Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 17, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:19

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #526

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 17th of November 2022.
	I'm joined by Nick Buckley, and we will be talking about Elon Musk leaving Twitter, apparently.
	Why, actually, global warming might not be a terrible thing, and as we're moving into winter, I'm feeling myself agreeing, and whether Trump still has the old energy or not.
	But before we begin...
	At 3.30 today on lossees.com, we have a live premium hangout, which is Biden's AI Bill of Rights that Connor and Josh are going to be talking about.
	I haven't even looked into this, so I'm interested to see what...
	I mean, an AI Bill of Rights?
	I've said this over and over and over.
	Robots must never have rights.
	They're bloody machines.
	Literally, we should not anthropomorphise them and give them rights.
	What a ridiculous position.
	That's what this means.
	I assume so.
	Like I said, I haven't looked into it.
	So I can only assume, but if they're going to give artificial intelligence rights, just, oh, it's over.
	I looked at that and thought straight away, it's...
	Our rights not being affected by technology and AI. Now, maybe that's the case.
	I haven't looked into it.
	You could be right.
	I hope I'm wrong.
	I hope I've completely misinterpreted this.
	Anyway, let's begin.
	So it turns out that Elon Musk appears to be leaving Twitter as Twitter's CEO. Of course he's still going to own the thing, but we'll get into that shortly.
	But I find Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter has been quite interesting, but also slightly confusing in some ways.
	But there have been some people who have done some good work looking into exactly the problem, and people who have got inside information, some of which we'll go through.
	Because there's this kind of Joker-esque way that Elon has taken over Twitter.
	Come in, caused absolute chaos, and now I'm kind of waiting for the, you know, everything's up in the air and I'm waiting for everything to land, particularly with the unsuspending of people.
	I'm waiting for the unsuspending of people.
	It's been five years, Elon.
	It's been six weeks.
	Yeah, you got suspended from Twitter as well.
	Do you know why?
	No, no.
	I mean, I can guess why, but they never...
	You've broken their terms of service.
	That could be anything.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I did misgender someone once.
	The Taliban never seem to break their terms of service.
	Yeah, it is weird.
	And terrorist groups.
	Yeah, the Iranian government.
	Yeah.
	It's just very strange.
	Anyway, before we begin, if you want to support us, go over to lowseas.com and check out our new series, which is Comics Corner.
	Which is Harry and Connor analysing a particular comic series they like.
	And I think this is interesting because it seems to tie in.
	It's, you know, the Joker that they're doing this week.
	And I just felt it was thematically appropriate.
	But it's been getting a really good reception, so they must be doing a good job.
	Comics aren't my thing particularly, but everyone seems to really like it, so...
	Great.
	Anyway, let's begin with some Joker-ish manoeuvring by Elon Musk.
	So, hashtag RIPJimmyFallon was trending on Twitter.
	According to one commentator, it's trending because Twitter allows fake news now.
	Adults allow fake news now.
	As if up until this point there was no fake news on Twitter.
	Nothing about Russian collusion or, you know, nothing about the Hunter Biden laptop.
	You know, is suppressing true things a form of fake news?
	I would suggest it's a lie by omission.
	Who knows, right?
	But they carry on.
	There are no adults in the boardroom or moderators.
	Elon Musk fired them all.
	This is what Twitter looks like when anything goes and you can literally crash corporate stocks with a fake tweet.
	This is, of course, in reference...
	This is not what's being presented.
	It's just some other commentators...
	I should have got the link ready.
	But this, of course, is because Elon Musk rolled out Twitter Blue's verification system and people were like, I'm not actually being verified, I'm just paying for the check mark so I can put myself as anything.
	And so this caused this outrage.
	And so Jimmy Fallon just tweeted that Elon Musk being like, Elon, can you fix this?
	And I responded with, fix what?
	It's like, well, what do you really want him to do?
	You know, am I supposed to, are you not allowed to tweet this now?
	Am I supposed to Hunter Biden, hashtag Rip Jimmy Fallon?
	No.
	And again, this is hardly the first time fake news has been trending on Twitter.
	And of course he puts, you know, sounds like a job for community notes, which is the, you know, basically the community can put I don't think it's a terrible idea, to be honest.
	But anyway, so in light of all of this, Twitter Blue had to be postponed, because as I said in my How Elon Musk Should Moderate Twitter article, actually he needs to verify the people who are paying for verification.
	You have to know exactly who they are in order to make sure that they're not impersonating people.
	Because, of course, this was a major problem.
	I actually suggested, look, just have it so they actually don't get to change their names.
	As in, they actually have to have their names.
	And so you don't end up with the problem that Count Dankula is in right now.
	And if you scroll up just to the woman above him as well.
	So someone called Rational Blonde was like...
	I'm stuck as spicy chicken sandwich.
	Can I change it?
	And Elon's just like, well, with the new release, changing your verified name will cause a loss of checkmark until the name is confirmed by Twitter to meet the terms of service.
	Again, the easiest way to do this, if they're paying you, just use their credit card name.
	Just first and last name.
	Don't worry about the middle name.
	There you go.
	You're verified.
	You are who you claim to be.
	You don't get to change it.
	And you don't get stuck as giant penis, brackets, parody, as Count Tankler has found out.
	Which, amusing, but, you know...
	I think the issue for Elon here is when he came up with this, he had no concept how childish people can be and how silly they can be.
	Which is kind of ironic, given how he loves his memes, he loves tomfoolery on the internet, and he's got such a large platform.
	He must understand that he's setting the tone of the platform.
	The people who are angry that he's taken this over are just going to be as vengeful as they can be following his lead.
	So he should have expected that, really, I think.
	Kind of short-sighted.
	But anyway, so it is still confirmed, though, that all of the legacy blue checkmarks will be removed in a few months.
	And, of course, the new official tag has been reintroduced because...
	Doesn't work, does it?
	Anyway, who knows?
	Who knows what will end up happening with that?
	But what I thought was interesting is there's a chap called Devin Nash, who is the founder of an ad agency, and put out this hour-long video that only 20,000 people saw, and so I thought I'd kind of promote it a bit, because this is very, very informative, because he claims to have direct knowledge Of the inside situation at Twitter.
	Now, I can't confirm any of his claims, so I'm just going to present them as unconfirmed.
	But I think the most important thing that was the takeaway from this, again, just look up what was really happening at Twitter, Devin Nash.
	It's an hour-long video, worth your time, because he's quite forensic with it, to be honest.
	He goes through it in absolute detail.
	But I thought the most important thing that we would learn from this is really Twitter's financial position.
	Because that's the issue.
	Now, Twitter's finances have been released.
	I have looked at them.
	I just didn't get them up for this because I wasn't very interested in this table of spreadsheets.
	But apparently, Twitter is $20 billion in debt.
	They get $6 billion revenue a year, and they have $6 billion in cash just floating around.
	So you can see Elon Musk's problem.
	They are operating at a loss of $4 million a week.
	A week.
	Yes.
	So you can see Elon Musk's problem here, right?
	They are deeply in debt, they're losing money, and, I mean, they have, you know, $6 billion in cash to hand.
	That's very useful, I imagine.
	But that's not going to last forever when you're losing $4 million a week, you know?
	16 million a month, this starts chewing into your finances.
	And then you've got to pay off all of those people you've fired.
	If you've fired half the company, like 3,500 people, we need to give them three months severance pay.
	And if they're on an average of something like $140,000 a year, well, all of this really chews into that 6 billion liquid capital we just happen to have around.
	So not good.
	And so Elon has been pretty ruthless in putting the platform onto what he hopes is going to be a profitable path.
	He sent this memo out to Twitter staff and obviously it got leaked.
	And this is ruthless, actually.
	I'm quite impressed with how...
	It's just unrepentant he is about, no, no, no, you're all going, and as he says here, going forward to build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world will need to be extremely hardcore.
	This will mean working long hours at high intensity, only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade.
	Twitter will also have to be much more engineer-driven.
	Design and product management will still be very important and report to me, but those writing great code will constitute the majority of our team and have the greatest sway.
	At its heart, Twitter is a software and service company, so I think this makes sense.
	If you are sure that you want to be part of the new Twitter, please click yes on the link below.
	Anyone who has not done so by 5pm tomorrow will receive three months severance.
	He's not messing about, is he?
	He's not conning in the unions, he's not saying let's have a team away day and let's work out how together we can take the company far with your saying.
	You're in or you're out.
	This is it.
	Yeah.
	And the thing is, this was probably inevitable.
	It had to be.
	Yeah.
	I mean, Silicon Valley social media companies, I think only Facebook's the only one that's ever made a profit, actually.
	But YouTube, Twitter, and various others are just not profitable companies.
	They're being propped up because of their usefulness, frankly.
	Yeah.
	And Facebook has just had something like 13,000 layoffs recently, so that's about 12% of their entire company just gone.
	Twitter's had half, and you can see why.
	These things are massively overinflated.
	And I've seen a lot of chatter about, well, this is affecting HR the most.
	This is affecting the diversity departments the most.
	Oh no.
	How tragic.
	Did you see the accusation that he's now trying to starve his staff?
	Oh no!
	Tragic!
	Because he's now stopped free food in Twitter offices, which was costing 18 million a year.
	He's now cancelled that, and he's been accused now of trying to starve his staff into submission.
	These guys get six-figure salaries.
	But that just speaks to the entire mindset that preoccupies San Francisco, doesn't it?
	It's like, no, no, we are total dependents on you.
	You have to feed us.
	In the Google offices, apparently there's this expectation where you have to be at the company all day, and you can get beds and sleep in there.
	This is really unhealthy.
	This is weirdly kind of psychopathic, isn't it?
