, and seemed kind of out of character.
	I mean, I'd followed them generally, and again, it was really, really bland, frankly.
	You know, it seemed totally safe.
	And to be honest with you, that seemed like good optics and good political strategy for them to create a very safe space for Democrats to actually leave this sort of thing.
	But anyway, in response to all of this, this is, again, the pressure is building up.
	And I wasn't really expecting Tulsi Gabbard to come out as strongly as she has, but I really, really enjoyed this.
	We can play this clip.
	This is fantastic.
	The mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6th to try to stop Congress from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities were behaving like domestic enemies of our country.
	But let's be clear.
	The John Brennans, Adam Schiff's, and the oligarchs in big tech who are trying to undermine our constitutionally protected rights and turn our country into a police state with KGB-style surveillance are also domestic enemies and much more powerful and therefore dangerous than the mob that stormed the Capitol.
	Now, John Brennan said...
	So I know looking forward that the members of the Biden team who have been nominated or have been appointed Are now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we've seen overseas,
	where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians.
	Now, President Biden, I call upon you and all members of Congress from both parties to denounce these efforts by the likes of Brennan and others to take away our civil liberties that are endowed to us by our Creator and guaranteed in our Constitution.
	If you don't stand up to these people now, then our country will be in great peril.
	Pretty good statement, I thought.
	Don't see anything that I could possibly disagree with there.
	Even libertarians.
	Yeah, even libertarians.
	But like we said previously, actually, MAGRA is just going to be tarred as white supremacists and all sorts of names, and they will be just considered ostracized.
	But I'm just thinking in my head, like, the libertarian movement and the libertarians don't actually get coincided with MAGA that often.
	Not really.
	Like, they're definitely a separate group.
	I mean, their candidate got quite a lot of electoral votes.
	They have a separate party.
	They have different interests.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But it doesn't matter.
	Just their right wingers.
	They've got to go.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Even libertarians.
	Okay, well, I mean, you know, if they're concerned about civil liberties, then maybe they will have to be...
	They'll have to chime in.
	But, yeah, so basically...
	Tulsi, as reported by the Daily Wire, had also gone after a recent bill by Schiff, which was ostensibly intended to curb domestic terrorism, and she said, look, what are the characteristics we're looking for in building this profile of a potential extremist?
	What are we talking about?
	Religious extremists?
	Are we talking about Christians?
	Evangelical Christians?
	What is a religious extremist?
	Is it someone who is pro-life?
	Where do you take this?
	And of course, she's right.
	This appears to be like an opening of what I guess we could term the domestic war on terror.
	And...
	The previous war on terror is...
	I mean, the very notion of a war on an abstract concept is ridiculous, and therefore has no end.
	Islamic terror is the largest terrorist...
	The largest terrorist groups in the world are Islamic terror groups, in aggregate, not a single one, but in aggregate.
	And they cause the most deaths of any terror group.
	A domestic war on terror doesn't make sense just on that basis alone.
	Like, where are the domestic terrorists in the U.S.? Well, then they're not going to the capital, are they?
	Apparently they're in Portland.
	But even then, you know, the idea of declaring war on an abstract concept is philosophically incoherent.
	You can't declare war on something that isn't an actor, and you can't end up creating a peace with something that has no propensity or method by which to agree to one.
	So, you know, the concept of terror, in the same way the concept of violence or the concept of charity...
	These concepts exist independently of any one particular group or movement.
	But anyway, Rand Paul gave a fantastic speech on the floor.
	It's a four-minute clip that Mike Cernovich tweeted out, and it was genuinely, like he says, world-class.
	It was absolutely fantastic.
	We'll play about the first 30 seconds or a minute or so of it.
	To give you an impression of the tone and tenor of it, he really laid into them.
	He incited the reprehensible behavior and violence of January 6th when he said, I know everyone here will soon march to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
	Peacefully and patriotically, hardly words of violence.
	But what of Democrat words?
	What of Democrat incitement to violence?
	No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise and volunteer coach.
	The shooter nearly pulled off a massacre.
	I was there because he fervently believed the false and inflammatory rhetoric spewed by Bernie and other Democrats Such as the Republican health care plan for the uninsured is that you die.
	As this avowed Bernie supporter shot Steve Scalise, nearly killing him, and shot one of our coaches and two or three of our staff, he screamed, this is for health care.
	I mean, that is like a progressive jihadi, isn't it?
	Running armed into what was a baseball game, I believe, screeching, this is for healthcare, and then shooting a bunch of Republicans?
	It's comical.
	But we're a weird version of Allah Akbar.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, it's not funny, but it's just, it's so ridiculous.
	He went on to say, was it Maxine Waters?
	Yeah.
	Saying that if you see a Republican senator, form a crowd, harass them in public.
	And he was like, well, if that reaches, you know, if Trump reaches the level of incitement, you're certainly also going to jail, Maxine.
	Yeah.
	And he's absolutely right.
	Yeah, and he was basically threatening them all to go after them all for exactly the same sort of thing.
	And he would be right to do it.
	And he would be right to do it, because they went much further.
	And there's actually a demonstrable link between Bernie Sanders, as he pointed out, saying, you know, Republican healthcare planners for people to die, and then someone screeching, healthcare is greatest, and then shooting people.
	Just to say, I actually disagree with the idea that that should be enough for an incitement.
	Personally, I don't think that reaches it.
	I don't think the US law even reaches it.
	I agree, but if anything is going to reach it, then...
	Yeah, it was the point of...
	If Trump saying peacefully do it is reaching the point of incitement, Jesus Christ, your entire party is in trouble.
	Yeah, exactly.
	The radical wing of the Democrats is totally responsible for way worse.
	Threatening them with their own standards is what we're on.
	Yes, and they should.
	They should absolutely be held to their own standards.
	Rand Paul then tweeted out afterwards, I think it was or it might have been before, that he objects to this unconstitutional sham of an impeachment trial and will force a vote on whether the Senate can hold a trial of a private citizen.
	Republicans should reject any process that involves a partisan Democrat in the chair instead of a Chief Justice.
	This amendment was shot down 55 to 45, but what it did is reveal a fault line in the chamber which showed that the vote for impeachment for Trump will likely fail because only five of the Republicans defected to the Democrats.
	But also, if you want to take it literally and get rid of the politics for a second, he's literally saying, do you people think we should be able to incite a private citizen?
	And 45 of them are saying no.
	Indict.
	Well, in which case, 45 are saying we shouldn't do it.
	In which case, then they'd also have to subsequently agree, in the case of Donald Trump, who was a private citizen, you can't impeach him.
	Yeah.
	who defected to the democrats yeah shock and surprise apparently mitt romney also did it for the last impeachment i don't know why he's in the republican party still but yeah he's clearly a democrat get rid of him um but yeah so the motion uh as as vox uh inform us was about the constitutionality of voting to impeach a non-sitting president
	uh they you need a two-thirds vote in the senate and without the support of at least 17 republicans the 50-person democratic caucus will not have the numbers to convict trump so trump will once again not be impeached So he'll have come quite close to this brush, because only five of them defected, so it's unlikely that the full 17 are going to next time.
	So it looks like Trump will be able to run in 2024, if things are going as they go.
	Which would be nice.
	And he's not going to start a new party, which is sensible.
	And he's going to spend his time primarying rhinos on a rhino safari, which will be fun.
	So, yeah.
	Did you have an image you want to put up here?
	Oh, I just wanted to put the image up of Mitt Romney and Trump.
	Oh dear, Mitt.
	God, could you imagine Mitt Romney became president?
	I don't want to see another Democratic president.
	I asked John about this and he says, no, I can't.
	No, no.
	The centipede has got past you again, Mitt.
	But anyway, so in the meantime, Biden has been signing into law critical race theory, which is wonderful.
	One of the best things that Trump did was to outlaw critical race theory in federal organizations and any corporations that they were being contracted with.
	Which is a stunningly good move for people who aren't racist.
	In the same way you'd ban teaching children Nazi ideology?
	Yes.
	For exactly the same reason.
	Exactly the same reason, exactly the same effects.
	Just going in the opposite direction.
	Instead of white people good, brown people bad, now it is brown people good, white people bad.
	Can we just say people good?
	Yeah, some people good, some people bad.
	That's much more accurate.
	So can we not just get past this racial politics?
	But apparently we can't, right?
	And so I watched Biden announcing this, and some of the things he said, I just can't stand.
	Advancing equity has to be everyone's job.
	Okay, thank you, Mr.
	Totalitarian.
	If everyone has to do things, that is, express the totalitarianism.
	Okay, how many people have got planes?
	Yeah.
	Don't know.
	I mean, yeah, where's the equity in you having a private plane, Mr.
	Public Servant?
	How do I get my stacks from China?
	You know, there are loads of questions that only you can answer, in fact, Biden.
	But another one was housing is a right?
	No, it's not.
	And we, of course, have to combat the resurgence of xenophobia against, I nearly said aliens then, but it's actually Asians that he said.
	But really, like, anyway.
	Biden.
	Yeah, it's Biden.
	He might have meant the other one.
	He may well have done.
	And were he on a colony, I can't remember the name of the planet they were on, he would probably have been saying much the same thing.
	The executive actions direct the Housing Department and Department of Urban Development to take the necessary steps to redress racially discriminatory federal housing policies that have contributed to wealth inequality for generations.
	What he's going to be talking about is like redlining in the 70s.
	Yeah, but hasn't he been in office for like 50 years?
	Yeah, I mean, why didn't he do this with Obama?
	Like, when he was the vice president?
	Why did he probably vote for it back in the day as well?
