Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 24, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:28:51

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #574

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of Lotuses for today, Tuesday the 24th of February 2023.
	I am joined by Dan.
	Hello.
	Today we're going to discuss why you shouldn't marry the wrong woman, what the World Economic Forum is afraid of, and the elephant in the room, the Stephen Crowder, the Daily Wire War.
	For our premium subscribers, at 3 o'clock today, we have the fifth episode of Brokonomics releasing, this time on gold.
	So, speaking of Daily Wire, you're not going to be doing any birch gold plugs during this, are you, Dan?
	No, you get my honest assessment whether I think it's a good thing or not.
	Okay, fantastic.
	Well worth the price of admission to our premium content.
	Without further ado, let's jump into the news.
	Gentlemen, a recent debate online has been ignited by the one place where we get all of our received wisdom these days, TikTok.
	A woman decided to do a TikTok on why she thinks that men, it doesn't actually matter what woman they're with, it has no bearing on it.
	Men actually just marry the first woman that's in front of them when they're ready to commit.
	So I don't know if you're about to trash this, Connor, but there's kind of some truth in that there, isn't there?
	We'll watch the TikTok in a moment, and we'll discuss it.
	So in this segment, I'm going to explore why that might be true, but beware of the woman in your proximity when you think you're ready to commit, because we're going to explore the price of marrying the wrong woman, and there are many of those about today.
	If you want to learn the value of family, marriage, and settling down, you can go and pay...
	Five pounds a month to access all our premium content on the website.
	To watch Josh's contemplation series, he did this one with Cole, about the value of family.
	Turns out that men's life expectancy, their income, and all sorts of different metrics that seem to value life success and well-being go up as soon as they have a wife and kids.
	So, I know it's really expensive out there, but go and sire your legacy kings.
	You deserve it.
	Right, on to the TikTok, because we've got to listen to women's terrible opinions.
	Let's listen to why men only marry the women in front of them.
	Men marry the woman in front of them at the time they are ready to get married.
	Let's talk about it.
	So I was scrolling through TikTok one day, as we all do, and I came across this photographer.
	She's obviously been at a lot of weddings, and she observed that the men were marrying the woman in front of them at the time that they were ready to get married.
	Implying that that wasn't necessarily that man's soulmate or that man's love of his life it was just the girl he was dating at the time he was ready to get married and settle down.
	Like when you decide, especially a man, when a man decides that he is financially and emotionally ready for marriage and ready to settle down and ready to start a family, he takes a way different approach to dating.
	That part in his brain of like, oh, there's another girl out there, shuts off.
	Because now his focus is on marriage.
	It's not in finding the next best thing.
	Are y'all following?
	Like, do you agree?
	Do you disagree?
	I need to know.
	Can I make a really petty point?
	I wish she weren't right in any way just because she has an insufferable accent.
	And I wish we would have listened to someone far more eloquent put it that way.
	But this was the TikTok that went viral.
	You're grinning.
	Go on, do you think she's made a compelling case?
	Well...
	I don't think I did that, but then I would, wouldn't I? But I've definitely seen mates do that.
	I mean, I know one guy.
	He's a lovely bloke.
	Fantastically good-looking.
	You ask him about Tinder, and he says, yeah, I completed it.
	I mean, he kind of went through one a night for about several years, and then one day he basically just decided, right, I'm married now, and basically the next girl on the list, he ended up marrying her.
	So, you know, we've all seen examples in our life of guys who have done this, So she's not entirely wrong.
	I think it's a consequence of women wanting to date men that can command a relationship because why would they not want to date a man that's better than them?
	Otherwise they'd feel like your mother.
	And so if the man dictates the terms of the relationship, like how women gatekeep access to sex, men will gatekeep access to a relationship, to secure commitment.
	When a man is ready to settle down, he will make much more of a...
	Investment in a single woman that is nearby him when he is ready to do so.
	And it's funny that she frames it as, oh, the best woman for him, or it might not necessarily be his soulmate.
	When have you ever heard, I mean, this is a Patrice O'Neill bit, when have you ever heard a man go to all his boys, right, lads, what we're going to do is we're going to go to the club tonight, and we're going to meet the last woman we're ever going to be with.
	Put it in.
	One, two, three.
	Soulmates!
	Men don't speak in that term.
	Women love that whole soulmate concept, but it's obviously nonsense.