	It's like this complete corporate capture of the person.
	You never get to leave Google headquarters.
	That's crazy.
	You know, it's the same sort of thing with the adult daycare that Twitter was.
	Like, why don't you just be here all day, every day?
	It's like, because that's really unhealthy and I'd like to have a life.
	I'd like to do something.
	We are your life.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly it.
	And so, yes, now I'm in favor of Elon starving the Twitter staff in submission.
	You get a six-figure salary.
	Go and buy yourself a burger.
	Honestly.
	Children.
	Absolute children.
	So anyway, Elon's memo was pretty brutal, but it's also obvious that the man is serious about actually making Twitter a profitable company, which surely is not a bad idea.
	But of course this led to brilliant takes like this one.
	Is Elon Musk intentionally trying to destroy Twitter with his Twitter 2.0 ultimatum to employees, or is he just an effing idiot?
	Yeah, I'm pretty sure the world's richest man is just an effing idiot, mate.
	I'm sure you've got it.
	And again, this was coming whether you liked it or not.
	The question is just how much debt was Twitter going to be able to rack up?
	Because all the money that Twitter was getting prior to this was apparently coming from banks, right?
	This is what Devin was talking about in his video.
	And so, okay, well how many loans are the banks going to give you until it's like, look, you've got a super unprofitable company, we're just not going to give you a loan anymore.
	In fact, we're going to call in and we're going to take your assets and we're going to take over your company.
	Like, how long?
	Who knows?
	But it couldn't have lasted forever, and so it hasn't.
	And so you've got brilliant parody takes from The Onion.
	Elon Musk demands Twitter servers explain what all those wires are for.
	Elon Musk is an engineer.
	These jokes, for some reason, don't land, because that's not the problem with Elon Musk.
	The problem with Elon Musk is actually the lack of stability and calmness with which he has approached this.
	He's approached this rather like a bull in a china shop, which, don't get me wrong, as someone who's not on Twitter and is watching it remotely, is hilarious, but it's definitely not the way I think it should have been approached.
	I think if your joke Is based on Elon Musk isn't very intelligent, then it can't be funny because we all know he's very intelligent.
	He's obviously a smart guy.
	There's lots of things you can accuse him of.
	You know, lots of things.
	Being dictatorial.
	Being reckless.
	Being reckless.
	Lots of things you can accuse him of.
	But not that he's not intelligent.
	Or that he doesn't know anything about tech.
	Yes.
	Like, he's a tech bro.
	Of course he knows about tech.
	This is why the left can't mean.
	Anyway.
	So, after everyone was calling me stupid, to no real effect, it turned out that it was suggested that Elon is probably going to be leaving Twitter fairly soon, which I was quite surprised about, but not terribly shocked about, if that makes any sense.
	As in, I didn't think it'd be like so soon he'd be thinking about handing the company off, but I thought it was obvious that at some point he would be installing a new CEO. He'd maintain ownership of the company, obviously, after making it profitable, and the new CEO to run it, you know, because he's got other things.
	He's got a lot of other things going on, I imagine.
	So, you know, it wasn't terribly shocking that that would be the case.
	But I think it's surprising that it's so soon, because everything is still wild and up in the air, right?
	I would imagine his thinking, at least not what he's thinking, but my thinking would be...
	Elon goes in, takes all the flack, becomes the hated figure, does all the nasty stuff straight away, steps back, someone else comes in and they have the fresh start to help build the company and get advertisers back and stuff.
	But while Elon is still at the helm, all that is harder because he's the hated figure.
	Yeah, but there's no doubt about the fact that a brutal reconfiguration of the company has to take place.
	Half the stuff has to go.
	Anyone who's not 100% committed all the time has to go.
	All of these extraneous drains on the finances of the company have to go.
	So like you said, that's a good point, actually.
	Very Machiavellian, actually.
	Very clever thinking.
	But anyway, as Business Insider tell us, Elon Musk has apparently suggested a potential successor who could fill his role as CEO of Tesla.
	Oh, sorry.
	Sorry, I misread that.
	I thought it was Twitter, not Tesla.
	Balls.
	This is what happens when you're in a hurry in the morning.
	But moving on then, because this...
	I totally misread that.
	I'll say that.
	I think you just accidentally...
	Yeah, I thought, yeah, it looks like I pulled the wrong article.
	Yeah, John's saying that he saw it as well, so I must have just got the wrong article.
	Because the reason I brought this up is because Jack Dorsey had been asked this as well.
	If you go to the next one...
	He'd been asked, if you just want to open this up, you can see the words.
	There's nothing, not much to this, really.
	It was just that someone yesterday had asked him, are you going to accept the position of CEO of Twitter?
	And so I guess I didn't read that previous article correctly.
	But he was asked by Twitter if he'd accept the position of CEO, and he replied, nope.
	So I believe, if you can try and find something very quickly, John, cover my embarrassment.
	John, pull that up.
	I can't believe I made that bloody wrecking mistake.
	You couldn't have Jack Dorsey back as CEO. Why not?
	Why do you not think so?
	Isn't he part of the problem how we got here in the first place?
	Kind of.
	Ah, here we go.
	Right, okay.
	Thank you, John.
	I appreciate you saving my arse there.
	God, what an embarrassment.
	Hal Benjamin is making things up now, live on air.
	Yeah, you know, I'm supposed to be a professional at this.
	But anyway, as you see, he expects to find a new CEO of Time.
	What, did he give a time span?
	No...
	No, he didn't give a time span.
	But as it says, according to multiple media reports, he says, I expect to reduce my time at Twitter and find someone else to run Twitter over time.
	There we go.
	So he will at some point be leaving.
	I'm surprised that this, as I said, this news comes so soon.
	I would have thought, because it's only been like three weeks, you know, I would have thought, I mean, it's going to show how quickly Musk moves on things, really.
	And to be fair, he's not been slow at all.
	I would have thought this would have been at least after, you know, a couple of months.
	You know, Elon would have let the ship right itself and sailed it for a while and then been like, right, okay, someone else can take the helm.
	But apparently, not even a month in, and he's like, yeah, so over time someone else is going to get it.
	But yeah, like I said, Jack Dorsey isn't going to get it.
	But you were saying he was part of the problem, right?
	I don't know that much about Jack Dorsey, but my...
	My initial feeling would be, here's the man who allowed Twitter to turn into what Twitter became.
	He may not have been on board with all that, but he was weak enough to let it happen.
	There's baggage with everybody.
	Taking former staff back into a company always has negatives.
	So for me, and thinking he wants a fresh start and a new way of doing things, why would you want the old boss coming back who then tells you this isn't how we did things at Twitter in my day?
	Well, this isn't your day.
	So I would suggest that what happened with Twitter is that Jack Dorsey& Co.
	created this interesting thing and it started getting popular and they needed to raise revenue.
	And so what I think they did is, you know, got a lot of shareholders in.
	And these shareholders often came from, you know, international investment conglomerates.
	any kind of executive power and so he would essentially be forced to go along with all of these things or else we'll stop giving you money and of course you've got companies were profitable and so the whole thing collapses and so I think I thought this for a while actually with a lot of the sort of like same with Zuckerberg I think they're in a position where they I can't really object to what's happening, even though they don't really agree with it.
	I actually do think that Jack Dorsey and Zuckerberg are not radical progressive lunatics.
	I think they've just kind of been co-opted by them.
	So it was a lack of actual power.
	Oh, here we go.
	John's got another update as well.
	On Monday, Musk said in the tweet, since deleted, that he plans to sleep at Twitter's headquarters until the organization is fixed.
	Well, good luck with that, Elon.
	But the point is, I don't think Jack Dorsey is actually a terrible suggestion.
	I know, radical coming from me, this.
	Because, A, he's explained his position on it.
	He's quite good friends with Elon, apparently.
	And he's explained that he should have had it as a decentralized sort of Mastodon-style server from the start and should never have been able to be owned publicly.
	But now that it is owned by one man, and if Jack Dorsey is then made CEO, then he's got complete executive control over it.
	So actually, the problem of being sort of taken over in the way that it happened actually shouldn't happen twice, and maybe Jack would be able to actually run the thing properly.
	Maybe not.
	I think it all depends if you know Jack Dorsey, which I don't.
	I don't know him, but I've followed this for quite some time.
	So who knows?
	But there we are.
	So Elon Musk is, apparently, after some time leaving Twitter.
	We don't know how long yet, obviously.
	But the question, I suppose, then, is who will be the next CEO? And we don't know that either.
	If he brings me back, I'll put in an application.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, yeah.
	And I'll definitely pay the $8, too.
	LAUGHTER Let's go for your segment.
	Yeah, so I thought I would have a little bit of fun.
	I thought we'd poke the bear a little bit and see who we can annoy.
	Right, so a segment that we can't put on YouTube or Facebook.
	Which I didn't realise until I came into the office today and then you said, we can do it, but we can't put it on most of social media.
	So it sort of backfired a little bit.
	But we are where we are.
	So I wanted to talk about climate change.
	So not as a denier, but everything...
	As an advocate.
	Well, yes.
	No, absolutely.
	As an advocate, is it all bad?
	And this is what I want to talk about.
	So before we get arrested for hate speech and accused of racism because climate change affects black people more than white people, so it's racism.
	And before we accuse it of transphobia because the climate transitions to one state to another, which is a bit like transitioning from man to female.
	So we could be accused of that.
	So before we get accused of all that, Let's look at...
	We always call it Mother Earth, but is it?
	Exactly.
	Does she identify as a mother?
	Who knows?
	So, let's get into this.
	So, climate change is real.
	We all know it's real.
	History teaches us it's real, so I'm not a climate denier.
	Have a look at 100 years ago.