	I mean, and I bet they're not going to find any explicitly racially discriminatory practices, so I don't know.
	But the next thing, and of course, the next thing he did, and this is all part of a giant culture war that is being waged on the part of the Democrats.
	And it seems that Biden has become one of the most vocal advocates of this.
	Now, I just want to be clear.
	A lot of people are saying things like, well, Biden's just a senile old man.
	He doesn't know or believe any of this stuff.
	And it's like, no, I think he does, actually.
	And he's been preaching the good word against white people and English people for quite some time.
	But we'll get to that in a minute.
	Anyway, so he's decided to rescind Trump's patriotic education, saying, I'm rescinding the previous administration's harmful ban on diversity and sensitivity training and abolish the offensive counterfactual 1776 commission.
	Unity and healing must begin with understanding and truth, not ignorance and lies, which is actually outstandingly deceptive.
	Given how Biden is the author of many of these lies and what he is protecting in the radical left wing is a font of lies.
	Now, I'm not...
	I didn't look into the 1776 Commission, so I don't know what the details of it are, but I'm happy to believe that it is one-sided.
	It's fundamental argument is that American history begins in 1776, and it's very patriotically organized and so on and so forth.
	Which is what I would have expected.
	And when you say American history, what we mean is the history of the United States of America begins in 1776.
	Prior to that, it's the English colonies under the rule of the king.
	Yeah.
	So, okay, that's fine.
	It's not lies.
	It's just telling one story, right?
	And this was what the New York Times 1619 project was trying to address.
	they uh they had created this project to essentially rewrite the narrative of the founding of the united states to take it back more than 150 odd years prior um almost 150 years prior to 1619 which was the arrival of the first black slaves in the english colonies and mark that as the point of essentially the founding of the united states as it's constituted today um that's ahistorical that's not true
	i mean that is when black slaves first arrived in the english colonies but they were not the united states the united states being an ideological revolution that came a lot later um but this this was just roundly roundly criticized by scholars I mean, this is an article by Alan C. Guelzo, a historian and senior research scholar at the Council of Humanities and Director of the Initiative of Politics and Statesmanship in the James Madison Program at Princeton University.
	So, not nobody, just not some rando that I've just got off Twitter, which is what most of their articles are about these days.
	He says, This is not what he believes to be an accurate retelling of it.
	As the New York Post reported, this was just criticized en masse by scholars because essentially it just wasn't true.
	And despite this, it took the New York Times seven months to admit the problems with the 1619 Project, and even in its correction, it preserves the fundamental lie of its bid to rewrite American history.
	Scholars of all political stripes, from a variety of disciplines, objected to Hannah Jones's essay immediately on its publication last August, especially this crucial line.
	Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was Was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.
	That is not true.
	At all.
	In fact, like we've covered before, the Founding Fathers knew that the American Revolution would end slavery in the same way that the French Revolution ended slavery in French colonies.
	because the principles upon which it was predicated, the fundamental rights of the individual person, they knew would be extended to blacks who were currently enslaved and would be complete justification for their emancipation.
	The same justification we use now for opposing slavery.
	So this was all part and parcel packaged within the American Revolution, and they knew it.
	As the Newark Post says, that's a lie pure and simple, and the paper still hasn't corrected it.
	It made an important clarification with a new editor's note that explains a passage that has been adjusted.
	Namely, it added two words.
	The essay says protecting slavery was the main reason that some of the colonists fought to rebel from England.
	Yeah, name them.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But yeah, no, that's just not the case.
	It's just not true, right?
	And another thing that's just not true is Joe Biden lying, right?
	Lying about England in particular.
	Now, this is important because Joe Biden highlights his Irish heritage very constantly, and he seems to have a great deal of animosity towards Britain and England itself.
	And this accumulates in him spreading lies.
	Now, this was when he was very, very tepidly on the campaign trail, I believe.
	But I've seen him repeating this many, many times throughout the course of his career.
	Let's watch this clip.
	You all know what the phrase rule of thumb means?
	You know all these expressions?
	You know what the derivation of that is?
	It goes back to not some country that doesn't share our ethnic values or our values or is different.
	It goes back to England.
	In the late 1300s, and those of you who are lawyers who are taking economic classes at college here, There was a thing called English common law.
	The way the law evolves in England is not necessarily legislatively, it's the courts continue to have it emerge and change as it goes along.
	Well, prior in the late 1390s, so many women were dying at the hands of their husbands.
	Literally, this is a fact.
	Dying at the hands of their husband.
	Because a woman is considered, and in many cases still, a chattel.
	Just like the horse, the pig, the farm.
	Not a joke.
	It's a piece of property.
	Okay?
	England.
	Not Zambia or any other.
	England.
	Now, so many women were dying by beating to death by their husbands that they passed the rule in the common law courts of England saying that you could not beat your wife with a rod thicker than the circumference of your thumb.
	We have inherited a cultural depravity.
	None of that's true.
	Absolutely not one word of that was true.
	So, I mean, America, for a start, is a common law country.
	So America works in the same way that England works when it comes to law.
	It's incrementalism based on precedent, which incidentally is why we have such good laws and we don't have weird tyrannical laws like, oh, I don't know, you can beat your wife with, well, what's the Islamic...
	So the Islamic standard is you are allowed to beat your wife, but you must not leave bruises and you must not hit the face.
	There we go, right.
	So, you know, unlike our depravity that doesn't allow this, you know, we could have gone for that enlightened view of the way that women should be beaten, as Joe Biden clearly appreciates with his rescinding of the Muslim ban.
	But this is just not true, right?
	And that's the point of the dueling narratives about the origin of America, delegitimizing the good of English ancestry in the country.
	Because...
	I mean...
	The rule of thumb is not about beating women.
	Well, hang on.
	We'll get to that in a second, right?
	But where to even begin, right?
	So, for a start, women in England gained protections under the Magna Carta, right?
	They could own property from the Magna Carta onwards.
	But the thing is, that's just formally in law.
	Before that, women, of course, still owned property.
	Because if you look back, women were actually not very poorly treated.
	Like, they...
	These things are all relative.
	Compared to what?
	Yeah, compared to what?
	But compared to what he's laying out, that's just not true.
	There was no epidemic of women being beaten to death by their husbands anywhere in the historical record of England that I can find.
	And it's not like women didn't own property.
	We've got lots of evidence of women earning property.
	And it was just that this wasn't put into the common law, and if something isn't introduced into law, something that's causing harm isn't introduced into law, the safe assumption is that that's because it's not happening very much, and therefore the issue isn't raising its head.
	For example, I think, wasn't it in like Wales or something that bestiality was only outlawed in the 90s?
	Right?
	It's a joke, but the thing is, it probably doesn't actually happen very much.
	So it doesn't need legislation because just no one's doing it.
	But it was true that in the 17th century, that there was an addition to the common law that said, look, you can't beat your wife.
	Just in case someone was.
	But even then, like the rule of thumb, anyone can look this up.
	The earliest appearance of the phrase rule of thumb comes from a Scottish preacher called James Durham, right?
	So A, this isn't in English.
	This is Scottish.
	This is before Britain as well.
	So this is an independent country back before the EU existed.
	But he says,"...many professed Christians are like to foolish builders who build by guess and by rule of thumb, as we used to speak, and not by square and rule." So it's not about the width of a stick that you can beat your wife with.
	It's about estimating the length of a piece of building material where you're building a house.
	And of course, you would want to use square and rule because that gives you more accurate measures.
	And so if you've, you know, I need to get a plank of wood that's five feet long or something, and you cut it four and a half feet, that plank of wood is not only insufficient, but it's wasted.
	So it's about building efficiency, right?
	So it's nothing in any way connected to beating women.
	Common law was not used in Scotland at this time, but common law did not permit the beating of women.
	Joe Biden is a goddamn liar, and I think he's a goddamn liar because he's a racist.
	I think he's trying to delegitimize the moral good of America's English inheritance, despite the fact that he lives within it even now.
	He doesn't even understand it, it seems.
	But yeah, so American politics going off the rails.
	I hate it.
	Well at least Trump's not getting indicted.
	Yeah, I guess so.
	Trump's looking kind of golden at the moment, isn't he?
	Yeah.
	You know, again, everything...
	It's going to continue going that way.
	It is.
	Trump's legacy is just going to continue shining ever more brightly, especially as Joe Biden continues to reinstate racism.
	But, right, we may as well go straight on to the next one.
	No particular segue into this.
	Something different, but frankly, it is a bit more jolly, in my opinion, because it turns out that J.K. Rowling is not cancelled, and she's not cancelled because J.K. Rowling still owns the rights to Harry Potter.
	And the rights to Harry Potter is...
	Very big industry.
	And so HBO don't want to just give up on that.
	Damn you, autoplay.
	It's in the AOL one.
	Right, there we go.
	Right, so there have been rumours that HBO Max have been...
	My goodness, these autoplays.
	Yeah, that's alright.
	Do you want to restart?
	No, no, no, it's fine.
	Cut it easier.
	I don't know.
	I didn't really think about it.
	Anyway, so it's been widely rumoured that HBO Max is going to be creating a new Harry Potter series.
	It seems to just be based on rumours at this point, but these sort of rumours rarely have no fire behind them.
	This sort of smoke rarely has no fire.
	So it probably is the case that, you know, someone in HBO Max boardroom has floated it, they've had a bunch of meetings, maybe some money's been allocated, and then some intern or something has posted it on Twitter or whatever, and The rumours have started.
	But we don't know.
	And yet, just the mere rumour of J.K. Rowling getting a Harry Potter TV show series has sparked off the cancel culture machine that exists on Twitter.
	And I just wanted us to go through and look at this, because it's amazing how sensitive they are about this.