	Well, it sets an impossible standard because it also means that the relationship wouldn't require constant maintenance and you're not going to fight and you're going to be perfect for each other.
	And that may be one of the reasons why women initiate a lot of divorces because they're thinking, compared to the platonic ideal of a relationship I have, where the man is so desperately in love with me and he serves me and...
	He's always a good listener, and he pats my hand when I tell stories.
	My current husband, who has run ragged by providing for me, he doesn't satiate all my emotional needs, so my soulmate must still be out there.
	So I'm going to take half his stuff and bugger off, which is not a very healthy way to do things.
	Yeah, women in the early stage of their life, they're always sort of looking to trade up.
	I mean, it does shift to a more security-focused mindset as they get a little bit older.
	But yeah, certainly younger women, it's all about, you know, who's the better guy?
	And you can sort of imagine the meme of Lois Lane being carried by Superman and she's thinking to herself, can I do better?
	Yes.
	That's how they work.
	Well, it's also a lot of the time that woman has a higher body count than the communist China.
	I'm ready to settle down.
	Ladies, don't put out too often.
	But to the gents out there, we're not going to leave you out in the cold with advice.
	Sure, you may decide to marry a woman at the time that you're ready.
	Just be sure the woman in closest proximity is of a decent character and you vet her first.
	Or you're going to end up like this.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the cop cuck.
	Four Nashville police officers fired for having sex on duty with a female officer also fired who hosted Girls Gone Wild hot tub party with colleagues and their wives where she took her top off and drank heavily.
	This is Officer Megan Hall, which you said you hadn't heard of.
	No, I'm not at the story.
	Today we're gonna go on a very sordid journey.
	Oh, it's her!
	I keep seeing that picture on Twitter all the time, and I scroll past it.
	So, yeah, I'm glad I'm going to find out what's going on.
	I'm not surprised you scroll past it, because we're just talking purely physiognomy here.
	I would suggest that in order to court male attention, she would need to be a bit easier, wouldn't she?
	She's not exactly the best looker.
	She looks like...
	Have you ever seen those shrunken face memes of Charlie Kirk?
	Where all the features are really crowded together on a giant face.
	She looks like the moon emoji on an iPhone.
	She does that sort of come-hither, you know, Goa type, yeah.
	Yeah, mainly Goa, thank you very much.
	So four police officers from Tennessee town Laverne were fired for allegedly having sex on duty with a female cop, who was also fired and accused of taking a top-off at what the local mayor called a Girls Gone Wild hot tub party.
	Patrol officer Megan Hall of Laverne Police Department is at the forefront of the investigation after it was revealed in December that she engaged in a sexual relationship with at least four male officers.
	Fellow patrol officers Juan Lugo Perez, Louis Powell, Detective Seneca Shields and Sergeant Henry Ty McGowan admitted to the accusations, according to the report, with Shields claiming he had oral sex with Hall in the department's gym while on duty.
	Hall, who is married, is also accused of revealing her breasts while at a steamy Family Memorial Day boat party with patrol officer Patrick Magaloco Americans get easier to say names, who was suspended, and fellow officers David Durham and Eric Statz.
	Maglioco said that Statz himself, Durham and Hall were in the hot tub when Hall's top came off before he and Hall went off to have sex in the bathroom, the report reads.
	Canine officer Larry Holliday, not in the way you're thinking, And the patrol officer Gavin Sherbert were also suspended and charged with sexual harassment after exchanging sexual images with Hall.
	The hot tub party, also attended by several of the male officer's wives, was hosted on Stats' boat.
	Magliocco was seen pouring vodka down Hall's throat moments before she took off her top.
	The report reads that Hall's top came off and Stats helped her put it back on because he was trying to protect her.
	It was just the canine officer got suspended.
	Fido didn't get suspended as well, did he?
	We're not going to talk any more about that on YouTube because Dev already got suspended for that exact topic.
	Hall was open about her relationships with the other officers and once bragged to Magliocco about Officer Powell's concealed weapon after performing oral sex on him while on duty, according to the report.
	Durham and Stats claim they didn't have an inappropriate relationship with Hall, but Powell, who is married, initially denied having a sexual relationship with Hall several times and claimed that everybody knows she has multiple partners.
	He later confessed to also shagging her.
	Maglioco told investigators on December 13th that he and his wife had been in an open relationship with Hall since spring 2022.