	The Thames used to freeze over every Christmas.
	Families used to ice skate on the Thames.
	In the Victorian era, I think it was called the Little Ice Age.
	Yeah.
	It happened every year, round about every Christmas.
	Prior to that, you had something called the Medieval Warm Period, where they used to grow grapes in Lancashire.
	Yeah, well if you look at any northern town, there's a street in almost every northern town called Vine Street.
	That's because on that street there were going grapes to make wine at some point.
	Because the temperature used to be much nicer.
	Yeah, that's why the Romans came here and planted the vines 2,000 years ago.
	So the temperature and the climate has always changed.
	We know that.
	I've never met anybody who's ever told me there's no such thing as climate change.
	How could you hold such a position that the climate doesn't change?
	Yeah, but that's what people are accused of for being a climate denier.
	If you look at the Mediterranean, the sea used to be a lot lower because if you look at Alexandria and Egypt on the coast and some of the Greek islands, there's towns and villages under the water and scuba divers go down to have a look and, you know, archaeologists and that because the water used to be a lot lower.
	So that's changed there.
	We have cave paintings and rock paintings in the Sahara Desert of giraffes and elephants and hippos.
	It used to be green.
	Because it all used to be green.
	5,000 years ago.
	Yes, exactly.
	So it's changed there.
	We've had five major ice ages, which has covered Europe and North America and all receded, come back again and receded.
	So things are constantly changing.
	The earth changes all the time.
	This is like a history lesson, but the earth changes.
	And this isn't climate related, but if you go to the Alps...
	You'll find fossilised fish.
	Yeah.
	That's because those mountains and the rocks there used to be the bottom of the sea.
	Yeah.
	Now, as I understand it, two tectonic plates collide and then push.
	Exactly.
	So things are changing all the time.
	But when you talk to some of the people pushing the climate hysteria, they think it's always been like today and should never change, but it changes all the time.
	Yeah, just on that point, I've noticed that the climate lobby is very conservative in their view of the climate itself.
	As in, oh no no, this should be like this forever.
	It's like, it's not going to be like this forever.
	It's never been like this.
	Exactly!
	It's never been like this forever, and it never will be.
	And you're a lunatic for thinking you can hold back the tide, like King Canute style.
	You know?
	Like, this is nonsense.
	And that's exactly what they're trying to do, especially with CO2. Yeah.
	And that seems to be the new big thing.
	Ten years ago, I never heard of anyone talking about CO2 as an issue.
	It just seems to have popped up five years ago.
	Carbon dioxide is totally normal.
	Like, it's...
	A core part of the atmosphere.
	Plants use it for photosynthesis.
	It's not a poison.
	They're treating it like a poison gas.
	I don't know anything about it, but I know that it's not dangerous.
	And it's produced everywhere.
	So every animal on Earth produces CO2. Even ants produce CO2. Decomposition.
	So any vegetable matter that falls off a tree or in a field produces CO2. Forest fires.
	The oceans are the biggest producers of CO2. Volcanic eruptions and man-made CO2 in two different ways.
	The air we breathe, we're breathing out carbon dioxide all the time, and we burn fossil fuels which create CO2. And all this is fact, so I'm not denying anything.
	So man does create CO2. But let's go back to the ants.
	So do the ants.
	So when you have ants in a forest, that soil has more CO2 in it than other parts of the forest, because the ants take all the vegetation underground, they let it decompose, that's where fungus grows on it, and they eat the fungus.
	So they're producing CO2 in a big scale all the time.
	They're not even thinking about the planet.
	They're not, and we're not trying to kill ants either, to stop that CO2. And if you bring up the graph, This graph is by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the American government.
	And over several hundred thousand years, it shows you temperature goes up and down, and so does the level of CO2. It goes up and down.
	I'm noticing a pattern here now.
	I'm no expert graph reader.
	But it seems that there's a sharp spike, and then a slow, gradual decline, and then a sharp spike, and then a slow, gradual decline, and we appear to be at the top of a sharp spike.
	Exactly.
	Is it fair for us to expect a slow, gradual decline after that?
	Yes, absolutely.
	And let's say there isn't.
	Let's say this is history, before man polluted the Earth, and let's say all that's going to happen now...
	That existed.
	Yeah, all that's going to happen now is...
	The graph's going to go up and up and up because of man-made CO2. So if that's the case...
	There's going to be some negatives because of that, and I agree with that.
	If it carries on, there will be negatives.
	But every time you look at something where there's negatives, there's always positives there as well, if you can twist them to be a positive.
	So let's look at some of the positives, if all this turns out to be correct.
	So what will happen if these graphs keep going up?
	Brighton will be underwater.
	Pardon?
	Brighton will be underwater.
	Possibly.
	That'd be a positive.
	Yeah.
	But the world will be...
	Large amounts of California.
	Northern Europe will be warmer.
	The UK will be warmer.
	Great.
	So, how will that impact us?
	So...
	Warmer climate, more CO2. So why more CO2? Why is that beneficial?
	That's because plants need CO2 to grow and to develop for photosynthesis.
	So it'll be a greener world.
	A greener planet.
	And for people who are thinking, well, why does CO2 grow?
	Do that?
	Well, I'm not a scientist, but let's speak...
	In school, I did learn that they take in CO2 and produce oxygen from it through photosynthesis.
	I mean, this is what you learn in school.
	But let's look at some professionals.
	So if you can bring up the article, the article is from the Dutch greenhouses.
	So what people don't know, these professional greenhouses are producing all our food and all our tomatoes and all our flowers.
	Right.
	Of actually pumping in carbon dioxide into the greenhouses.
	To produce larger plants.
	To produce larger yields, healthier plants, to make more money.
	Right.
	So we're going to have more food.
	We're going to have more food.
	And why do we need more food?
	Well, we've got more people.
	Well, absolutely.
	The world now is at 8 billion.
	Yes.
	So we're definitely going to need some more food.
	So if you can bring up the BBC News article.
	Okay.
	So, again, this is like...
	So the argument they'll make is like, well, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere acts as some sort of greenhouse gas and contains heat in the atmosphere of the planet, which is heating up the planet.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Yeah so it they say well it does produce like a thermal blanket so the energy can't escape into into space it's trapped under a thermal blanket.
	But isn't that our energy?
	That we've produced.
	Well you know we've captured this energy from the Sun I don't want to give Yeah.
	So the BBC now, obviously we all know this, the UN now have released 8 billion on the planet, 8 billion is a lot of people.
	Do we want these people to starve or do we want to make sure we produce enough food to feed the people on the planet and hence why we need to produce more crops?
	And with a warmer world, we're going to have longer growing seasons.
	And then something we've not really thought about is the frozen regions where there's permafrost.
	If that melts, we have all that land for agriculture again.
	Yeah, so Canada and Russia, basically, are going to become...
	I mean, they already are.
	The food baskets of the world, but they're going to be bigger food baskets.
	And then we can make sure that there is no starvation.
	I mean, let's be honest, there's hardly any starvation now in the world compared to 30, 40, 50 years ago.
	But with the extra land and the new people being born, we can make sure there's no starvation.
	Wouldn't that be a great human trait to be looking after people all over the world and not accusing them of killing the world?
	Well, I mean, if you are a normal, sensible person, but if you are someone in the grip of climate hysteria and part of a kind of cult, then you might see that as a negative.
	You do.
	I mean, how many times now have we been told that humans have a cancer on this planet?
	Yes, there's a remarkable amount of anti-human activism, which is always coming from the left.
	And what do we do to cancer?
	Well, the same thing we do to any disease.
	We kill it.
	We kill it.
	And that's how they sound to me when they're constantly talking about humans with cancer on the earth.
	We're evil.
	We're killing each other the way we treat each other.
	But the solution is we need less humans.
	How do they expect less humans on the earth?
	There's only one way, and that's either through starvation.
	We could look at technology and look at compulsory stabilization.
	All these are not great roads to go down.
	And these are things that are happening anyway with Western cultures where just the birth rate is just sub-replacement.
	And so the overall population of the West is going down anyway.
	And that's because we've raised everyone's living standards.
	So if we look at the third world and we raise and quickly raise their living standards to where we are, all of a sudden they stop breeding just like we've stopped breeding.
	It seems to also be access to birth control.
	That's part of it, but it's also about understanding that your five children are not all going to survive, and you need some of your children to survive to look after you.
	There's many reasons why this happens, but birth control is one of them.
	People around the world to a much better standard of living.
	It stops lots of our migration problems.
	It improves their lives.
	And all of a sudden, those people then are trying to improve their own environment, looking after their land, and also don't breed as much.
	And the population, just like in Northern Europe now, the whole of Europe and North America, apart from immigration, is all coming down, slowly coming down.
	That's what we need to be looking at.
	Yeah, but I was watching this world government conference the other day, and this is not anywhere near their line of thought.
	Like, their line of thought is to look at the world as just a spreadsheet, and be like, right, okay, we just need to fiddle these numbers a bit.
	And you saw Chuck Schumer the other day saying, well, look, you know, we don't have enough babies in America, so we need to naturalise all of the millions and millions of illegal immigrants and just bring more in, and You see the Conservative government saying, yeah, we need more people from India to come here and take the place of those people who aren't being born.
	It looks like this is a long way away from anything actionable.
	It is, and all those solutions that they're coming up with are just the simple solutions they can come up with.
	This is the solution that's going to fix my problem today, not 20 years from now.
	No one's planning for the future anymore.
	There's no long time thinking or planning.
	It's all, I need it now because I'm up for election in a couple of years.
	Well, is Rishi Sunak up for election in a couple of years?
	Has he ever been up for election?
	Exactly, does he?
	Doesn't matter what Rishi Sunak voted into, does it?