	Anyway, so it's unclear whether the project's going to go ahead, as reported by the Huffington Post.
	Only broad ideas have been discussed in the early stage of exploratory meetings.
	And when asked about this, both HBO Max and Warner Bros.
	have flat-out denied talks of an adaptation, saying there's no Harry Potter series in development in the studio or the streaming platform.
	So, okay, nothing, according to them.
	That's probably not true.
	There probably are, because there's so much money invested in Harry Potter and potentially could be made out of Harry Potter that it's unlikely that it's going to go away.
	But we got to hear from literally all of the sort of, you know, left-wing cultural media about how people on Twitter are deeply offended by this.
	So, as they say, some Potterheads welcome the idea of seeing the epic story play out on their TV screens.
	Others bolt at the idea of further lining Rowling's pockets with more galleons following her string of anti-trans statements.
	Right, so, of the hundreds of millions of people who like Harry Potter, what percentage of them do you think are on Twitter?
	It's probably fairly low.
	But anyway, we only get to hear from people on Twitter.
	And what's interesting as well is we're not really hearing from fans either, right?
	We're hearing from people like Jarrett Weiselman, who works at Netflix doing their social media or social something.
	And he says in his bio, I didn't cancel that thing you love.
	Really.
	He tweets out going, wow, Warner Brothers giving more money to a transphobic arsehole.
	Yep, that seems to be the case, I guess.
	There was another one from Barra, who has got BLM in their screen name.
	22, he, they, pansexual, left-wing, ENTP, gayligore, comic book aficionado, X-Men fanboy geek, blah, blah, blah.
	And he says, it's time to do the Stop Enabling JK Rowling from Getting Royalties Challenge.
	So these are just really bitter people.
	If we go on to the Esquire one, again, we just got a bunch of tweets from people arranged in articles to tell us how people are furious about Harry Potter.
	So after posting the info, they get into how Rowling believes that the definition of woman is adult human female, because she's clearly some kind of crazed extremist.
	And you've got people like this.
	Imani Gandhi, whose at is AngryBlackLady, which should tell you everything about her personality, really.
	Obviously don't contact these people.
	She's the senior editor at Law and Policy at the Rewire News Group.
	She says, the co-host of Boom Lawyered, Opinions Are Yours, and The Real Racist.
	I believe it, to be honest.
	And she says, oh, you want me to watch something that's going to put more money in J.K. Rowling's pocket?
	I think the F not.
	And again, it's just all of these people.
	This is Karina Adley McKenzie, a producer, writer, reader, voter, adventurer, cowboy, and the creator of Some Junk.
	Every single one of them has got the pronouns in the bio.
	Every single one.
	There was a time when I would have been elated, but please stop paying J.K. Rowling money.
	She uses her money to hurt the most vulnerable people in our society.
	Her definition of woman is her using her money to hurt the most vulnerable people in society.
	Usually, the most vulnerable people would be considered children, but not now.
	Now it's adults.
	Adults, just like politicians are the victims, now adults can be the most vulnerable people in society.
	And she posted another tweet saying, I made up a song.
	It goes, cancel culture is not real, it's just that nobody likes you.
	We listened to your stupid spiel and then realized we didn't have to.
	So, cancel culture is real.
	And you're a part of it.
	Moving on to bustle.
	Fans don't want Rowling to be involved in the new Harry Potter series.
	Every single one of these is a rando pleb on Twitter, but of course all of them have their pronouns in the bio.
	Are we seeing a commonality here?
	They also do include, though, a culture critic and a producer for Pink News.
	So, you know, just nobody who's got an investment in this kind of political ideology or anything.
	Um...
	The problem, though, and they complain about this.
	I'm not going to go through more of their complaints when you can see them.
	But they say...
	Now, obviously, they're not going to spend any time looking at Rowling's statement.
	I read her statement.
	It's essentially an essay...
	Trying to explain that, look, if we get rid of the definition of woman and change it to anyone who identifies as woman, then there is no definition of woman and we've just obliterated the idea of women's rights activism.
	In much the same way that Joe Biden has allowed trans men, like men to women, to compete with biological women despite all of their advantages and the fact that they're going to end up winning all of the awards.
	In sport.
	Yeah.
	In sport, yeah.
	And so J.K. Rowling comes from the gender essentialist perspective, the biological essentialist perspective, that the definition of woman connects to the word female, which I agree with.
	Definitely, these people who believe in biological essentialism are at odds with the radical transgender activists.
	So anyone with pronouns in their bio situation, that's just a dog whistle to say I am also a radical trans activist.
	I believe in this ideology.
	So the idea that any of these people with pronouns in their bios can be labeled fans by these outlets who are opposing to her getting a deal is just a lie.
	They are just lying to the, you know, making up BS articles to try and then pressure this deal to be shot down because fans don't like it.
	Yeah, and they're all part of the same sort of activist clique that exists on Twitter that collectively makes up cancel culture.
	It's radical left-wingers, they cannot easily identify one another because they have certain dog whistles and shibboleths to entry into their own communities, exactly as you say, right?
	But anyway, so moving on to NBC News, letting us know that HBO Max's Harry Potter would give Rowling an undeserved platform.
	She's the author of Harry Potter.
	No matter what she does, that is a platform above almost all others.
	She's worth billions because of Harry Potter.
	Harry Potter is a mega cultural phenomenon, but the idea that this is the undeserved platform amuses me.
	But they say it wasn't until last summer that Rowling made her anti-transgender feelings clear when she released a lengthy screed on her website outlining her fears of trans-activism.
	For a woman who made billions using the written word, it was a shockingly unreadable piece, full of pseudo-scientific nonsense to dress up undeniable bigotry.
	Right.
	That's sane.
	The people who believe there's literally no biological distinction between male and female are like, this is anti-scientific nonsense, JK. Also, I didn't read it.
	Also, you're a bigot.
	It's like, okay, not going to engage.
	Want to move on.
	It sure was a pivot to shock her audience.
	The Harry Potter series was beloved by readers because it preached messages of tolerance and inclusivity.
	You can see where this is going, right?
	So she cultivated, in their opinion, the audience, and literally she says,"...here is the woman credited with turning a whole generation of readers into progressives, suddenly and loudly declaring that intolerance was sometimes acceptable." And she hasn't let it go and she's doubled down.
	So, oh dear, Rowling.
	Oh dear.
	Did you bring this upon yourself?
	Did you court these people?
	Because if you remember a few years ago, Rowling was the open feminist, tweeting out, oh, I'm a feminist.
	Feminism's great.
	Feminism's wonderful.
	And it's like, actually, feminism wants to destroy the concept of woman.
	Wait, what?
	I didn't sign up for that.
	It's like, yeah, you did.
	You just didn't know what you were doing.
	But anyway, they say, in the context of such statements, giving Rowling another platform seems deeply wrong-headed.
	The evils or intolerance are the main plotline in the Fantastic Beasts trilogy.
	One assumes that any TV series would also be predicated on championing diversity and equality for all.
	Why?
	Why the hell would any TV series be predicated on championing diversity and equality for all?
	Was that what Game of Thrones was about, was it?
	What about Breaking Bad?
	The things I've enjoyed watching.
	What about the boys?
	That's very much about diversity and equality for all.
	This is a ridiculous statement.
	Why would anyone think this?
	It's lunacy.
	Who greenlit this?
	Is there an editor going, this is dumb.
	Why are we publishing this?
	Because the editor agrees.
	Media is not for media's sake or entertainment.
	It is for propaganda purposes only.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly it.
	But anyway, you know, how can fans take such a thing seriously when the author herself is tearing down the marginalized?
	What the hell are you talking about?
	Like, hey, marginalized?
	Where?
	These people are being, like, promoted in every sort of media outlet I can think of.
	So, I mean, if that's marginalization, sign me up.
	I'd love this kind of coverage.
	Actually, I probably wouldn't.
	It'd be awful.
	It is awful to me.
	What kind of people you'd have to deal with?
	Exactly, yeah.
	Corrupt.
	But the point is, Rowling did nothing other than state an opinion on the definition of a word.
	She hasn't torn anyone down.
	She hasn't hurt anyone.
	No money has been spent ruining trans.
	Thousands of feelings have been hurt.
	Thousands of feelings on Twitter have been hurt.
	On twitter.com.
	And that's really important, don't you know?
	But anyway, and I like this the most.
	The appeal to pragmatism and the market.
	HBO Max doesn't need Harry Potter anyway.
	Yeah, right.
	Yeah, right.
	The executives there, it's like, yeah, we don't need Harry Potter.
	Yeah, don't worry about those billions.
	Don't worry about all the merch sales.
	Don't worry about any of that.
	We don't need that.
	We've got...
	Harry Potter World?
	Yeah, exactly.
	I've been to one at Disney World, at Disneyland, one of them.
	I think it was in Florida.
	I can't remember which one it was.
	I've only been to the one in England.
	It's worth your time if you ever...
	Yeah.
	My wife made me take the kids to Disney World in Florida and it was awful.
	Florida itself is hot as the devil's crack.
	I can't understand why anyone would live there.
	People in Florida, lovely.
	You know, it's just...
	It's so goddamn hot.
	How do you deal with it?
	Yeah, I don't.
	I just stayed inside where it's air-conditioned.
	But anyway...
	But anyway, yeah, so don't worry about these billions of dollars that you're going to make.
	You don't need them because JK Rowling has an opinion about the definition of woman that I don't like, and so do other people on Twitter.
	Now, we get to the really interesting bit for me, which is, can Harry Potter fans embrace an HBO Max series while shunning J.K. Rowling?
	Shunning.