	He revealed one day that Hall's husband walked in on her and his wife and wasn't on board with the open relationship.
	At one party, Hall and Maglioco's wife started kissing and Hall's husband came in the room and seemed upset, the report reads.
	Hall appeared to keep her sexual relationships a secret from her husband and asked other officers to borrow money to book hotels.
	So, his wife is off getting horrendous tramp-stamp tattoos, by the way, according to her own TikTok, having sex with pretty much all of her colleagues and their wives, just flashing on boat parties on Memorial Day and getting absolutely hammered.
	She's doing a bit for the diversity, though.
	I mean, she doesn't discriminate.
	Yeah.
	She doesn't really have much of a type, does she?
	Like, as your husband, you would feel a little bit unnerved.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the jokes just continue to write themselves, though, because she was almost suspended beforehand.
	Because if we go on to the next one, Megan Hall was nearly disciplined twice, not in the way you're thinking, before she was sacked because she crashed her cop car.
	So...
	Right.
	Not quite the expert rider we were expecting.
	Megan Hall was booted off...
	That's one beyond can't walk straight when you can't drive straight either.
	Must have been a good night.
	God.
	I mean, look at that face.
	Why were you so eager to...
	Come on!
	The makeup doesn't even help.
	That's just...
	Men don't need a reason, they just need a place.
	There is not enough whiskey in the world for...
	No, you know what?
	Laverne was nearly booted off last...
	Was booted off last month when an internal probe revealed...
	Internal probe...
	Oh dear.
	She had performed oral sex while on duty, whipped off her bikini top at a Girls Gone Wild hot tub party, and pestered another officer for a freeway with his wife.
	But DailyMail.com can now reveal the shameless siren, 26, good pun, was already on her last warning after she cost her bosses thousands of dollars in damage and even landed herself in the hospital in a series of preventable car accidents.
	So while giving Chase an intersection, she got rear-ended.
	I'm not going to say it.
	No.
	Also, the memes write themselves.
	She has a TikTok account, and we have footage here of her going for a fantastic ride.
	If we click that, John.
	Yes.
	For our audio listeners, she is on top of a bull, giving a real good go of it.
	Sorry for the interruption, all computer cut out midway through the stream.
	We're going to be resuming our regularly scheduled programming in a second.
	I don't know why he's doing it.
	He's more of a man than I am, but he's trying to salvage his marriage, Jediah's boss.
	Coffey County Sheriff Chad Partin told DailyMail.com.
	Parton said Jediah was in training for the Tennessee Highway Patrol so her department so he was going to work there and then decided to pull out because of the scandal involved engulfing his spouse and instead took a job as a deputy.
	I have offered and extended to him any resource he needs and all he says is Sheriff, I just want to work for the citizens of Coffey County and I love what I'm doing.
	I don't condone what went on at Laverne Police Department but he sure hasn't broken any laws.
	He's the victim there.
	There's not a blemish on his record.
	He's doing a phenomenal, phenomenal job.
	Yeah, I mean, there's a deeper dynamic going on here.
	So, So, I mean, they got together when they were in their late teens or something like that.
	And at that sort of age, women's pulling power is sort of way above men of the same age.
	But then sort of as you go into your 30s, it starts to catch up and maybe even cross somewhere around that point.
	Yeah, it's the phrase of women age like milk, men age like wine.
	Yeah, so, I mean, he's in this whole mindset that he can't afford to lose her.
	He absolutely can.
	Yeah, big time.
	If anything, mate, you'd lose a lot less by just ditching her, just chucking her to the curb.
	His options have significantly improved at this point, and I would say, well...
	Quality options for her, probably not.
	Yeah, there's a photo of him in here, John, in his sort of park rangers uniform.
	Yeah, he's not the ugliest of blokes.
	He's a bit chubby.
	He's a little bit beta-ish.
	But he's not her level.
	I mean, yeah, look, seems like a perfectly happy chap.
	You need a bit more confidence, pal.
	Good square draw and everything.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Lose a bit of weight while walking around the parks and you'll be fine.
	She clearly has absolutely no standards, no morals, no soul.
	Ditcher, pal.
	I don't know.
	What the hell are you doing?
	Absolutely.
	So, laughter aside, let's look at...
	Michael Knowles had a good take on this, I think.
	Just waiting for this to load.
	So, someone tweeted at him, Michael, is this a good enough reason for divorce?