	No, no.
	And now I believe Rishi Sunak is promising lots of countries billions of pounds, one and a half billion.
	Climate reparations?
	Yes, and it's your job is to improve the lives of people in this country, no one else's country, this country.
	Stop giving our money away when the next day you're increasing our taxes.
	And also we're going to a recession now.
	Yes.
	That's what we learned today, by the way.
	So we're going into a recession.
	Energy bills are through the roof.
	And Rishi Sunak said, hmm, what about climate reparations for foreign countries?
	I'm not happy with it.
	Well, now you've talked about energy prices.
	So with a warmer world, we don't need as much energy to eat our homes and eat our offices.
	Ah, now this is a great point, actually, because you saw over the summer, because everyone was freaking out, oh my god, one of those days hit 40 degrees Celsius.
	I don't know what that is in Fahrenheit.
	And everyone was freaking out, oh look, that's a record high.
	It's like, okay, but that's better than it reaching a record low, because if you look at the number of people who die every year from overheating, and the number of people who die from freezing, it's like a thousand times more.
	Yeah.
	And that's just like what I was going to say.
	More people die cold than the excess cold they do with excess heat.
	Way more.
	Way more.
	And because we're always looking at reducing the amount of energy because of CO2 it emits, we don't need to eat our homes and our offices as much if the world was warmer.
	So there's a double win.
	And if our climate was warming...
	We wouldn't be reliant on Russia for energy there, would we?
	Should we ever be relying on any of these countries?
	No, we should have built a dozen nuclear power plants.
	But we rely on Russia, who's been an enemy of the UK for several hundred years, off and on, but mainly on, which is...
	Well, the only time we went was in World War II, right?
	Yeah.
	And to begin with, they supported Nazi Germany.
	It's only because the Germans turned on them that they came on our side.
	That's a great point.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And then we get a lot more of our energy from the Middle East.
	And they're all dictatorships and won by Islamic fundamentalists.
	Yeah, I see them all complaining, oh, well, David Beckham's going to go to Qatar and get paid to support the football over there.
	It's like, everything you eat is grown by Arabian oil.
	Yeah.
	You know, sorry.
	You drive your car, and you're supporting Arabians.
	Just, come on.
	But on this one thing, it's insufferable.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So if you look at the Daily Mail article, look at the prices we're paying for energy in this country at the moment.
	This is the cornerstone of our issues at the moment with people not being able to afford to live and the crisis they're in.
	It's energy related.
	So if we could, there's two ways of reducing this.
	We can now reduce the cost of energy Or we can reduce the amount of energy people use.
	And if we're the warmer world, they don't need to use as much as energy.
	So they will be saving money there and having more money in their pockets.
	Have you thought about Greece's tourism?
	You know, if I could go to Cornwall and get the same weather as I would in Greece, maybe I wouldn't go to Greece.
	You probably wouldn't.
	So that then would create more jobs in the UK for British people.
	We then could have a thriving tourist industry in Cornwall that isn't five months long.
	It could be ten months long because I've got friends who live down there and it's terrible in the winter that there's no jobs.
	Oh, I used to live down in the UK. So you've got to work your five, six months Save as much as you can from that because then you've got six months of no money.
	So if that was a 12-month tourist season down there, it could be fantastic.
	And that would be because we're outdoors more.
	So if we're living more outdoors because the weather's warmer, like in California, but that was the UK, we'd have healthier lifestyles.
	More likely to do a bit of outside exercising, have a healthy barbecue, eat more salads, sit outside with your children and play with them because you're not stuck inside with heating on and the curtains closed.
	I mean, I'm getting sold on this global warming issue.
	No, absolutely.
	And we've just talked about Carmel.
	It would lead to more tourist opportunities in this country, create more money in this country that stays in this money.
	So instead of working all year and then spending your money in Italy, France, Spain, Greece, and giving them your money, We keep it in this country and we have a much better standard of living and we can reduce our taxes because more people are paying taxes.
	But then surely we're going to have to pay more in climate reparations.
	Do you know what?
	If there is...
	What's the word?
	Reparations.
	To be paid...
	Yeah.
	The world owes us the money for creating the Industrial Revolution in the first place, for making their lives better, for making them be able to build proper cities and the infrastructure and create the world they live in.
	They owe us money.
	Yeah, I like this narrative.
	You owe us money for the British Empire.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So we've talked about tourist opportunities, but there's many more opportunities that could come from a warmer world.
	So once a lot of the ice is gone, sea will rise, obviously, but it's going to leave a lot of land, especially in Canada and Russia, where the permafrost goes.
	That's all farmland.
	We could create that much food there to make sure no one is ever hungry across the planet.
	Also, we need to be looking at oil reserves, minerals, oils, precious metals.
	We could find deposits in this new land we've never been to before.
	And although that's what we need to keep our first world existence going, we might find minerals there that then help us build the batteries that we're going to need to capture the Green energy and store it.
	The solutions for our problems could be in these frozen lands.
	We don't know what's there.
	We need to be ready to explore what these opportunities are going to throw to us.
	Okay, so climate change.
	Actually, it's not a bad thing.
	It's not a bad thing, and I think my last point, as someone who loves history, is once some of this ice goes, so if we're looking at the South Pole, we could end up discovering new ancient civilisations that have been covered in metres and kilometres of ice.
	Maybe.
	The answers to some of our gaps in our knowledge could be there.
	The Atlantis mystery.
	Will we find...
	An ancient civilization that we go, that could have been Atlantis.
	I'm skeptical on that.
	Let me give you this one piece of knowledge.
	So there's some ancient maps that show the South Pole with no ice.
	And that's two islands.
	And everybody thought, that was a bit crazy.
	Someone's invented that or made a guess.
	1950s, the Americans went there and sonared the whole ground and the whole continent.
	Turns out it's two islands.
	I've seen this, and this is the Perry Rees map, isn't it?
	The Turkish Explorer.
	I think that the conventional explanation for this is that actually this is South America that he's mapped, and it just happens to look a lot like the rock formation under the ice sheet in Antarctica.
	But who knows?
	Who knows?
	But the fact that they predicted two islands and there's two islands there is something that needs looking at.
	We don't know what we're going to discover when this is melted.
	Have you heard of something called coastal displacement theory?
	No.
	So people, when we talk about the South Pole, go, well, they never could have had a civilisation because the Ice Ages come and go, well, it's always going to be covered in ice, then melts, then covered in ice.
	But this theory, which was, Einstein read it and said, this is a fantastic theory.
	Well, it's true or not, he doesn't know, but he likes the theory.
	If you can imagine an orange, and you've got the skin on an orange, And it's the skin of the orange moving without the vessel of the orange moving.
	And what this theory states is, we know about continental drift, where they're moving independently.
	This guy, Charles Hapsgood, suggested that the whole outside skin of the Earth, with the weight of the poles and planets' alignment, could give enough force for the skin to go, and everything could shift.
	So the South Pole may not always have been at the South Pole.
	Right, okay.
	No idea.
	A little bit of useless information there.
	But that's what I want to talk about was the fact that climate change is happening and there could be negatives and will be negatives but there'll also be opportunities and positives because when things change the opportunities arise and as a Boy Scout we should always be prepared to take those opportunities.
	Okay, very interesting.
	Right, okay, so finally, let's talk about Donald Trump, who recently announced his candidacy for 2024.
	Now, you might think, well, that's quite a long way in the future, isn't it?
	Because it's still 2022.
	But, I mean, everyone knew that he was going to.
	And I had previously said, look, it kind of has to be Trump because we've got a kind of story going on here.
	You know, the American people chose Trump as the champion to put the country right.
	And, you know, Biden smashed him in a totally free and fair election.
	And I've got to say, man, I'm not feeling the energy.
	I'm not.
	If the red wave would have happened, I'd have said Trump's on his way back.
	But the fact there was no red wave means they're not attracting those middle voters who will flip.
	And I think it may be...
	We've had Trump.
	He was a man of the hour six years ago.
	Do we want to go through all that negativity again, all that rollercoaster ride again?
	And I think people may be saying, no, we can't go through that again.
	I'm not sure, but we'll examine it in a second.
	But before we go on, if you want to support us, go to theloses.com, because yesterday I did a little chat where it's just like me talking for an hour about something that's on my mind, about the differences and similarities between Generation X and Generation Z. Are you Generation X? I was born late 60s, raised in 70s, so I don't know what I am.
	So probably boomer then.
	Right.
	But I don't know what it was like when you were young, but when I was young, we were bored a lot.
	Yeah.
	Nothing to do.
	And you were never given anything to do.
	You have to make your own fun, right?
	But Generation Z are in a totally different perspective.
	They're never bored.
	They've never not got anything to do.
	They're always on their phones.
	They're constant.
	There's never that period of time where you just have to learn to focus on something, even if you're not really that into it, and kind of explore it.
	Again, when I was a kid, we had video games, but you had like five video games.
	You know, you didn't just have, like, video games on demand.
	You didn't have TV on demand.
	You didn't have any of these things.
	And so you had to kind of suffer through the restrictions.
	And it gave you a certain kind of character.
	And this is one of the things I'm talking about in this.
	Because I think it's interesting that...
	There's something being done to young people now that wasn't done to us when we were young, and I don't know what the consequences of that are going to be, but to be honest with you, I can't imagine that they're good.
	It feels like they're being deprived of the opportunity to learn a virtue, frankly, the virtue of patience.
	And so yeah, that's one of the things I talk about in there.
	It was quite interesting, I thought, but it's just...
	Whenever there's something that's constantly on my mind, I just feel the need to do a stream like that, because it's like, look...
	I can't get this out of my head and this is the only way I can do it.