	We're at public shunning now.
	We need to shun.
	I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure this series is going to be great, I'm not personally a Harry Potter fan, but those people who are Harry Potter fans are probably going to really enjoy this series, but they're going to have to, while enjoying the series, actively shun J.K. Rowling!
	Like, this is childish.
	Like, walking through the streets chanting shame at her or something.
	Strip her naked.
	You know, shame.
	She believes women are adult human females.
	Shame.
	And everyone's shunning her as they chuck stuff at her naked body.
	Is this really where we want to be as a society?
	Do we have to cancel things because of the outrage of shunning people on Twitter?
	I mean, this is just where we are.
	This article is an argument for, can we separate the art from the artist?
	And the answer is no.
	But this genuinely comes across like a religious screed.
	Obviously individuals can still love Potter novels while disapproving of the views and actions of the author, especially given that the book's morals often contradict Rowling's espoused beliefs.
	I haven't read them but I really doubt they do.
	However, financial support and public platforming is a different issue from personal enjoyment.
	And for fans who find Rowling's anti-trans activism odious, there's not really any way to support New Potter media without the author benefiting from it in one way or another.
	Separating the art from the artist is something one can do intellectually, but when dealing with living artists in a position to receive royalties, it's not actually financially possible.
	Yeah, that's because Rowling has got basically complete control of the Harry Potter franchise wisely, and she definitely should not give this up, because she is uncancellable while she holds the reins of this.
	Well, everyone needs her permission, her, go ahead.
	Because she, like the sort of Games Workshop with Warhammer 40,000, they've got very, very tight control over the content of the mythos, the universe that's been created.
	She's got an eye and grip over it, which is good, because otherwise they're going to ruin it.
	And again, this comes from someone who's not a Harry Potter fan, but I understand...
	Take Star Wars, for example.
	As soon as Lucas has given that over.
	Exactly.
	I completely understand why Harry Potter fans would be annoyed with what could happen.
	But they can't do anything.
	They can't cancel her while she's still into this.
	But my favourite part of this article is this.
	Another way to address the consumption of work by problematic artists is by offsetting potential profits from your purchases with donations to charities that combat their negative activism.
	So it's almost like it's a religious tithe.
	If you're going to sin, you have to pay your tithe to the progressive church and possibly go to confession.
	Zakat, yeah, exactly.
	You pay your zakat because you know you're a sinner, but this is how it's okay.
	You can offset it.
	So yeah, it's pretty mad.
	And of course, Pink News let us know that LGBT fans have officially had it.
	With J.K. Rowling.
	Now, you would have thought this happened back in June when she was like, actually, I think you're all crazy.
	But comic book writer Magdalene Vizagio wrote on Twitter, I'm not asking anyone to disavow their Harry Potter fandom.
	Lots of good things were made by bad people.
	Give me an example.
	No jokes, let's carry on.
	Please seriously think about not watching the Harry Potter series because it means financially supporting a vocal opponent of trans people.
	You know, I kind of hope they do.
	I kind of hope that the handful of progressive lunatics on Twitter do boycott Harry Potter, because then when it still makes millions and billions of dollars in profits, and tens and probably hundreds of millions of people watch it, they'll realize how monumentally inferior in number that they are to people who just don't care about This particular pet issue of theirs.
	Even amongst transgender people.
	Like, we meet plenty of transgender people who just couldn't give a toss about this ideological worldview.
	And that's the thing I think gets forgotten quite a lot.
	You know, the framing here from Pink News.
	LGBT fans hate it.
	Well, it's not gay people, it's not lesbians, it's not bisexuals or transgenders.
	It's radically ideologues.
	Yeah, it's Twitter ideologues.
	Twitter radicals.
	One fan wrote, a long time ago I would have been totally into the new Harry Potter series.
	Now I hear the news and think, Warner Brothers, do my trans family members mean nothing to you?
	I bet they love Harry Potter.
	Probably, yeah.
	I mean, how many trans family members do you have, really?
	Others pointed out that, like, if many have claimed Rowling has been cancelled or silenced, it was working out well for her.
	One wrote, is this what it looks like when J.K. Rowling is cancelled?
	Endless content and theme parks based on her ideas.
	So, okay, at least we can accept that cancel culture is real, you want her to be cancelled, and the problem that you have is she hasn't been cancelled hard enough.
	But as soon as she says, this is happening to me, it doesn't exist.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	Then it's gaslighting.
	Pure gaslighting.
	Oh, cancel culture doesn't exist.
	Wait, I thought we'd cancelled her.
	Well, you can't cancel her as long as she's got that in her hand still.
	It reminds me of neo-Nazis saying the Holocaust didn't happen, but we'll do it again.
	It's like, what's wrong with you?
	How do you not know what you're saying?
	It's massive gaslighting, and it's just insufferable.
	But like I said, it's everywhere.
	The media have been spamming this nonsense out non-stop, and it's like, no.
	You know, J.K. Rowling did nothing wrong with her opinion on what a woman is.
	It's just as valid as your opinion, by your own standards.
	So shut up.
	I don't think their opinion's valid on it.
	There we go.
	But that's the point.
	They don't believe in objective standards.
	So, you know, one person's subjective lived experience, in their opinion, is just as valid, and they use the term valid, as another person's.
	And so that means that J.K. Rowling's is just as valid as theirs.
	So, end of story.
	And she's way more powerful than you and way too rich to counsel.
	So, shut up.
	But anyway, so what's been going on at GameStop?
	So I'm hyped for this segment.
	So I think we've got 9,000 viewers.
	I want to see 9,000 likes and 9,000 stonks in chat.
	Got to get some good stonks in there.
	Because this has been the funniest thing ever.
	And we're just going to give John a little bit more minute because I had a lot of links for this, so my bad.
	But everyone has been asking on lots of social medias, what's all this news about GameStop?
	And GameStop is having the best time of their lives at the moment.
	So, are we ready or still not ready?
	Okay, more stonks.
	More stonks in chat.
	Come on.
	I like my memes, okay?
	Yeah, almost there.
	Yes, okay, I still see the stonks coming in.
	Good.
	Alright, so let's get this out.
	So this is the first graph.
	So what's been going on with GameStop is you can see their stock price here.
	Okay, before we start, right, I don't know much about GameStop.
	As I understand it, it sells video games, like physical copies, which is something I haven't bought in a long time.
	Yeah, so they're a store that sells used copies and whatnot.
	I also have to preface this just to make sure because I don't know what...
	Are you an owner in GameStop stock?
	No.
	I'm not a member of the aristocracy, but I'm not quite sure where YouTube is on this, so I've got to be careful, which is number one.
	We condemn everyone who's engaging in this practice.
	We have no interest in any such practice.
	Is there anything illegal that's happened here?
	I don't.
	Not to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean it doesn't upset YouTube.
	And also, we're not giving any financial advice.
	We're just saying what has happened, and we think it is hilarious, and we're allowed to say that.
	And it's literally that we don't know anything about this.
	But it looks like GameStop's stocks were doing very poorly.
	Yeah, so they rose over the years of good video game selling, and then e-selling came along, and they've slowly declined.
	Steam has killed them, basically.
	Right at the bottom there.
	They were trading at $4 at the bottom, and they're now up to $148 per share within a very, very small time period, as you can see.
	Why?
	Just straight line up.
	And the reason for this is a lovely group of people called WallStreetBets at Reddit.
	So if we can get up this, this is how they describe themselves.
	Like 4chan, found a Bloomberg terminal.
	So they're well known for a lot of different silly memes, like users going on and investing a bunch of money and losing it all after a long series of funny escapades.
	And this one was a new one where they had a plan, so we can get a plan up.
	So, what happened is a financial investment firm saw that GameStop is basically dead and on the verge of dying.
	Lockdowns, no one's going out about games, all your brick and mortar stores are useless.
	Perfectly reasonable estimate.
	So they decided they would short the stocks, they would bet against it.
	We're going to use simplistic terms, number one.
	I don't understand what these things are, because I don't follow the stock market at all.
	So don't at me, WallStreetBets.
	So what does that mean?
	So they were betting against the stock.
	So they were saying, this stock's going to carry on going down.
	And if it carries on going down, they would get loads of money in return.
	And the problem here, when you buy something and sell a stock, it can go to zero or it can go up, right?
	But with shorting, it can go into infinity losses.
	So it just gets worse the more extreme it gets.
	And so, like I said, I don't know anything about this.
	So what I assume they're trying to do is essentially crash the company so they can acquire the assets to sell off.
	I don't think so.
	I think there was no real plan that far.
	But that would be why you would do that, right?
	Apparently not.
	This investment firm is a hedge fund and they were shorting the stock to try and crash it and they make a load of money on the stock going down.
	How do you make money on the stock going down?
	So you essentially agree to buy the stocks at a later date.
	It's a bit complex.
	I don't want to get into it.
	Except for now, they were betting against it.
	It's a simpler time.
	So they decided they would bet loads against it and they overdid it to a point that was ridiculous.
	And people started to notice how much they'd done this and a bunch of other folks had jumped on.
	And they decided, hey, you know what?
	If we just buy the stock en masse, the stock will just go up and then these guys will lose a bunch of money.
	And if it just keeps going, we could destroy them.
	We could absolutely make them bankrupt.
	This billion dollar hedge fund, we could destroy them.
	And apparently, yes.
	Apparently, yes, this is a real thing.
	So there's this post pointing out here that this is, you know, halfway through the scheme, that the investment fund has lost 25% of all of their worth.
	Wow.
	And they had to get a cash injection of $2.75 billion from different firms to try and keep afloat to keep these shorts going.
	Oh, dear.