	This is not a troll question, I'm being sincere, because Michael Knowles and many of the other hosts of the Daily Wire have been flat out against no-fault divorce.
	They think it's been a terrible consequence for civilisation.
	But as a devout Catholic, Michael Knowles is probably going to go by the biblical standard of, yeah, adultery is kind of fine.
	But he's pointed out that, strange as it may sound to modern culture, no.
	So we've totally inverted the morality of what you can divorce for.
	So if a woman just isn't feeling it, if you're not her soulmate, she can walk away with half your income for the rest of your life.
	But if she wants to engage in an open marriage, unilaterally, without the man's consent, he's expected to stick by her because it's the right thing to do.
	Yeah, when no-fault divorce came in, it did lead to a lot of divorces.
	Someone of my age, who's that halfway point between Gen X and Millennials, The school that I went to, basically everybody's parents were divorced.
	It was just a sort of social phenomenon at that time.
	And the reason that I disagreed with that original TikTok in the video beginning at the start was because I did sort of take quite a long time with my now wife.
	We sort of stayed engaged for a good sort of three or four years because I wanted to be absolutely certain that when I went into this, it's one thing calling off an engagement.
	It's quite another thing calling off a marriage.
	I wanted to say, you know, once I'm in this, I'm going to be in it.
	Yeah.
	And obviously a lot of people are just not thinking ahead like that.
	But the quartering had also a very good take.
	I would like to say this.
	We can sit here and laugh about the fact that women post their L's online.
	This was obviously posted to women posting their L's online.
	He said, the face of availability over attraction.
	Men often pretend looks matter, but when nobody is looking, they really change their tune.
	Don't project onto all of us, mate.
	Also, they all guaranteed knew that their boys ran through her too.
	So she was the office fleshlight.
	She's taking all the heat for this, but this is an L for men.
	Now, not all men.
	But there are quite a few of them implicated in this that were willing to go there when they knew she had no standards, was married, looked like that, and was a sleeve for all of their other colleagues.
	Lads, come on.
	Don't stick it in crazy.
	Alright.
	Now, there's a less humorous example that I wanted to end on here.
	Because, again, this isn't just ragging on adulterousness.
	This is saying the consequences of marrying the wrong person.
	And, obviously, marriage is not just for you, right?
	There were no children involved in that last one.
	So he is actually entitled to walk away, and he really should find a better woman.
	This is a scenario where there are kids involved.
	There's a son involved.
	And marriage, this is my frustration with actually Matt Walsh's appearance on Joe Rogan, where he couldn't defend traditional marriage, because he kept saying that it's for a man and a woman.
	No, no, no.
	Marriage is for the kids that result out of it, because you should be together, you should solve your problems, because the kids are entitled to a home environment they were brought into to be stable and conducive to them being raised properly.
	That is the biggest risk here.
	And unfortunately, if you marry the wrong woman and have kids with the wrong woman, it's not just she can take the kids, it's that she can turn your son into a daughter.
	Yeah, and so this story I have heard.
	Yes, there is an update.
	There is an update to this.
	I believe we've covered it on the website before a long time ago.
	Essentially, a father in Texas who was married to a pediatrician, they split up and his son, so the dad is called Jeff Younger, his son was living with the mother and he would get joint custody, occasionally see his son.
	And when his son came over, he started saying, I'm a girl.
	My mom has been sending me to school called Luna in dresses.
	They've changed my pronouns.
	And then when he's around his dad, he would say, no, I'm a boy because obviously he's a five year old and he's confused.
	And his dad was taking videos of this and he was lobbying for the fact with the legislature, with the divorce courts, the fact that the mom cannot voice this inauthentic gender identity on his prepubescent child.
	So the update is that they got joint custody, according to the Texas courts, and the mom went to put them on puberty blockers and they said that, OK, you can't without both parents express consent, do any kind of surgical procedure.
	This should be taken off the table entirely, but I understand that Texas has some blue cities and it's an uphill battle there.
	So what's happened is the mom has just gone, right, OK, you know what I'm going to do?
	I'm going to move to California, which is a single-party consent state.
	Basically, don't ask, don't tell if you want your kids to take chemical castration drugs, like Lupron, which was actually used to chemically castrate paedophiles back in the day, and should be brought back rather than using it on children.
	She's going to take him to California, he's now nine, and try to have him put on puberty blockers, which means that he never goes through puberty...