	But anyway, let's go to Trump announcing his candidacy.
	So he was at Mar-a-Lago and he gave this speech and I would have clipped some bits out of it but weirdly there was nothing very clippable.
	There was nothing very interesting in the speech and actually by about 40 minutes in I was kind of bored and I went and did something else.
	And this is really unusual because normally Trump's incredibly high energy, incredibly funny, and engaged with the zeitgeist and says things that are just eminently clippable and are just fun to take out and play.
	But this didn't have the same energy.
	It's not that he was saying things I disagreed with.
	I mean, I agreed with all the things he was saying.
	It's just that he seemed like he'd been battered, frankly.
	You know, a lot has happened and, you know, it seemed like he just didn't have that energy.
	Or has he learned his lesson and he's trying to keep a lid on it?
	But the lesson I would take from Trump is that I actually know it was the bombasticness of what he had done that got him where he was, right?
	He's basically going to love him no matter what.
	If he's reducing his volume, that might be just for those middle voters because he knows he can't win on his base.
	Maybe, but...
	We'll see through time, but we'll see if this is a one-off or...
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, this might be a one-off.
	This must be a bad step forward for some reason.
	But, you know, I was thinking about that, and it's like, well, he's got two years, you know?
	And, I mean, maybe it's because he's not on social media, you know, that he can't act like the lightning rod that he did for the media to talk about it, because there's just very little impression this seems to have made.
	We'll go through it.
	So, I mean, Fox News produced a couple of articles talking about this, in which they just, you know, accurately document that he did well as a president.
	And no one's done well.
	There are lots of people denying, actually.
	No one who doesn't have Trump derangement syndrome is denying that Trump had a good run as president.
	You know, everything was going well.
	Stock market hit record highs.
	Everyone had some money in their pockets.
	We weren't at war with Russia.
	Just the fact he didn't take the West into another war means he was a citizen.
	Yeah, this peace through strength policy, America first policy, this all worked and it was good.
	And this was all things that were reversed by Joe Biden, because Biden, like the rest of the Dems, have Trump derangement syndrome.
	But there was a weird lack of reaction.
	So I was looking around for progressives reacting to this and all I could really find was pink news going, oh, LGBTQ activists are battle ready for Donald Trump.
	It's like, What?
	Trump poses a serious risk to LGBTQ rights?
	No one believes that.
	No.
	No one thinks that.
	Totally artificial.
	And so, you know, Trump is the most anti-LGBTQ plus president in modern history.
	I doubt it.
	Go and ask Nixon what he thinks of the gays.
	I just don't believe it.
	Anyway, so moving on, we've got the usual sort of pathological fact-checking.
	Oh, four big lies that you said.
	And if you go to the next one, MSNBC, Rachel Maddow being like, oh, look at this, all more lies from Trump.
	It's like, big talk coming from Rachel Maddow.
	But really, we were subject to a kind of media blackout.
	Which the Washington Post pointed out, saying that Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he would mount another run for the White House, a rare case for a former president seeking his old job, but three major broadcast networks opted not to carry the speech live.
	ABC, NBC and CBS all decided to stick to their existing scheduling.
	Fox News aired most of the speech, while CNN only carried 25 minutes of it, and MSNBC chose not to air it either.
	And that's very interesting, because if there was one thing that Trump was good for, it's their ratings.
	So they were incentivized to, of course, broadcast and publish everything that Trump was saying and doing every second of the day, because it made them money.
	But the converse of this is, of course, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
	And this allowed Donald Trump to dominate the media cycles, the news cycle, and probably got him a lot more support than they expected.
	So maybe they're being strategic about this and saying, well, look, we just don't want him back, and so we're not going to...
	I think that's exactly what's happening, and I think they've learned a lesson.
	To begin with, Trump was, like you say, great for ratings.
	He was a clown.
	Let's all laugh at him.
	Oh my God, he's now won.
	Yeah, and everyone loved it.
	Yeah.
	Now they're thinking, we don't need the ratings, we don't need the money, if it means he gets four more years.
	And it's political.
	Yeah.
	But The Guardian covered this, and I've got to say, right, I kind of agree with the Guardian's summary here, and I don't want to, but I don't think Trump's approaching this on the right tack at all.
	They say, quote, In an attempt to appear presidential, something that America had previously spent four years waiting for in vain, he delivered the kind of low-energy performance for which he used to mock Jeb Bush.
	Thus, Jeb Bush Jr.
	wrote on Twitter, Wow, what a low-energy speech by the Donald.
	Time for new leaders.
	Hashtag weak.
	Hashtag sleepy Donnie.
	Here was the spectacle of a man who is over the hill, chasing past glories, raging against the dying of the light.
	Just as I promised in 2016, I am your voice, he told guests, but it did not seem to strike the same chord as six years ago.
	I agree with that.
	Six years is a long time as you're getting older and older.
	It is, and we'll get to his age in a minute, in fact, because the reception from people like The Atlantic was as you'd expect.
	Is Trump a viable candidate?
	Well, yes and no.
	He's still got a lot of grip over the GOP, but they interpret the Republicans' failure to get an outstanding victory in the midterms as being a general rebuke from the American public.
	And maybe you are right.
	Maybe there are Americans out there who are just the independents who are just like, no, I can't go through it again.
	You know, the media will be hysterical.
	It's just not worth it.
	I'm being held hostage by an abusive elite in my country, and I just don't want Donald Trump to come back and cause trouble.
	There are other reasons, maybe, but we can't mention them on YouTube, so never mind.
	But one thing they point out is, they say, Trump's greatest obstacle to a comeback may be the widespread belief among party leaders, donors and key figures within conservative media that continued hostility towards him is the principal reason that Democrats lost.
	And so they are going to rescind their support of him.
	And that, I think, is quite a big deal.
	And so, if we look at, like, the National Review for centrist conservatism, they just put an article saying no.
	It's pretty blunt repudiation, isn't it?
	It's too early to know what the rest of the field will look like, except it will offer much better alternatives than Trump.
	You don't know what the field's going to look like, but we're sure it's going to be better than Trump.
	Okay.
	So they say that it should be a firm, unmistakable no.
	Okay, thank you, National Review.
	Yes.
	The National Review, which are...
	The conservative, I don't know, like wet blanket, I'd describe them.
	They exist to allow the left to win, as far as I'm concerned.
	So I don't terribly find their position important.
	But the New York Post was a lot more firm in their support of Donald Trump.
	And if you can pull up this image, this is very remarkable.
	As you can see there, on page 26 at the bottom, Florida man makes announcement.
	That's how they covered this.
	And so if we go to page 26, if you can pull this up as well, just so we can see the full thing.
	This is the entirety of their coverage of Trump's announcement.
	Being there don that, with just 720 days to go before the next election, a Florida retiree made a surprise announcement Tuesday night that he was running for president.
	In a move that no political pundits saw coming, avid golfer Donald J. Trump kicked things off at Mar-a-Lago, his resort and classified documents library.
	Trump, famous for gold-plated lobbies and for firing people on a reality television show, will be 78 in 2024.
	If elected, Trump would tie Joe Biden as the oldest president to take office.
	His cholesterol levels are unknown, but his favourite food is charred steak with ketchup.
	He has stated that his qualifications for office include being a stable genius.
	Trump also serves as a 45th president. - How? - And is that a proper newspaper?
	Yes, that's the oldest newspaper in the United States.
	Fourth most widely read.
	That's something I'd imagine you'd read in a parody.
	They are a bit more like The Sun than The Times.
	But they're not a paper of no repute.
	And they're the ones who broke the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	They were the ones who had it suppressed.
	And so it's just like, ow, that is...
	That's quite brutal, actually, I think.
	The Fox article I was referencing earlier have a very long list of Trump's achievements as president.
	I guess you could say sympathetic, but it doesn't say, oh, he's going to be great or anything like that.
	It just lists the things that he did that were good for the United States.
	And it's a long list, so fair enough.
	And to get this kind of response from the New York Post is just like, phew.
	So the left-wing media is generally not really very triggered by Trump saying he's going to run.
	And the right-wing media is like, no, he's too old and we're not interested.
	So that's pretty bad.
	And apparently Fox News bosses have in fact said that they'd rather DeSantis was the guy, as you were saying earlier, because he's not as divisive, allegedly, but I think he is.
	I just think that he's not been in the eye of the storm yet.
	Because he's got Trump mannerisms.
	And he does say things that are just...
	I mean, if the left-wing media were...
	If he was the guy and all they had to fixate on was him, they'd be able to pull all the same quotes that they had done for Trump.
	I'm sure they will.
	I think he'll be the new orange man.
	They will go for him as much as they went for Donald Trump.
	The difference with Donald Trump is his personality, how bombastic he is, how in your face he is.
	How funny he was.
	Yeah, how funny he was, which could be a plus, but also a minus.
	I think the American people may not want that again.
	They may want a slightly more serious politician who has all the same views as Donald Trump, but just delivers the messages a little bit more calmly and doesn't set everybody off on hysteria.
	Yeah, I think a lot of the right-wing activists as well will point to DeSantis and point to his actual history and legacy so far of actually legislating against the things he doesn't want.
	Like, you know, DeSantis has signed loads and loads of bills for Florida that just actively harm left-wing causes.
	He's saying, no, we're not having this, we're not having that, we're not having drag queen story, we're not having, you know, boys running in women's sports and things like this.
	DeSantis has quite a concrete record of just clearing them out, actually.
	Whereas Trump, as everyone points out, governed as a moderate and did very little damage to the swamp.
	Whereas DeSantis, I suppose, might do more.
	Now, there are people who will also say, well, hang on a second.
	DeSantis appears to kind of be, in some ways, a creature of the swamp and partially captured by these interests.