	And they estimate if the stock price reached $175, this investment firm would go bankrupt.
	They would be worth $0.
	They would be destroyed.
	Billions of dollars gone like that.
	Sorry, what was it at previously?
	So it was at $4 and it was currently trading at $148.
	The markets haven't opened yet in the US. Sure, but if it's trading at nearly $150 and it needs to be $175 for them to ruin this company.
	Hedge fund, yeah.
	Yeah, the hedge fund.
	That is scary, isn't it?
	I imagine the people at this hedge fund are sort of standing on the roof of the building at this point.
	Just laying in bed, wide awake, sweating, thinking about idiots online who are buying a gaming company that's failing.
	Yeah, so it's...
	Oh my god.
	It wasn't just some meme lords like Elon Musk got in on this.
	Oh yeah.
	Elon Musk, not a typical meme lord.
	Yeah, come on.
	Fair point.
	But he tweeted this out, got massively popular, linking to WallStreetBets, trying to get people to buy GameStock stock, because GameStock stock is apparently the thing to get.
	Max Kaiser also jumped in on this, and he was advising people if they do own GameStock to change the way it works, and then it would further hurt these guys.
	And everyone seemed to be in agreement that we should basically just destroy this hedge fund.
	Not because this particular hedge fund has seemed to have done anything egregious, but they just over-egged themselves.
	And the nature of hedge funds generally, right?
	Yeah, wouldn't it be funny to destroy hedge fund because the hedge funds are scumbags?
	I'm not unsympathetic to that view.
	But it's made some people really, really wealthy.
	It seems to be working.
	So the first one, you just scroll down there.
	There's a guy here claiming that he put in $50,000 and he's ended up with a market value of $22 million in a couple of days.
	Out of GameStop?
	GameStop.
	He's got $22 million in GameStop.
	So is this money essentially coming out of the hedge fund?
	Yeah, so the head sponge is shorting against it, so that's where all this market value is coming from.
	Again, not on experts.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Feel free to correct us if we make any mistakes here, because neither of us know anything else.
	Yeah, and then there's another guy whose post I thought was absolutely amazing.
	So he was saying here, I love how he's crossed out the Y in your, to say our position.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So he brought 27,000 shares at $7.50.
	He's now looking at a market value of about $6 million.
	So he's had a very good couple of days.
	Plus 2,900%.
	So I estimated he's probably put in about $200,000 and getting 6 mil.
	So he's doing all right.
	Brilliant, yeah.
	And so can he get that out?
	How can he get the 6 million?
	So you would then sell the stock.
	So I'm assuming most of these guys have bought it.
	Apparently some people are doing the opposite of shorting, where you take calls, but again, don't at me.
	So there's also a great funny bit, which is a guy who's been training for five years, and he posted this on the Reddit, saying, thanks guys, I'm now back in the green.
	Just from buying GameStop.
	Oh my god.
	This just kept going on.
	And it sort of just became a meme, like, wouldn't it be funny if we all brought GameStop and it just kept going?
	And with Elon Musk and Max Kaiser, it's gone too far.
	So the next thing I wanted to show was the fact that it was the most traded stock on planet Earth.
	More traded than Tesla, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon.
	More traded than Facebook.
	Fucking GameStop.
	LAUGHTER This is why I want to see the stonks in the chat, guys.
	Just...
	Alphabet Inc.
	Well, you're at number 10.
	So it's just the amazing thing of these hedge funds sitting there doing all this manipulation.
	It's like, may their billions become your billions.
	We're just taking their billions.
	Also, I saw someone referencing it as trickle-down economics.
	Like, we've got a way to screw over the top and get the money down to the bottom.
	Where it says value there, is that 20.05 billion?
	That's the market value, yeah.
	So GameStop now has a market value of 20 billion.
	I think in sales.
	Again, this isn't financial advice.
	We know nothing about it.
	Feel free to correct us in the comments.
	I also love the idea that essentially this money is being kept in GameStop, right?
	So you use GameStop as a bank account.
	So if you want to keep your money safe, you just put it all in GameStop and you withdraw it when you need it.
	Just if everyone uses GameStop to funnel their money, we could use it as a bank.
	And these are essentially controlling shares, right, as well?
	So they would own shares in GameStop.
	I don't know the percentage, but I presume that by this point...
	I assume it's a massive percentage of the stock.
	They own more than 50% of the stock collectively at WallStreetBets.
	Reddit collectively now controls GameStop.
	Yeah, so it depends what percentage of stock that they have publicly tradable.
	I don't know.
	But it is very likely that WallStreetBets now owns more stock than anyone else who owns stock in GameStop.
	So they could decide, I presume...
	Elect a representative.
	Elect a new chairman.
	I don't know, make it Elon Musk for a laugh.
	Yeah, well, yeah, why not?
	And get them to do whatever.
	Yeah, buy, you know, invest in tendies or something.
	Like, reorganize the business.
	Stop buying up other corporations.
	The giant Reddit-controlled GameStop empire.
	Yeah, and there was one other guy here, so he's a rich investor.
	I know nothing about this guy, but apparently he's Sri Lankan American-Canadian who's made billions.
	And he just decided to tweet out one day, I want to throw a few hundred thousand at something, and, you know, tell me what.
	And people were just like, GameStop, got to do it in GameStop, bro.
	So he did, and he's now invested, I assume that's 50,000 shares in GameStop, he brought, for a meme, just for no reason.
	But he's a billionaire, so what does he carry on?
	Well, let's go!
	I love these people.
	And the hedge fund in question, Melvin Capital, did not take it this well.
	Oh my god!
	Sources say that Melvin Capital is about to file for bankruptcy if this keeps going.
	They would do, because there's only so much you can lose.
	And saying here that they also got the cash injection of about $3 billion, and it just went poof, because people just kept buying in GameStop.
	So then they liquidated all their Alibaba shares, and that just disappeared as well.
	That's amazing.
	Okay.
	And the point here is, I looked up that apparently the value of Melvin Capital was $12.5 billion in Wikipedia.
	And that's gone.
	And they have apparently lost about $5 billion.
	So that means 40% of all of their money has just gone.
	How many people are jumping out of windows at this point at Melvin Capital?
	Imagine if you woke up two days ago and were like, yeah, we could destroy GameStop.
	And then, you know, a couple of days later, you've lost $5 billion because GameStop is the thing.
	Yeah.
	A bunch of just gamers and like randos on the internet have decided to ruin you.
	Just GameStop is the best thing and then you'll sound like, oh god.
	I didn't know what I was getting into.
	So this is news reporting.
	We got this just before we started.
	Apparently the investment firm in question has decided that we've been beat.
	We've lost.
	So they've decided to get rid of all their shorts so they could avoid bankruptcy, but they've already lost 40% of their wealth.
	So it's not been a great position for them.
	So either way, Wall Street Bets, you won this battle, mate.
	You've certainly taken the win.
	It's an absolute rout.
	They all run away.
	That's just total destruction, you know, like 40% of your value down.
	Jesus.
	And the best part was the guys at Wall Street Bets, I looked at what their response to this was, because it's only been like a couple of hours, whatever.
	They don't really believe it's happening, so they're in agreement that this is fake news, and they're trying to, you know, 4D chess the guys, so they're just like, no, there's more.
	Keep going.
	We're all going to go until it's $1,000.
	So, I can't wait to see what happens when the market's open for the New York.
	It's going to be good.
	And then there was the reporting about this, which is just glorious.
	So this is an image which was posted showing that Vice had said that it was white supremacy.
	This is not real.
	This is fake news.
	But it is not really fake news.
	It's kind of a prophecy more than anything.
	It's kind of an artist's representation, isn't it?
	Yeah, they're like, I bet this will be out by tomorrow, practically.
	And they're not entirely wrong.
	The people who are being destroyed in this question, billionaires, are upset and trying to go after GameStop.
	So this is CNBC talking about it.
	And this segment was just absolutely glorious.
	So I had to clip a little part out of it.
	And it's their response.
	So the argument here against what's going on is it's market manipulation.
	These guys have all got together to destroy this hedge fund.
	Isn't that terrible?
	And let's play the clip.
	Is it terrible though?
	Let's play the clip.
	WallStreetBets, which is really driving this, what they've done, that's a site on Reddit, what they've done is target large short positions.
	I actually think, Herb, that they're smarter than we think.
	They're after the ones that are too shorted.
	No short selling is not dead, but they're very smart about what to target.
	Wait a minute.
	What you just said, target.
	So here's my question.
	How is it that they can target, and that's legal, and if there was, in the old days, a bear raid, that was illegal?
	When does this become manipulation, Jim?
	It's First Amendment protection versus the idea of a group getting together to bust the shorts.
	But if the group is not a real group, it's just a lot of people who love it, it's going to be very hard for the U.S. Attorney to do anything, Herb.
	What is it?
	The SEC. What kind of case do they have?
	We like the stock.
	We like the stock.
	So that's a reference to a meme that's coming out of Wall Street Bets where just anyone asks, are you manipulating the market?
	No.
	We like the stock.
	We like the stock.
	I love the way you can see in the background how the GameStop stock is going up.
	Yeah, just as he goes, we like the stock.
	Just tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.
	Like, the more you say we like the stock, the more GameStop wins.
	And I wanted to get an image up here just to show you what else was in that segment.
	So image two.
	Which is just like the market for the day.
	And you can see Dow Jones down.
	Everything red.
	GameStop green.
	Mazdaq down.
	GameStop.
	30% up.
	It's like, okay, COVID might have destroyed the world's economy, but don't worry, we will have GameStop left to take over what there remains.
	In the ashes of civilization, it'll just be GameStop that remains.