	Has diminished bone density, has undeveloped sexual reproductive organs, and basically sets him on the permanent path to irreversible transition.
	And the dad can't do anything about it because the Texas judges can't stop her from taking her son out of state.
	Again, pediatrician.
	So this is...
	You need to vet better because this is someone who is meant to be in a medical establishment caring for children, and she's actively mutilating her own son for ideological clout.
	I mean, if I was a dad, there is something that I would do, but then...
	You can't say that on YouTube.
	Yeah, no, I can't.
	No.
	Then neither parent would see the kid.
	Yeah, Timple raised a really good point, actually, at one point when he was discussing the story a little while ago, and he said the kind of Civil War-ish issues, whether or not the original Civil War was actually about slavery or Abraham Lincoln trying to stop the South seceding and economic issues is beyond it.
	But the prevailing narrative is...
	The North didn't want slavery, the South wanted slavery, right?
	Removal nuances.
	Let's say something like that happened again.
	There was a Catalyst event, an Archduke Fran Ferdinand shooting event, right?
	It could be abortion, where one state won't allow it, one state will allow it, and if you cross the lines of one state to then kill a baby in the state that does allow it, will the state you're returning to prosecute you for it?
	And that could kick off a civil war between Democrats and Republicans.
	Or something like this.
	Because a man is trying to stop his child from being mutilated by the pathological mother.
	One state won't allow it, one state will.
	So how can you have a country brought together like that?
	And how can you ever hope to have a happy family if you're going to commit to women who are this insane and this ideologically propagandized against themselves and their own children?
	It's hard to have a civilisation when this is a state relationship.
	And what does it say about our culture today when we are producing women like that?
	Yeah.
	Carl and I have a podcast coming soon.
	It's nearly two and a half hours on Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex.
	It's the evil origin point of all modern feminism and...
	Frankly, it's almost like the culture has become a devouring sexual dragon of chaos, subsuming everything until we just depopulate the human race, and it's no shock that we're seeing so many societal ills now.
	So, ladies and gentlemen, mainly gentlemen, of course, if you're going to take a long time to consider buying a new PC part, or taking out a loan, or buying a new car, make sure that you don't just impulsively marry the nearest woman towards you, because, frankly, you can see all sorts of consequences for you And your children should you pick the wrong one.
	So apply an even harsher standard to your love life than you do your purchases.
	Beware marrying the wrong woman, gentlemen.
	Great.
	And with that, on a lighter note, we're going to flip to what is the World Economic Forum afraid of?
	Before I do, I'm just going to quickly plug a nice little economics lesson and sort of ties into the last point that we're making about societal trends and voting habits and that sort of stuff.
	The collapse is coming by...
	Yes.
	Wile E. Coyote economy, yeah.
	The analogy is basically, you know that bit in any cartoon, Wile E. Coyote, even Scooby-Doo does this, where he's hovering off the edge of the cliff, and it's not until he looks down and recognizes he's not standing in anything that he plummets to the bottom.
	We're kind of in that place economically, and I saw a few people in the comments on the YouTube version of this going, oh, well, I'm surprised that Dan didn't do an economics presentation.
	Did he basically ghostwrite this?
	And I'm happy to say that I wrote it on a train in And recorded it, and then you, before it went out, saw it, so you didn't have any hand in the scripting process, but you did give it your thumbs up, which I really appreciate.
	It's a good video, and this one, I believe, isn't even on premium, so anyone can go and watch it.
	Great, so go and check that out.
	Right, so, World Economic Forum.
	Quick recap, what is the World Economic Forum?
	Well, it's our shadow government, obviously.
	It was founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab.
	Klaus, at the time, he was a mid-ranked academic.
	He was 33 years old.
	And he decided to set up a talking shop.
	And then the following year, world leaders started turning up.
	Now, I'm not suggesting anything.
	I'm not saying that this is a front for other vested interests.
	He must just be very charismatic.
	I assumed the food was good.
	With his amazingly comprehensible accent.
	Yeah, but...
	The future is built by us.
	When we did the bit on the 15-minute cities last week, I did touch upon the summary of the report that was available at the time, and that was talking about the biggest concern the UEFA have beyond the flim-flam about the environmental stuff.
	It's basically about societal upheaval.
	So I thought, actually, you know, this is quite interesting.
	I want to get into the rest of this.
	So I've got hold now of the full report, and I've gone through it, and I basically just want to give a pricey of what it is for the elite.