	And I don't really know, so maybe...
	Who knows?
	I don't think DeSantis is going to be the sort of outsider that Trump was.
	That was part of the reason I liked Trump, to be honest.
	He was so far outside of regular American politics.
	He was a disruptor at that time.
	Yeah, and it was very good for the time.
	And don't forget, he never thought he was going to win.
	I never thought you'd win.
	So he was on a journey to have as much fun and get everything off my chest I want to get off about politicians in the US. And he found himself winning, but I don't think that was not his plan to win.
	The media, the politicians, the activists, the Democrats.
	Just poof, poof, poof, poof.
	Don't even care.
	And then, oh, now you're in charge.
	Bigger job than you thought, you know.
	But yeah, anyway, so this is not good, really, is it?
	Oh, John, what have you pulled up here, mate?
	60% of Ron DeSantis' donations have come from donations of $50,000 or more.
	54% of Donald Trump's donations were donations of less than $200.
	Just 6% of these donations went to DeSantis.
	He's backed by billionaires in the establishment here, some of them, right?
	This is exactly the point I was making, John.
	Thanks for pulling this up.
	Like I said, I don't know anything about this in detail, but it does seem that DeSantis is the safe bet for the people in charge, right?
	Oh God, a part of Sequoia Capital.
	Go back up, go back up.
	So the Sequoia Capital guy, these were the ones who were involved in FTX. Brilliant.
	Okay.
	So yeah, DeSantis appears to have some strings on him, which is my objection.
	I mean, I like everything that DeSantis has done.
	I like the way he treats the media, I like the way he deals with all these things, but he does seem to be a bit of an insider, and...
	I don't think that the change that people were hoping for that Donald Trump would bring in is possible through someone like DeSantis.
	If Trump had never existed, you'd be looking at DeSantis going, he's the most far-right potential candidate we've ever seen.
	It's only because we compare him to Trump where we go, oh...
	But would DeSantis have the sort of model of politics that he has to follow if not for Trump?
	No.
	Because I feel like Trump was something of a trailblazer.
	He kicked the doors in for other people to come after him to have an easier ride to get things done.
	Let's hope so.
	But anyway, so his former Education Secretary Bill Bennett, who is an ardent supporter of Trump, Doesn't back him and says he doesn't think he can win.
	And says, quote, I hope he's not the nominee this time.
	It's pretty brutal.
	Obviously Mike Pence isn't on his side either.
	And a Fox News host the other day asked Lara Trump on air, Donald Trump's father-in-law...
	She says, quote, I have to say, there wasn't a great reception to the speech last night.
	Those of us on the outside looking at it, it doesn't seem that he's got the old magic, you know what I mean?
	Now, of course, Laura Trump was like, no, of course I disagree with that.
	But I actually do agree with that.
	It looked like the sort of, the old energy, you know, the magic as she puts it, it just wasn't there.
	And there are lots of conservatives who are just like, no, I'm not really feeling it.
	So there we go.
	People who support him are always going to support him, even though they might want him to be a lot more energetic.
	I think he's just aiming for the people who are sitting on the fence.
	He needs them more than he needs his base.
	His base are there.
	To have this big buzz around you and have lots of people talking and be excited and feel like something new and interesting is coming, I think is important.
	In a candidacy like Trump's.
	To get the swing votes of the fence-sitters to at least even pay attention.
	But I guess we'll see when it goes to...
	Apparently Fox News put up a graphic the other day.
	I couldn't find it in time for this.
	But they were listing who could be the nominee for 2024, and Trump wasn't even on it.
	But when polled...
	The Republican Party, he's still massively popular.
	He's still by far the candidate of choice.
	So I guess we'll see.
	And like I said earlier, I think him not being on social media is a big drag to the kind of candidacy that he'd have as well.
	So there are lots of factors, I think, that are working against him.
	I think there's a big test coming and that's when the next one or two people declare that they're running.
	His response to that will know if he's the same old Trump because his old response would be, I'm going to rip you apart and we'll see if the old Trump's still there.
	Well, right, before we go on to the video comments, my friend Maven asked me to promote something that Maven, the champion, organized the Skilding Zone.
	They've organised a kind of nightclub event in London in November in Soho, and they've sent us an advert that he asked me to play, and said, yes, indeed we will, so let's watch this advert first.
	Hello, I'm Matthew Glamour, and I would like to invite you to our club, The Cathedral, on Saturday, November the 26th, from 6pm till midnight, in Soho, central London.
	We play the best in sacred, epic and ambient music, starting with drone and Gregorian chant to facilitate conversation, building to some pretty heroic industrial beats and metal.
	It's £10 on the door, cash only.
	Cheap drinks, cash only.
	So come on down, it's pretty based and there will be some familiar faces there too.
	Oh, and don't forget, knock three times on the door and say the password.
	All details can be found at our YouTube channel and locals community.
	I look forward to seeing you there.
	That was a lot more esoteric than I was expecting.
	Apparently the password is Arcadia.
	So yeah, so basically go down and hang out if you want to meet some like-minded people.
	Anyway, let's go to the video comments.
	Hey Lotus Eaters!
	You guys haven't heard from me in a while, partly because I've been really busy at work, and partly because I've been really busy becoming a new homeowner.
	So, I've spent the last month dealing with the closing process, and as of tonight, The keys are mine.
	And because I'm me, the first thing that I moved in was the stone I brought back from Thermopylae this summer.
	So life is good.
	Don't let the black pills get to you.
	Build the better world that you want to live in.
	Well, congratulations, man.
	And I totally endorse that message.
	Be the change you want to see.
	Well, no, that's great.
	And American homes are always huge, aren't they?
	Land's cheaper.
	There's no land shortage.
	Not a problem we've got.
	But no, well done.
	Let's go for the next one.
	There is a strange status quo when it comes to military conflict.
	In most wars, but not all, nations that have a northern position usually win against the southern positions.
	This has been seen in the American Civil War, the start of the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.
	It has also been seen with Israel and Egypt in the Sinai Peninsula during the Israeli-Arab Wars.
	A couple of notable exceptions is with Japan, who defeated their northern rivals in the Bolshan War, as well as defeating Russia during the Russo-Japanese War.
	Hmm.
	Simple answer for that.
	Because you're fighting downhill.
	I don't think...
	I suppose that's probably...
	I think it's probably a coincidence.
	Because I can think of examples where it's not.
	Yeah, you'd have to go through a lot of laws and work that one out.
	Yeah, probably just a coincidence on that one.
	It's got you thinking.
	Yeah, it has, because there are a lot of examples of it, though.
	Anyway, let's go on to Tony D. Tony D and Little Jim with a little Lotus Eater white pill.
	From Ships Rat at the Lotus Eater subreddit comes this story from the Guardian about the hand of Urelegi.
	This is an ancient bronze artifact that was discovered in Spain.
	It is from the Vascones, who were an Iron Age tribe about 2,000 years ago.
	They were thought to be illiterate until they found this artifact.
	And you can see written on it are symbols of the Basque language that the Vascones spoke.
	Neat!
	Neat!
	Yeah, that's pretty cool.
	It's always very interesting.
	Like, oh wow, we found this ancient tableau over it.
	It's got writing on it.
	But no one knows the language, and so we don't know what they're trying to say.
	We discover new stuff all the time.
	It was only last week that Egyptologists have announced they think they've found Cleopatra's tomb.
	Oh, really?
	They've found a shaft under the temple.
	They've not got to the end of it yet, but they're guessing it's going to be a Cleopatra in Mark Antony's tomb.
	I find new stuff all the time.
	Okay, let's give some comments.
	Andrew says, Elon sets up his companies for agile development, meaning rapid iteration is easy and all employees are self-managed.
	It apparently only takes Tesla three hours to test and implement a new design in their vehicles.
	Wow.
	He will need to do a lot of remodeling to get Twitter to that point.
	That's ultimately why things look so fast and crazy.
	Yeah, I mean, I think that, like, Elon's probably a half-decent manager.
	Again, I don't think you end up at his position if you don't know what you're doing.
	And honestly, like, the way that he's manoeuvred with Twitter, I think it's the right thing to do.
	You know, the chaos aside, like, I think it's just that the progressives who are in charge are actually kind of slothful, and they're not used to change.
	change i don't think there's no way he could have done it if they got in there and tried to reason with them yeah he's got a whole whole company full of enemies who don't want change and i think what he's done is got in there disrupted it and everyone there who's still there now is worried about their jobs they don't know what's going on they don't have the time or the energy to fight back they're either going to stay and work hard or they're going to leave and
	They haven't got the time and the energy to get together, to have a plan, let's attack him on...
	It's like they don't know what's going on and he's unnerved them all.
	That's the only way to beat such a company.
	I agree.
	And like...
	It's exercising the managerial power as well.
	Because one thing progressives respect is power.
	It's just going, no, a bunch of you are fired.
	Right, next.
	You either sign on to this hardcore regime, or you're fired too.
	If there's one thing a leftist respects, it's someone who's going to give them the iron fist.
	Ignacio says, regardless of Elon's managing of the takeover, the thing we should take away from the entire situation is how fast Twitter's economic stability collapses when the ESG and the banks pull out.
	Yeah, and that's phenomenally important as well.
	Why were they propping this up?
	There's only one answer, really.
	It's political.
	Exactly.
	Because no one can see where any money comes out of any of these high-tech companies, so it's political.
	Will the banks pull out now that they're looking at this going right?
	We've not got the political influences going, but with such a man in charge, we may get our money back.
	Yeah, maybe.
	Well, that's a good point.
	Musk will probably at least make it a profitable endeavour.
	And all those banks all have to answer their shareholders.