	The cybernetic beings that march across the blasted wasteland will have GameStop logo on their forehead.
	But you know all the empty shops we see in Swindon?
	They'll all be GameStops by tomorrow, don't worry.
	Oh, it's amazing.
	Absolutely amazing.
	I just love the way they look so out of joint as well.
	Yeah, CNBC seem to be quite upset.
	Again, not my zone, but Wall Street Bets seem to have quite a rivalry with CNBC, or they seem to quite hate them, because their view of them seems to be...
	Media, yeah.
	But, you know, a certain type of media, they're in charge with the elites, they're in charge with the hedge fund managers who do invite them all the time, and therefore we're taking down the hedge fund managers.
	So, of course, they're protecting them by saying what we're doing is illegal.
	You're a bunch of, you know, screw yourselves kind of thing.
	And they had to issue a statement in response to this.
	So this is a guy on Twitter claiming to be Wall Street Bets chairman, so I assume he's some kind of moderator for the thing or whatever, saying if they take down Wall Street Bets, they better take down every single Wall Street hedge fund that has been endlessly using gangster tactics to make a quick buck.
	Totally right.
	Totally right.
	Like if random people who want to trade in stocks are the bad guys here, they've done something wrong.
	What happens to the billionaires then?
	Because you guys have been doing some really messed up stuff.
	Good question.
	And then there was the open letter published on the subreddit, which amplified this position.
	And I won't read the whole thing, but the too-long-didn't-read version was, hang on, you guys, you know, remember 2008, let's not forget that, you guys screwed up your own portfolios, completely wrecked your own position, and lost all your money, and then what happened?
	You got bailed out.
	You know, Uncle Sam and people came in and just gave you a bunch of money.
	You know, when we risk our stocks, when we want to spend everything on GameStop, you know, if we've messed up, we will lose everything.
	We will lose all the money on GameStop.
	But you guys don't.
	So, no, don't come after us.
	Screw yourselves.
	You have nothing to stand on.
	And I'm in full agreement that, you know, these guys should not be persecuted for what they've done.
	What have they done that's illegal?
	Also, the point made by the host of CNBC, who had to admit, well, if they just sit around and go, we like the stock, like...
	What are you going to do?
	If 10,000 people just agree, we like GameStop, have some money for your stock, what have they done?
	What's illegal here?
	Just posting stonks memes, I don't know.
	Even if the Attorney General was to say WallStreetBets is guilty of this or something, what's to stop a bunch of guys setting up a WhatsApp group with no leader that could do it?
	It's a complete minefield to think that you could go after this.
	And so the response has been that hedge funds will have to start monitoring places like WallStreetBets and PostOnline to figure out what the autists are up to.
	Because the autists might just come in and absolutely destroy your company.
	You've lost five billion dollars.
	The thing that's so funny about this to me is the fact that it's GameStop.
	It's a totally mundane video game, like a gaming company, right?
	And so, like, when I was growing up, there were, you know, loads of small shops like this that were just, you know, you just go in there, get a second-hand game for your Amiga or whatever it was, you know, like, for your Mega Drive, whatever it was.
	So the fact that this causing such hoo-ha is, oh, no, there's something really amusing about it.
	Aesthetically pleasing about it.
	My limited understanding is the unique storm that formed around GameStop.
	The fact that it was so low in price, and these guys egged themselves too much, and then they were just open to being screwed with.
	You wouldn't be able to do this kind of damage to someone normally.
	And in that vein, it's actually their fault.
	They're the ones who messed up here.
	Wall Street Bets haven't done anything but just enable a good meme.
	Although I imagine it will be a bubble.
	I mean, I don't think this can be sustainable.
	The upward curve.
	But the memes out of this have been amazing, so the last thing I wanted to do was this video here.
	I just wanted to play a sea shanty that they've made up to remember this moment in history that will be with us forever, so let's play it.
	There once was a stock that put to sea.
	The name of the stock was GME. The price blew up and the shorts dipped down.
	Hold my bully boy's hold.
	Soon may the tending man come to send a rocket into the sun.
	One day when the trading is done, we'll take our gains and go.
	Before the news had hit the market, Wall Street Bets came up and bought it.
	With diamond hands, they knew they'd profit if they could only hold.
	No deals were cut, no shorts were squeezed, the captain's mind was not on greed.
	But he belonged to the artist's creed, he took the risk to hold.
	For forty days or even more, the stock went up then down once more.
	All gains were lost, it was looking poor, but still those traders did hold.
	As far as I've heard, the fight's still on, the short's not squeezed, and the gain's not won.
	The Tandyman makes his regular call to encourage the captain, crew, and all.
	Soon may the Tandyman come to send our rocket into the sun.
	One day when the trading is done, we'll take our gains and go.
	I'm amazed at the effort that has gone into this.
	Yeah, like someone had to record quite a few lines to do that.
	They had to write it as well.
	So, you know, Godspeed, Wall Street bets.
	May you never die.
	Yeah, that's the end of that segment.
	That's really cheered me up.
	I was quite down yesterday.
	And then I got this, and I was just like, that's amazing.
	Absolutely amazing.
	Oh my god.
	Let's do some Super Chat.
	Yeah, let's answer some questions.
	There's one here I can see that's $150 from Harrison Gray.
	Stonk!
	He says, buy yourself some Game Stonk.
	So I guess we'll be setting up an account.
	Log on to eToro.
	Let us see, there's everything in GameStop.
	Yeah, just end up owning everything.
	But that's the funny part.
	The market value is apparently at $6 billion for GameStop.
	LAUGHTER That just means that they've essentially taken the billions of dollars from this hedge fund and just shoved it into the market value of GameStop that's now collectively owned by the users of WallStreetBets.
	I think that's amazing.
	I really hope...
	I don't know anything about the market, but I hope everyone gets out of this well.
	First one here, I think we have a video question, Dewey.
	Sean Gornaden from Weimar, America.
	My question is, how do we convince the people...
	Who don't really seem to see the obvious things before them of what's happening.
	Yuri Bezmenov had said that these people would be so ideologically motivated they would not be able to see reality.
	And so we can say all we want, we can give them all the facts, but they don't seem to be on board.
	What can we do if they're willing to deny reality?
	Sorry if that's too vague, but any insight is helpful.
	Thank you.
	This is a fantastic question, right?
	Yeah, it looks like El Presidente or something, but that's a fantastic question, right?
	Because I've recently encountered this myself, because on my personal Facebook account, I follow a page called...
	I'm not concerned about benefit fraud, I'm more concerned about corporate fraud, something like that.
	It's got 100,000 followers, and I followed it years ago because, obviously, I wanted to keep track of, like, you know, various things that corporations have done because that's what they would post, right?
	But it's changed over time to become, like, a radical left-wing page.
	And so now it buys into these two separate and competing narratives.
	The first one is that the billionaires are becoming hugely enriched, and this is bad.
	And the second one is that there are people who don't want lockdowns, and that's bad.
	And I've just been trying to post on there, look, do you understand that the lockdowns that are closing small businesses and forcing everyone to use these international megacorporations are the reason the billionaires have seen this giant spike in their income?
	And they literally can't accept it.
	And it's just like, well, how do you explain it?
	They can't explain it, right?
	And then if I can get them to accept that that might be the case, they're like, what, so you want people to die?
	I'm like...
	Dude, people die.
	Billionaires.
	That's a joke.
	No, no, no.
	That's a joke.
	But, like, people die.
	I'll just reply, look, the average age of death is 82.
	The average life expectancy is 81.
	Don't know what we can do.
	And that's it.
	And they just yell at me, they call me names, and none of them want to accept that there are these two inconsistencies, that they want both things, and they're causing the problem for each other.
	And it's like...
	I don't know, is the answer to the question.
	As Yuri Bezmov pointed out, these people just get put up against the wall and shot when the regime actually takes over.
	Obviously, you know, I don't want anyone to get shot or anything, but I just don't know how we can deprogram these people, because they've committed to two contradictory positions and are...
	Utterly unwilling to try and reconcile them and resolve this contradiction.
	I don't know.
	I honestly don't know.
	Via the internet as well, I don't think there is any way of doing it.
	I think these people are in combat mode, so they're hyper-emotionally engaged.
	And so they just start accusing you of things and yelling at you.
	It's like, look, just slow down.
	Just look at these two positions.
	One is causing the other.
	You hate this one and you want this one.
	So you have to make a choice.
	But they don't.
	So, like I said, I don't have an answer, and Yuri Bezmov didn't have an answer either, and I'm not sure there is an answer.
	It could just be that people get trapped in this lunatic cycle, and there's no escaping it.
	So you mentioned the fact that a lot of people, particularly on the left, are upset about billionaires getting more and more rich.
	Yeah, but they're also upset that you're breaking lockdown.
	I just want to mention, because I forgot to mention this about the stonks.
	The point here is also that the ANCAPs are doing more damage than Occupy Wall Street ever did.
	Good point.
	Wall Street bets are doing better than Occupy Wall Street.
	They're taking down more billionaires than anyone else.
	Yeah, good point.
	An anarchist left sided with Biden and the billionaires, and the ANCAPs have declared war.
	Yeah, you guys are all backed by billionaire companies that endlessly tweet your propaganda, whereas these guys are apparently now going to be persecuted.
	They're looking into whether or not they can jail them for manipulating the market.
	NASDAQ is apparently threatening to stop trades if there's too much social media chatter about something.
	Right.
	Just because, you know, they've been able to destroy a billionaire organization.
	All our billionaire friends have organized to say, we need to stop the Wall Street bet crowd.
	Okay.
	MEP Flyboy.