	What keeps them up at night?
	What scares them?
	So yeah, this will be fun.
	So there's only one link in this, and it is this.
	It is the Global Risk Report 2023.
	You can go and download.
	It's on their website if you want to, but you don't have to because I'm going to summarise it for you.
	Right, so this report, it was put together or edited by Sadia Zahidi, who is the Managing Director of the World Economic Forum.
	To give you a bit about her background, a bit like Klaus, she's also an economist, not my kind of economist though.
	She's got some great work history behind us.
	She's done things like being Head of Gender and Parity Programme, Head of Civil Society and Gender, Head of Gender Initiatives, Head of Gender and Education.
	So she's a genital communist?
	Yeah, and the interesting thing I've noticed from looking at her work is she does tend to focus on the gender gap in the West rather than her native Pakistan, presumably because Pakistan have got this nailed.
	Or stoned.
	Yeah, one of those two.
	I don't know.
	I've never been.
	So the report was authored by about 40 top bigwigs at the WEF.
	So it's put together and she edited it and it comes from surveys and samples that they put out to 1,200 Davos-affiliated thinkers and then also a survey of businesses again affiliated with the WEF.
	So they asked each other and found themselves correct?
	More or less, that's where it comes to.
	The report covers a number of different areas.
	It talks about the environment, it talks about the economics, geopolitics, it talks about society and technology.
	I'm going to whiz through all of those and give you a quick summary of what it is they're afraid of.
	So I'm going to skip environmental for now.
	I am going to come back to that because that gets interesting.
	Economic.
	Let's have a quick look at this info chart they put up.
	So let's go to page 13, figure 1.1.
	There we go.
	And this is a quick summary of the things that they are concerned about on the economic front.
	Won't bore you with it, but one thing that I found quite interesting is that they rate the likelihood and severity of failure to meet net zero as being worse than nuclear war.
	So...
	Well, there is an article on the Huffington Post and other outlets have speculated that a limited nuclear war might actually be beneficial for climate change, because a nuclear mushroom cloud might stop some of the sun's rays heating up the atmosphere, and also we are the carbon they want to reduce, so it might kill some of us.
	Immense devastation in order to meet the climate goals.
	That's more or less where this paper is going.
	You've hit the number of it here, but we get there.
	So that's in there.
	And also, not just nuclear war is down there as an economic risk.
	Another thing that they flag up quite heavily is cyber attacks, which they think is even more likely than nuclear war, although not quite as bad, they do put out.
	Now, this is interesting because two years ago, or sorry, three years ago, they were extremely concerned about pandemics.
	They thought one of those was coming around just around the corner.
	It's fascinating.
	So I don't know if you have it in here, but there was a wargaming of a cyberattack last July, like how...
	Right.
	Event 201.
	Like it was Event 201 in October 2019.
	Also, back in 2021, I remember writing an article on this in a now defunct outlet called Progress or something like that, where I was reviewing the government's integrated review.
	And it was my first article on the World Economic Forum.
	forum and i remember being called a conspiracy theorist by some of my colleagues in a think tank at the time and look who was vindicated because they said the uk government took their advice on this we want to vaccinate against the cyber pandemic now my conspiratorial hat going on as we've spoken plenty about digital currencies and the like and you've got a brokonomics episode coming up soon on it what would be the number one thing that would allow a transition over to a digital currency some sort of cyber attack perhaps On banks.
	Yeah.
	Because, obviously...
	What's the inflation term?
	God, but they just...
	They buy up their own debt.
	That's completely slipped my mind.
	Oh, quantitative easing.
	Yeah, quantitative easing.
	They're not actually printing physical money.
	They're just...
	Yeah, buying back, yeah.
	So what would happen if the entire system was just wiped overnight?
	And we went, okay, we just have to start from zero.
	Like a great reset.
	Yeah, something like that, yes.
	Um...
	I've scared you a little bit, haven't I? No, again, yeah, there is a lot of that.
	No, your point about conspiracy theories, this segment is going to be quite good for those of you who consider yourselves sort of in that camp, because it's not so much conspiracy theory.
	They've just written it down.
	It's in here.
	It's all in black and white.
	But OK, let's start to whiz through it.
	OK, so geo-economic warfare, that's another sort of big risk on the economic front.
	Now, this is interesting, actually, because Larry Fink put out an article, I remember, just after the beginning of the Ukraine war.