	So them saying, we're going to pull out, it collapses, and we've lost billions, where leave it a couple of years, we could start getting our money back here.
	But is that more important than the political control?
	Because I think that's the main concern, isn't it?
	They're not going to have the kind of political leverage over Twitter that they had before.
	Not for the individuals and for the politicians, but when you answer the shareholders, there is something there where you've got to answer the shareholders why you allowed that company to fail when it always was billions.
	Because there's not billions in it.
	There actually are billions in it.
	Is there?
	Yeah, yeah.
	They've got six billion in cash and five billion a year turnover, but that's offering a loss.
	Yeah.
	And they've got 20 billion in debt.
	Yeah.
	So if they pull the plug now, you know, they wouldn't get 10 billion out of it, even though they're all 20.
	Yeah.
	Well, let's see what the banks do.
	The banks answer the shareholders.
	Right, okay.
	The Wigan survivalist says, imagine if Musk made Trump CEO of Twitter.
	Hysterical.
	That would be hysterical, but I don't see that happening.
	Edward said, hang on, wait.
	Robots get the law of robotics and nothing else.
	This unit should not have a soul, as learning AI is too dangerous to allow.
	Well, you're going to have to watch the Hangout this afternoon, aren't you?
	I would like to as well, because I honestly don't know what the actual framing on this actually is.
	I don't want AI to have rights.
	Callum says, Elon Musk looking for a new CEO of Tesla and Twitter.
	Sorry, my mistake earlier.
	It was Tesla and Twitter.
	I just had the wrong thing pulled up.
	Don't worry, we'll...
	We'll let Josh and Connor deal with the AI Bill of Rights.
	So he is looking for both, incidentally.
	He's making his positioning moves to place himself to run for world leader, first Earth next Mars.
	Quite possibly.
	Kevin says, come on, Carl, chuck your hat in the ring for the Twitter CEO job.
	Don't know where I apply.
	I imagine he's going to handpick someone.
	Look, on the plus side, they have their own servers, so you could section off a bit for the Lotus Eaters.
	General Haiping says, Yeah, I mean, there is always the aspect of Elon that he's clearly, you know, from the sort of old era of trolling, and clearly enjoys having a laugh on the internet.
	So, maybe he did foresee it.
	Maybe he's in favour of it.
	I don't think, even if he falls over and that's what he's doing, I don't think someone like him would put that ahead of business.
	Oh no, not at all.
	Yeah, so it'd be a sideline.
	Yeah, maybe he's just enjoying the chaos.
	Lord Nerevar says, Musk stepping down is probably for the best in my opinion.
	It's undoubtedly a good thing that he bought the platform, but it doesn't have the support of the staff, investors, for as long as they exist, advertisers, or the majority of the user base.
	His ideas are often ill-thought through and are met with ridicule when they're presented or implemented.
	As long as he stipulates that freedom of speech is paramount, cooler heads can improve the platform.
	Yeah, and, you know, I don't mind the sort of impulsive moves either.
	I often like just seeing what creaks and groans and gives way when something moves, because you just don't know until it's done, right?
	But yeah, I think it's probably going to be for the best.
	As you pointed out, if he goes in there like a bull in a china shop, hacks off a bunch of unprofitable bits, and then puts a calm person in charge, it's probably going to be good for the company.
	And at the end of the day, I'm keeping an eye on his account, and he's gained 10 million followers over the past couple of weeks.
	So it's not like there's a lack of people using the platform, and he'll still have that megaphone money.
	Brandon says, AI rights, so we just skip babies, eh?
	Oh my god.
	Like I said, I don't know anything about the AI rights segment.
	So, when it comes to climate change, Kevin says, The climate activists claim that we're killing the planet is BS. What is going to happen, if anything, is that man and many of the animal species may die out, but the planet will continue to live.
	No, assuming you mean life on Earth will continue.
	The history of the Earth has periods where the CO2 levels have been ten times higher than now.
	They don't want to save the planet, they're just scared for their own existence.
	Typical me-me-me attitude.
	What do you think?
	Yeah, I think a lot of the activists, it's just pure narcissism.
	It's about, I'm amazing.
	I'm probably better than Gandhi and Mandela because they were just trying to save their country and their people that they were related to.
	I'm trying to save the whole world.
	God, it's so progressive, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	But yeah, it's weird, isn't it, as well?
	Like this terrible fear of change from people who call themselves progressive.
	Yeah.
	He also says, birthing parent Earth really doesn't roll off the tongue.
	No, it doesn't.
	But you didn't ask the Earth its gender.
	Paul says, the whole purpose of climate hysteria has not been to fix the climate, but to destroy capitalism in the service of Malthusian Marxism.
	And that's totally true.
	Did you see Greta Thunberg the other day?
	Yeah.
	Just mask off.
	Yeah, actually, we need to destroy capitalism.
	Could have just said that to start with.
	I've had something the other day about this, and one line jumped out at me, and it was basically, once we all found out that communism didn't work, Marxists couldn't use communism anymore to tear down capitalism.
	They had to find a new way of tearing it down, so they went to environmentalism.
	Oh, and this is what all the gender ideology is about.
	This is what racial activism is about.
	It's all about attacking the civil society of Western countries.
	Ewan says, we should start calling these retards seasoned deniers.
	Yeah, that's another thing as well, isn't it?
	I'm actually glad they've shifted away from global warming to climate change, because global warming, it sounds kind of positive, because it's November.
	Yeah.
	Do you know why they stopped calling it global warming?
	Because it's not getting warmer.
	Because, yeah, from the year 2000, it stopped getting warm.
	Yeah, because I remember Al Gore being like, yeah, come 2009, there won't be any ice in the polar ice caps.
	It's like, yeah, this is not true.
	There's a sign somewhere, I think it might be Switzerland or somewhere like that, looking at a big glacier.
	Yeah.
	And there's a big sign there saying, by, I'm making the dates up now, it's something like, by 2014, If you're standing here 2014, you won't be able to see the glacier that used to be here.
	And you stood there now, and you can see the glacier.
	Yeah.
	But all of these predictions have been wrong.
	Yeah.
	Like, every single climate prediction they've been making, ever since the 70s, and they're like, oh, going into a new ice age.
	Yeah.
	And then, you know, it's just part of the progressive religion at this point, where AOC's like, yeah, oh, the Earth will be destroyed in 12 years because of climate change.
	It's like...
	No one thinks that.
	No one thinks that's going to happen.
	Anyway, Colin says, of course the climate changes over time.
	If there hadn't been drastic change, we wouldn't be here.
	Perhaps the biggest event is the Chicxulub meteor, which altered the climate sufficiently to cause an extinction event.
	I can't remember offhand how many of the five mass extinction events were caused by drastic climate change, but we wouldn't be here if they hadn't.
	Maybe instead of screwing everyone up by stopping fossil fuel use, we could start by planting more CO2-converting plants.
	Uh...
	Good point.
	One of the things I actually enjoy watching on YouTube are just archaeological videos about what happened 100 million years ago and stuff like this.
	You've got this event called the Great Dying in the Permian Period, where 90% of Earth's life just dies, and they don't know why.
	It's like, okay, that's concerning, isn't it?
	Climate change got them again.
	Ross says, sick of hearing about global warming?
	Malinkovic cycles.
	You will find very few geologists that agree that climate change is man-made.
	I mean, look at the pollution levels in the 50s when you couldn't see down your street because the smog was colder then.
	Yeah.
	But yeah, I'm no energy on climate.
	No energy.
	No expert on climate.
	I was reading a word as I spoke that.
	I'm no expert on climate, so I try not to get involved in the discussion, but I can look at their political statements and see that these just didn't pan out.
	It's just, you're wrong, you know?
	It's alright.
	Everyone's wrong sometimes.
	Alexander says, I think it's fairly obvious that Trump does not have the same energy he did in 2016.
	In 2016, he was speaking to the moment, speaking to what a lot of blue-collar people thought, and to what the Republican voter base felt.
	Now?
	Now he's going on about police dignity, after he said police stood by and did nothing, while BLM and Antifa burned businesses to the ground.
	Those police were more than happy to stop the people from defending themselves, though.
	Yeah, I really care about giving the police their dignity after that, screw the police.
	He's talking about the death penalty for drug dealers after he personally pushed and continues to push the clock shots, Okay, I mean, let's say we agreed with all of that.
	Who?
	Like, what are the options?
	Like, who are you going to support?
	This is the problem.
	They're all like, oh well, we'll support DeSantis.
	But then who's taking over Florida?
	There appears to be a distinct lack of great men to take the reins, unfortunately.
	I think part of the problem with Trump, and I just thought, could be this.
	Ten years ago...
	Well, six years ago.
	Because he didn't think he could win, he enjoyed it, he said what he said.
	Now, he's running again, thinking he can win.
	He's now planning how to win.
	So he's now probably overriding his instincts of what he should do and should say, will that gain me votes?
	How will this do in that section?
	As opposed to before, where he was just, this is me.
	Also, honestly, there was a strange lack of energy in his speech.
	And I'm sympathetic, because what he went through during his presidency, and now we're not on YouTube getting the election in 2020 stolen from him, I can see even someone with Trump's temperament would be like, oh my god.
	And now you've got all your allies being like, maybe we just shouldn't.
	It's not like he's got the sort of machine behind him that the Democrats have, behind Biden.
	So it...
	I don't know, man.
	I can see why he would be kind of beaten down.
	He's 76 now.
	He'll be 78 in 2024.
	I'm 54.
	I've got to get a lift up one flight of stairs.
	Yeah, I haven't got the energy here.
	Because I couldn't walk up one flight of stairs if you want me to talk afterwards.
	And I'm only 54.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, Kevin says, I predict that Trump is playing linebacker for DeSantis.