	If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
	People power shouldn't be underestimated.
	Yep.
	GameStop should buy Steam.
	I find it really bizarre that Twitter appears to be the source of news all news these days.
	You could have a revolution these days.
	If no one tweeted about it, it wouldn't be news.
	Yeah, it just speaks to the total laziness of the journalistic class.
	They just sit on Twitter and get all of their news from Twitter.
	And that's why everything you talk about, we have to talk about, that they talk about, is from Twitter.
	That's where they congregate.
	Yeah, that's where they congregate.
	I was going to say, I don't know what the chairman of GameStop is up to, but I imagine him and the board are just sweating bullets like, Jesus, what are we meant to do?
	Yeah, exactly.
	What are we meant to do?
	I guess we better go and say hi to our new overlords.
	What are their instructions?
	Tanushi says, Last stream's mentioned on how consensus has become truth.
	Remind me of bullies in primary school, and they just jeer at me to contradict the bookish kid.
	Translated, majority rules, minority drools.
	Yeah, it's just open Mealian dialogue at that point.
	E. Saunders says, It's constant mental health propaganda in a way of sedating dissenting voices, especially regarding lockdown.
	17% of adults are prescribed psychotropic drugs.
	Yeah, that's terrible, isn't it?
	Oliver Rosendahl says, The R Wall Street Bets GMA situation is very fascinating.
	Millennials coming together to take down a $12.5 billion hedge fund.
	Frick these firms that bet against the working class.
	We like the stock.
	We like the stock.
	It's the best meme.
	I love it.
	Shadow Rodney says, But why do you have a curfew, man?
	Like, curfews don't stop the coronavirus, do they?
	Like, why does the coronavirus care?
	I just, I can't stand the lockdowns.
	I'm not even going to get into it.
	Let's just keep going.
	Deplorable pirate captain says, if the progressive left actually bothered to read the fascist manifesto, they might find they agree with almost all of it.
	Yeah.
	This seems very socialist.
	Miko says, I've been following since GameGate.
	Really expected you to sock on the loadseeds related to the UKIP. But I must say, this turned out to be my favourite podcast so far.
	Good job.
	Well, thank you.
	Krizzle says, the Dutch were often ahead.
	Our EIC came first and invented investment capitalism.
	Our farming techniques turned tundras, swamps, and deserts into crops.
	I don't think we could really describe the Netherlands as tundra at any point.
	Maybe swamps and deserts.
	I mean, maybe swamps.
	But yes, the Dutch are a very enterprising people.
	I've never denied this.
	Tf Allspark says, Norwegian money to our British heroes.
	Thank you, sir.
	Would have been hilarious if Biden got impeached and unseated for his cronious acts while they failed with Trump.
	Well, I mean, I wouldn't rule that out.
	I've got no doubt there are going to be Republicans who are going to push for that sort of thing.
	Not that I think it'll be successful, but there we go.
	Thank you so much.
	The problem with that is that we'll probably get more.
	And to be honest with you, we're kind of stuck for time.
	We're just really busy all the time.
	So I don't think I'd be able to find the time.
	I think we're just going to have to caveat, like, we'll read as many as we can.
	Like, this is why I think Tim Paul doesn't do them, because there's just too many things to go through.
	Yeah, it's just kind of out of the scope of what we're able to do.
	So our apologies.
	But we do appreciate that you've sent us a donation.
	Thomas Ganz says, After 250 years, the American Republic is finally entrenching its aristocracy, a class defined not by money but by ethics.
	Michael Lint at Tablet Mag.
	Yeah, yeah, it's interesting how this is becoming the case, isn't it?
	James Hayes, the phrase was on a government ad on Talk Radio, or this phrase was on a government ad on Talk Radio this morning.
	Could you look at a bus driver in the eye and tell them that your journey is essential?
	Made me and them cry.
	Yeah, I'm sure that I could do that, yes.
	I think the lockdowns are immoral, and I don't think we should be doing them.
	And there are lots of countries who don't do them, and they don't seem to have worked.
	So, just saying.
	DK, American, always...
	And yeah, the government propaganda.
	Like, we covered this yesterday, and...
	I've seen it on TV from my missus showing it.
	If you leave your house, people will die.
	If I stay in my house, people are going to die, bro.
	That's what happens to people when they get really old.
	There's not much left when you're in your 80s, to be honest.
	Americans always remember the Second Amendment is only to be used if the First Amendment fails.
	Yes, that's correct.
	Chad Morrison, 45 Republicans voted against impeachment.
	Yes, they did.
	Stephen, which means they're not going to get their two-thirds majority, hopefully.
	Stephen Knizek says, I just had someone on Facebook tell me that CDC data on coronavirus saying the deaths are heavily weighted by age bracket is an example of QAnon conspiracy theory.
	When did Q join the CDC tech team?
	More importantly, when did the CDC decide to join Q? Like, I mean, I'm not going to rule it out.
	But okay, that's mad.
	But this is a great example of what the chap who sent the video comment was talking about.
	Even when presented with concrete proof that this is heavily weighted in the age brackets, for example, that's like, no, can't accept it.
	I mean, in response to some of the things I've been saying, just perfectly reasonable things, people are like, oh, so you want everyone to die instead of the billionaires making money?
	And I'm like...
	A, everyone isn't going to die.
	We're not all going to die.
	And B, I thought you hated billionaires.
	But you'd rather the billionaires make money and you be perpetual serfs of the billionaires as long as we all live to 100, would you?
	That's weird.
	100 years of serfdom to billionaires is preferable to what?
	Dying in your 80s from coronavirus?
	And not being a serf?
	Like...
	Anyway, the Shadow Blade says, left and right share the same philosophy, altruism.
	Most consistent side wins, and left is most consistent.
	What does that say about your morals?
	It tells me that I'm not an objectivist, but the interpretations of what consists of altruism is the question.
	The Revenge Society says, It's ironic to me that religious morals are more palatable to teach my kid than the morals of today's society.
	Is that a weird basis to join on?
	No, because when you say religious morals, you mean Christian morals.
	And when you say Christian morals, you're going to be talking really about Greek philosophy.
	So, no, it doesn't seem strange at all.
	I mean, it is the moral and ethical heritage of Western civilization, and there's value in it.
	So I don't see a problem with that.
	Brian Hack says, living in a Republican state, we are back to normal.
	Really easy to crack a joke at the woes of our Democrat states.
	They heartily laugh.
	Oh my God, what the fuck?
	Bye.
	But that's the point, isn't it?
	Like, lockdowns are not mandatory.
	You know, they're not necessary.
	They don't work.
	And there are lots of places that don't do lockdowns, such as China.
	Stephen Kinesik again.
	Well, I guess Brennan is about to label Tulsi Gabbard an insurgent, leading her evil, peaceably assembled democracy to stop our pure olacocracy.
	Yeah, Tulsi Gabbard is probably going to get yeeted from the Democratic Party, in my opinion.
	She was openly denounced as a villain at the primaries, which is awful, because she did a great job.
	But I thought she acquitted herself very well.
	Wolfgang Deo, I guess the increase in threats is for free lodging, food, and all that by going to prison.
	If you are going to be screwed by the government, would prison sound okay?
	That's essentially where they eventually want you, isn't it?
	Locked down in one house, you know, presumably being fed and watered by the government, you know, just free hand out money.
	It's not going to be very different to prison.
	I think the main difference will be you have internet access.
	Mike Curran says, Biden asked Putin not to lock up his rival while impeaching Trump.
	Can you say hi to Rob Dunn?
	Hi, Rob Dunn.
	And yeah, yeah, he did.
	He did.
	Do that.
	And Biden has also leveraged his power in the past, but we won't go into it now.
	Sidebook VR says, Was the culture war lost a generation ago?
	Hashtag English Reformation.
	Trump, Mary I. Harris, Biden, Elizabeth I. Long live the new religion.
	Yeah, maybe.
	Maybe.
	There was a story about a lawsuit that's been filed saying that Biden isn't the legitimate king of Gondor.
	Did you see that?
	No.
	Right, okay.
	We'll talk about that tomorrow then.
	Okay.
	Because I find this very interesting.
	But essentially, Joe Biden is looking very much like King John, the phony king of England from Robin Hood, and also reality.
	And that makes Kamala Harris, the cop, seem a lot like the Sheriff of Nottingham.
	And suddenly the paradox starts coming out, doesn't it?
	It's like a Robin Hood mythos.
	And so you've got the Tulsi Gabbards of the world being the Robin Hoods out in the Greenwoods, shooting arrows at the sheriff's men waiting for the return of the rightful king, which is Trump.
	The Nico Bozo.
	In fact, we'll talk about the reason this sort of mythology is important tomorrow, in fact.
	The Nico Bozo.
	Where can I notice the Inquisition?
	I think the government is infected with a Gene Steeler cult.
	It's essentially what's going on, isn't it?
	There's something crazy going on.
	By the way, for people who want to know, very quickly...
	GameStop is trading a pre-market value of $315.
	What?
	So that's way above the 175 need.
	Yeah, yeah.
	The market in New York opens in, like, nine minutes.
	Okay.
	Get that stocked, guys.
	But anyway, yeah, so...
	The next book I'm doing is Marcus Aurelius' Meditations.
	It should be out next week for people who want to read along with it.
	Brother Doom.
	I disavow violence.
	I don't know if I can read out the rest of that, man, to be honest.
	I don't want to take the risk, but I approve of the disavowal of violence on this platform.
	Deplorable Pilot Captain.
	Have you heard about the violent extremist Ron Paul and Vermin Supreme?
	LOL. LOL. Well, not on Twitter.
	I have no idea.