	Where he basically said, look guys, globalisation is over, it's done, the dream is gone.
	Now he's a finance guy, he's a sharp chap, despite being...
	He's the head of BlackRock, and he's on the WEF board.
	Yeah, he is, but he got there quickly.
	So this report is coming to terms with the fact that their big thing, these guys are obviously all globalists, they're having to come to terms with the fact that this is over, so they don't like that.
	Climate action hiatus.
	Now, this is interesting.
	I read this.
	The relevant sentence is this.
	Recent events have exposed a divergence between what is scientifically necessarily and what is politically expedient.
	So I'm just going to run that through the translation filter.
	The plebs are pushing back against this climate lunacy.
	So that's what they're worried about on that one.
	Now, on mitigating factors on that, I mean, there were pages and pages of text on this, but they talk about things like, you know, restarting coal to get over this.
	They do not mention nuclear.
	That's going to be a theme.
	We might have to come back to that one.
	ESG, that's the other thing that they need to do to push back against the plebs getting all uppity about this climate nonsense.
	So they're pushing for a lot more ESG. ESG, not a big fan of that.
	I'd imagine that's something you probably covered before.
	I know we've got some content.
	I've done an entire Article on how ESG is comparable to the biblical mark of the beast.
	Because it's not about the E or the S, it's all about the G. It's all about control, it's all about the governance.
	I mean, just as an example, the oil companies have higher ESG scores than Tesla does.
	Yeah, that's just because it's an insurrectionary measure to supplant the members of their board with...
	Ideologically compliant activists.
	It is whitewashing the oil companies, effectively, is what they're doing.
	Okay, on the economic, there's loads to cover.
	So on the economic, we've also got debt crisis.
	Now this one is fun.
	Okay, so they start off by bitching about how interest rates are rising too fast.
	Yeah, I kind of agree with that.
	Whose fault is that?
	That is a good point.
	Would it be all your puppet governments?
	Yeah, that's a good point.
	But they also have the utter gall to blame that as being the reason as to why Sri Lanka collapsed.
	Not your farming policies, not the articles that you've now taken down from your website saying by 2025 Sri Lanka will be a green powerhouse.
	So what happened with Sri Lanka is that they, yeah, exactly like you said, they started pushing all these farming policies that basically caused the agricultural yields in Sri Lanka to fall.
	So their exports fall because therefore they weren't getting enough dollars in.
	Because they weren't getting enough dollars in, they had a dollar shortage.
	Then they couldn't go out and buy oil.
	Because they couldn't buy oil, they then couldn't operate the farming equipment to produce their now much reduced yields.
	And they basically got into this sort of spiral where they ran out of foreign currency reserves and they couldn't get any energy and, you know, the whole thing kind of fell apart.
	And food.
	Well, yes, and food, because their yields.
	I mean, even the meagre yields that they had left after implementing all these policies, you still need farming equipment, you still need oil to make it work.
	So, yeah, that was an interesting one.
	But what interested me more than that is when they start expanding on this idea and they're saying, OK, what are we going to do about this debt crisis and developing nations?
	And basically what they start talking about is swapping debt for assets in developing countries.
	And they sort of basically, you know what they're talking about, they're basically saying, okay, these developing countries have got all of this debt, so I tell you what, why don't we forgive the debt and we take the land off you?
	So this is a sort of developing nation's version of, if you're unhappy because you've got debt, well, don't worry.
	You can own nothing, and then you'll be happy.
	This is fascinating, because obviously, Klaus Schwab has said, and his acolyte Justin Trudeau, that they admire the Chinese model for the ability to get things done.
	This all comes from the Henry Kissinger School of Thought, which obviously opened up China in the first place.
	the One Belt and Road program at the moment.
	And they have 140 countries under it.
	And they've basically immiserated most of these countries with massive amounts of debt by bringing their own people in and upgrading their infrastructure.
	The infrastructure is built on crap steel.
	And then because they default on the debt, China owns the infrastructure, like Uganda's only airport.
	Yeah, precisely.
	So if they're lumbered with all that debt from the Chinese, then if we go in there and we offer them the forgiveness of debt for their land, then aren't we just bringing the Chinese into the fold of the global hegemon...
	Well, effectively what we're doing is the old 19th century land rush thing again.
	So in the 19th century you had the European powers who wanted to basically take over as much Africa as they could and colour the bits of the African map in their colour.