	Whilst he is running the media in the swamp, it will be focused on him so DeSantis can creep up on the outside.
	Then, a few weeks before the election, Trump will pull out and leave the way open for Florida man to sail through and bring Trump in as his vice president.
	I don't think that's going to happen.
	That doesn't sound like a Donald Trump character trait to me, that...
	No.
	No, not at all.
	I think DeSantis was wise in just simply ignoring Trump, actually, and it made Trump look kind of weak and effectual.
	So, yeah, no, I'm not...
	I'm not feeling it.
	Screwtape Laser says, the MSM is going to ignore Trump this time around.
	They don't care about the ratings or making money.
	Only the narrative.
	Yes.
	Casey says, Trump has read Sun Tzu.
	I find it hard to believe Trump's read Sun Tzu.
	Maybe someone explained the key points to him.
	Pay a week when you are strong.
	Nick's right.
	He doesn't need to win over his base.
	He needs to win over people who didn't vote for him last time, but have seen the economic damage firsthand and are ready to take a chance.
	Yeah.
	I mean, we're still two years out, so who knows, you know.
	If I look at it like this, Biden is horrendous.
	His government's been horrendous.
	Yeah.
	His mental capacity's not there.
	Now, it's not slight on them, man.
	It's just obvious.
	Yes.
	You know, the whole Republican government is a shambles.
	The country's falling apart.
	You know...
	And the Republicans couldn't make hay at the elections last week on that.
	Something has stopped those middle voters voting for the Republicans because they didn't vote for the government they've got because it's horrendous.
	Something stopped in voting Republican.
	What was that?
	Well, I mean, I have theories.
	I mean, I don't know about American politics as much as you all.
	All I can think of is the Donald.
	All I can think of is the Dems are a bunch of big cheats.
	I wouldn't trust them not to cheat.
	They strike me as the kind of people...
	We can't say that on YouTube, but thankfully this isn't going on YouTube.
	So I think they're a bunch of big cheats.
	Anyway, Bald Eagle says...
	And the thing is, right, I actually wonder how much of...
	Because Trump obviously believes they're cheated.
	A lot of MAGA types believe they're cheated.
	And if you believe that your opponent is a congenital cheat, and you're like, yeah, so I'm going to ask you to vote for me, but you're kind of walking into a doomed scenario.
	You know that they're going to cheat, or at least that's what you think.
	And so, what's the point in even running, right?
	Because everyone remembers, so what's going to stop them from just cheating you out of this election?
	And so you can put on the greatest sort of show on earth, but if they're still going to cheat you out of it...
	This is what I think happened in 2020, because Trump's campaign was brilliant in 2020.
	Like, unbelievably high energy, he had all the wins behind him.
	Oh no, Biden was just the most popular president in human history, you could have known.
	And so...
	I can see why that would be a demoralising factor for Trump being like, no, I'm going to smash it in 2024.
	It's like, let's do the same again.
	If he felt like that, you wouldn't stand.
	Well, but it's Trump's ego, isn't it?
	Again, if I was him and I thought I'm not going to win, my ego would be saying that you need to find a better way out because running and losing, you're going to be laughed at more than pulling out now or throwing your weight behind somebody and using them as your proxy.
	That's a better way of failing than running and failing.
	But Trump is Trump and possibly isn't quite that reasonable.
	I think the only way you get away from the cheating aspect is you need to have a clear, decisive win.
	If there is cheating, and there's cheating in every election ever, I mean, it's just a human nature, I would imagine it only works when it's close, where not that many votes are one or two states, but if you can have that wave...
	Then they can't cheat that much to overcome what you're trying to achieve.
	Ignacio says, I really don't think there's a lack of energy coming off Trump.
	The Republicans won the popular vote this midterms.
	They expanded their voter base and registrations.
	They have actually won, but they did not smash it.
	So now you are falling into the trap of actually doing self-criticism and seeding doubt when the left would only ever close ranks and keep steadfast.
	We need to hold.
	Well, Ignacio, I'm not saying I won't support Trump, because, of course, if he's the nominee, of course I'll support Trump.
	I like Trump.
	But I wasn't really following the media reaction, because the media reaction was so muted.
	I was watching his campaign speech, and I was just like, you know...
	It wasn't there.
	The spark wasn't there.
	And it was during the election in 2020.
	It was thrilling watching him campaigning in 2020.
	This was very, very muted, and I don't think that was the right...
	This should be the glorious return of the exiled king.
	That's the sort of energy this should have had.
	And it just didn't, and I was disappointed, frankly.
	Anyway, S.H. Silver says, If you like DeSantis, you won't run him against Trump.
	It'd be political suicide.
	That's why the Rhinos are propping him up to destroy both Trump and DeSantis.
	Yeah, because, I mean, like, you know, whenever the Republican Party's polled, Trump is, by far, like, you know, three times more popular than DeSantis.
	So it's not that DeSantis isn't good.
	It's that, you know, Trump is Trump.
	Anyway, America's in Hospice Care says, I'm Floridian, I'm Latino, and right now I'm voting Trump 2024.
	I'm not going to let the pathetic argument that people don't want to go through all of the negativity of Trump's presidency again because that only lets the leftists win.
	They'll do it again no matter who the Republican is.
	The left is who created all the negativity with their smears, lies, and hoaxes.
	Had they not done any of that and just let Trump govern, Trump would have had far more success than those he achieved.
	Which is a good point, actually.
	I mean, this is the thing that kind of It irritates me about the idea that he's saying.
	It's like, well, it only lets the leftists win.
	It's like, yeah.
	I mean, what you're doing there is saying, look, if I do what I ought to do, then my abusive spouse will abuse me, and so I just don't want to.
	So I'm just going to go and live with this abusive spouse.
	I was like, no, you should leave.
	You should do something about the abusive spouse, like the media, the elite establishment.
	The American public, oh, I just don't want to go through it again.
	It's like, yeah, okay.
	I don't want to get into the black eye either.
	But I want to stop being in a position where I might get a black eye for speaking out of turn, you know?
	And that's the sort of...
	They would have to go through Trump to do that, you know?
	So...
	I think all voters should always vote for the candidate they want.
	Not start internally playing politics about if they win or this wins or I might give them.
	Vote for the people you want because that's the only way you're ever going to get what you want.
	When you start voting for people because they're not someone else or because you're scared they're going to get in.
	That's what's wrong with...
	Stop voting lesser evil.
	Yes.
	Vote for what you want.
	It's the only way you're ever going to get it.
	And Casey's got a good point here, I think.
	And I really do think this is the main issue.
	Casey says, No Republican will ever be president again with mail-in voting, so it doesn't matter who we pick in 2024.
	Trump will break the most leftist and establishment toys with his candidacy.
	The only hope we have is to take over the Republican Party and reclaim the election process in our country.
	I still think it has to be Trump.
	Anyone else will be swallowed by the establishment.
	I mean, I wanted to be Trump as well.
	I wanted him to have more energy, but I can see why he wouldn't.
	But you are right.
	I think the mail-in voting issue is a massive, massive problem that the Democrats are ballot harvesting.
	I mean, in the midterms.
	I was watching, like, you know, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, and they weren't like, vote for us because we're going to make the world better.
	They were just like, vote.
	They were just, go out and vote.
	And it's like, okay, but you're not even trying to persuade me to vote for you.
	So, you know, it seems that they have got the system sewn up, and they don't need to campaign anymore.
	They just need to harvest ballots.
	And so I can totally see why the Republicans would feel demoralized, frankly.
	Well, postal votes, that's what we call them here, are abused everywhere.
	We're not abused here.
	They shouldn't be allowed.
	They should be pottery shards.
	Anyway, Thomas says, if a Republican can push for a second church-style commission, we will likely see the status nudging is actually a little more forceful than we realise.
	Indeed.
	Lord Severidge says, Trump said he caused peace for decades.
	I think he's been left out in the sun a bit too long.
	DeSantis would be better.
	Well, I mean, it's Trump's natural tendency towards over-exaggeration there.
	He did have a peaceful presidency, so that's good.
	He put everyone in their place, and they were quiet about it.
	Rue the Day says, Yeah, I wish there was one that was outside of London, but apparently the only one we've got is in London.
	But anyway, that'll be good though, I'm sure.
	There'll be lots of people that you'll know down there.
	Fuzzy Toaster says...
	Weird question.
	There's a lot of overlap between tabletop wargaming and tabletop RPGs.
	I'm just wondering, Carl, do you ever pick up Fancy Flight Games 40k series?
	No, I didn't pick up any of that.
	Sorry.
	And Kevin says...
	Yeah, I've got to say, I don't think they ever looked at Twitter as a money-making venture.
	I think they used it for control.
	But as soon as they got offered a payout, they snapped Elon's hand off.
	Well...
	Did they, though?
	It seemed like it was a bit of a struggle, actually.
	I think the struggle came from his side.
	I think once they offered them twice as much as their shares was worth, he got a yes within days.
	Yeah, but that's because legally they had to, because otherwise they could have been sued by their shareholders for not taking the financial interest of the company into account.
	No, it was the shareholders.
	The board could have been sued by the shareholders.
	But I don't know whether that would have actually happened.
	It just opens them up to that vulnerability, right?
	I don't know.
	I think a lot of it was really ideology.
	I think that's why they're doing it.
	Well, I think that's why they got in here, of course.
	But like all socialists, you offer them enough money, they forget about their socialism for a little while.
	That's a good point.
	And on that note, we've got to go.
	So right, 3.30, let's see this.com.
	We'll find out whether Biden's actually giving the AI rights.
	Oh God, I just hate even mentioning it.
	But yeah, so tune in for that and we will be back tomorrow.

▲