	I haven't heard about it.
	The politicization of society is definitely bad.
	Mute stream.
	Can I have Hugo, please?
	H&H chat for Hugo.
	Hugo recorded a weekend podcast today, so that'll be out on Saturday, presumably.
	Tyler Littleton.
	What is your opinion of the following phrase?
	A good king is better than a good democracy, but a bad king is worse than a bad democracy.
	Well, that's true.
	That's demonstrably true.
	The reason that we use democracy rather than some kind of autocracy is because it makes sure that we can hold that person to account.
	A good king might be wonderful, but you don't know.
	It's a roll of the dice.
	You might end up with a terrible king, and there's nothing you can do about it apart from revolution.
	Coffee Time General says, Have you seen the Joe Biden MGS2 codec calls?
	Also keen to know what coffee you have in the office.
	I don't like simping for Taste the Spooners.
	I don't drink coffee, so...
	I brought in a selection of whatever I happen to have in my kitchen from donations.
	Also, I have not seen the Joe Biden codec.
	PG tips, twinings, I had some M&S tea, and then I think it was like M&S coffee.
	Nothing exciting.
	Pagan Homeslice says, Spiffing Brit, the chat knows.
	Mr.
	Mayo says, Our nation was born of war.
	There comes a time when the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
	Thomas Jefferson.
	Thomas Jefferson.
	Yeah, disavow, I'm afraid.
	YouTube making us disavow.
	Morgan Laramou says, to address a point made by Callum yesterday, women are allowed to serve in all roles in the British military as of 2018.
	If you want some more info on its effects, I can send it to your tips email.
	I thought we still had the standard that they're not for frontline military positions.
	You can train them for combat positions, but they are not to be sent in on, you know, the first decision.
	If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
	I will check it out.
	Maybe if we can ask the terrorists to lower their standards or something, then...
	There's a whole conversation about whether or not women should be in the military, and I'm going to say nothing.
	Thanks for the donation, Luke.
	Moving on, Student of History says, Joe's rule of thumb is from Boondock Saints.
	He's a hack.
	Yeah, I mean, yeah, no, you're right, aren't you?
	Yeah, so this is a movie, right?
	I think it was about two Irish kids, actually, who, like, I don't know, they're assassins or something?
	I haven't seen it.
	But I saw it years ago.
	But, yeah, I think that's where, like, it was popularized, the idea of the rule of thumb being, like, a stick to beat your wife.
	Sorry?
	Yeah, well, it's in the Quran, yeah.
	Popularised in the English-speaking world, shall we say.
	The modern English.
	No, I can't make any jokes.
	Jack Byrne says, my generation has been sold out to protect the NHS. Nobody cares about our concerns or our quality of life.
	It's depressing.
	Also, you said before that you didn't think Caesar did nothing wrong.
	What did you do wrong?
	Oh my god, right, Kate.
	So, basically, the Triumvirate itself was probably an illegitimate thing, like the squad, right?
	It's probably an illegitimate thing to have happen in a Republic anyway, so there should be serious questions about that.
	But then Caesar crossing the Rubicon was totally unacceptable.
	He knew that he did this, and I'm not going to get into it, but he knew he was breaking the rules when he did this, and the only way that he could come out of this on top was essentially never resigning his consulship, and...
	Yeah, he did things wrong, but he won.
	So, you know, everything becomes justified in hindsight if you win.
	Marcel Rogers said, Tuesday, Vaush debated on abortion and he made the claim that no matter what, anytime your bodily autonomy is compromised, you have the right to kill the person.
	Made me laugh at your debate without Kyle.
	So, right, okay, that's a mad point.
	That's a mad point.
	But he just agrees with himself.
	Well, of course he agrees with himself.
	Bodily autonomy.
	Well, okay, well, if I'm being attacked, my bodily autonomy is also being compromised.
	Therefore, I have the right to kill them.
	In which case, Vorsch's position is Carl Ritten.
	Yeah, but what if I've got a pile of dead pedos in front of me?
	Aren't I morally obliged to stop and let those pedos beat me to death in the street?
	I don't want to talk about Vulture's position on pedophilia.
	Mary Benedict.
	That's a nice name.
	If a beating instills righteous living, beat away.
	This is a cool name.
	Eric Edward, we all love Carl's boomer moments.
	Well, thank you.
	Legion0022 says, remember the politician Pym Fortune?
	Yes, I do.
	He was murdered in 2002 by a Greenpeace activist in Holland.
	Yep.
	The left of media never had to disavow the dehumanization of him and still hold office today.
	That's true.
	Left-wing terrorism is awful.
	It's constant, low-level, and incited by media and politicians.
	I really hear how he's completely unknown as well.
	Yeah, he's completely unknown.
	This is for criticising Islam.
	He was demonised by the left and murdered by a leftist.
	The Owen Jones type went out and killed him.
	Yeah.
	And yet all of these people are considered to be equal moral agents to those people who don't want violence.
	Luke says, Jefferson, a very complicated man, tried four times to get rid of slavery, three times in Virginia, and also wrote it into the first draft of the Declaration.
	Yeah, this is where the various compromises had to come in.
	Yeah, I'll probably do a premium podcast about this at some point, going through the American founders' opposition to slavery.
	Because like I said, they knew it was going to get rid of slavery in the end, and they would have...
	As they say, they tried to do it initially, but the southern states weren't going to accept it, and so they had to compromise on it.
	But anyway...
	Yeah, so the 1619 project is just lies.
	Joe Biden is just lies.
	Bradio says, those aren't autoplays, it's subliminal music to create more simps.
	Zeru says, also, Sargon's strategy for the safari is not to go after the big rhinos first.
	A smaller rhino will just fill the void the big one supports away.
	Um...
	Well, you know, I had this conversation with Louis Levi the other day, and I think Trump's probably got enough sway within the Republican Party to knock out some of the big rhinos.
	And that would just cow all of the smaller ones.
	So it would be quick.
	Mary Bernadette Benedict again, a rallying virtue signalled about migrants while living in the whitest area of London and never took one into a home.
	Why don't the left go after that?
	Yeah, that's a good question.
	That's the thing.
	You know, they credit her with creating a generation of progressives.
	And, oh, look at that.
	The revolution turns on its own.
	JP, game again, but this time we make money.
	Hmm.
	That particular rule of thumb is from the Game of Thrones prequel Fire and Blood.
	If you look it up on Google, that exact text will appear.
	Keep it up.
	Yeah, it certainly doesn't come from common law.
	Joe Woodland says, even though I don't like Harry Potter or Rowling, isn't she one of the first people to willingly drop out of the FTSE 100 through actual charity work?
	Yeah, I believe she did, actually.
	Yeah, she made herself, what, not a billionaire at one point?
	Because she did so much charity work?
	I imagine she made that money back because Harry Potter, but, like, she actually does do a huge amount.
	But on Twitter, she offends a bunch of trans activists with pronouns in the bio, so...
	Gem R says, I'll defend Rowling on this principle.
	Not easily given that she cultivated this herself by amplifying every progressive cause that passed her Twitter feed.
	Yes.
	It just keeps going up.
	Like, I just see the pre-market value here.
	It just went up another dollar.
	$326 pre-market value now.
	Konstanzja says, we all know we have to pay for things like the Patriot Act sooner or later.
	Looks like the check is getting due now.
	Yeah, that's completely true.
	All of these things were bound to come around.
	3-3-9.
	Live updates.
	We'll get a rolling ticker on the screen or something.
	It just went up 10 bucks.
	Sorry, it's just ridiculous.
	A thousand bucks, a thousand bucks.
	Josh Leak says, it's looking like China won, they got a massive trade deal with the EU, got access to the US power grid, and market has been increasing military ops, and everyone looks away that they've won the COVID gambit.
	Yeah, it looks like if this was...
	Myself and Hugo did a premium podcast talking about this.
	But if the lockdowns were a strategy by the CCP to ruin the West, then they've been remarkably successful.
	Again, you can go to lowseasars.com and find that premium podcast because it's well worth your time.
	Ryan Ibarra, we're going to have to go in a minute.
	Right, we'll do a couple more and then we'll go.
	We Floridians love our state because it's one of the last free states in the US. Most of that is because you need to be a mad lad to live here.
	Yeah, I don't doubt.
	I mean, like, I went to Florida and you're driving along and it's just all these, like, large lakes.
	Like, you know, fairly sizable lakes that are just dotted around the landscape.
	And the first thing people say to me, oh, you've just arrived.
	Don't go near the water.
	It's like, why?
	It's full of allocators.
	Oh, okay.
	Yep.
	Opens at $350, it's already down to $300.
	So people are cashing out.
	I mean, they did win the war, so they've already...
	Yeah, well, make your money, lads.
	Make your money.
	DRTisKing says Harry Potter and Universal Orlando, not Disney.
	Oh, sorry.
	Well, that's where we went then.
	Florida has ideal weather for human civilization.
	Disavow.
	Imagine living in a place below freezing.
	Well, I can't.
	I don't.
	But imagine living in a place that's above boiling.
	Adam G says it's pronounced rowling as in bowling.
	Makes me die a little each time I hear you say it wrong.
	Well, how do you know that?
	I've only ever heard people saying it rowling rather than rolling.
	That's back up at 300.
	I don't understand.
	And Eva Komar says, thanks so much for coming on to Yernaz Online.
	The interview is up on our channel.
	It was lovely talking to you.
	Keep up the great work.
	Well, thanks very much.
	Thank you, Eva.
	Right.
	Thanks a lot for joining us, everyone.
	Like I said, you can get more content from us at lotuses.com.
	If you want to support us, you can become a premium member.

▲