	We're now basically doing the same thing with developing countries, except we're doing it through the sort of debt-for-land swap, and it's, you know, who can get more, the West-affiliated countries or China?
	I mean, well, the West is quite affiliated with China, but you know what I mean.
	The best friends, yeah.
	The older, the Anglosphere, you know, how much a week can we take over before the Chinese basically own everything?
	This seems like a plot by the globalists to stop BRICS and the West partitioning into two before it really happens.
	Well, or at least getting as much as we can before it does partition.
	There's certainly that.
	So, yeah.
	So there's a solid example in black and white that, you know, you will own nothing and be happy is not the only instance of their thinking.
	They're actually trying to roll it out on the geopolitical scale.
	Right.
	Solar polarisation.
	That's the next one.
	I think we've got an image of 1.9 on page 23rd.
	That's the one.
	So this is what they're worried about on the social side.
	Now, let me just pass it, and it goes into it more on the debt.
	So state collapse is the big outcome that they're worried about.
	The biggest input to this that they're worried about is that big red circle just above the erosion of social cohesion, and it's got the thickest line that you notice going into it.
	So basically it's all about this.
	Misinformation and disinformation.
	Yes, it's our excuse to censor you.
	Yeah, there is a lot of discussion about misinformation.
	It comes up very frequently.
	In fact, the only thing that comes up more frequently than misinformation in this report...
	Is the environment?
	No, it's the date 2030, which for some reason is a big focus.
	Just a pure coincidence that pretty much every government around the world and the UN have all of their policies lined up for that day, I'm sure.
	Yeah, it's a stunning coincidence.
	But there's a paragraph that I want to read you from this section, and it is, okay, a widening gap in values and equity is posing an existential challenge to bothocratic and democratic systems, as economic and social divides are translated as a political one.
	Polarisation on issues such as immigration, gender, abortion, race-baiting, religion, net zero, and even succession and anarchism.
	They didn't actually say race-baiting, but, you know, I paraphrased on that bit.
	So those are all the things that they're concerned about.
	So again, it's essentially people are pushing back into the divisive genders that they're trying to sow against us.
	We're all turning on them.
	We're not fighting amongst ourselves as much as we should.
	Also, interestingly, quick side note, you mentioned succession and anarchism in there.
	So what do they mean by anarchism?
	Because that hasn't been a thing since the early 19th century when we used to have big anarchist movements.
	Right.
	So, I followed the footnotes and I found what do they mean by that.
	And anarchism is basically defined as a fear of under-government.
	Right.
	So, if you try to digitally devolve from the technocratic hellscape we're creating and create an insulated community that isn't beholden to the wefts, you will have no property.
	You're an anarchist.
	Well, essentially, I mean, it's more than that.
	The broader fear is when they are governing less than the maximum amount that they could.
	Under-governing is their big fear.
	Right.
	And, you know, down the pub, you'll be talking to your mates about, well, isn't it bad what these one-world governments are trying to foster upon us?
	They have their version of that, too.
	They get together and talk about a dystopian future...
	Where they're not in charge of everything.
	And you think I'm joking, and I'll stick this in the reading list.
	There is actually a sort of little novella that was published in the Financial Times where they talk about a dark future where people are basically making their own decisions and not being governed.
	That sounds wonderful.
	I do not, it's in there.
	Right, okay, so back to this.
	Biggest concerns on misinformation.
	What do they have to say about misinformation?
	Mounting citizen anger about government action.
	Very angry world.
	Yeah, they talk about that a lot.
	They talk about the fact that only 13% of the world's population are currently living in a liberal democracy, compared to 44% living under an elected autocracy.
	I didn't think that's where they were going with the 13% statistics.
	I think I know what you mean on that one.
	But, right, so an elected autocracy.
	So this is basically a state that goes through the motions of having elections and having somebody called a president, but there's not really any real democracy there.
	And I was expecting to find, you know, under that category, places like, you know, the UK and Australia and Canada.
	But no, apparently we're all examples of being genuinely liberal democracies.
	So I don't know how...
	I think, of course, yes, we are YouTube.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Rishi Sunak was voted in?
	Absolutely.
	By MPs, of course.
	Yes, he had full support.
	His two predecessors definitely weren't cooed out.
	And what's their example of the most liberal democracy going?
	It is Germany, where they are currently in the process of getting the AFD, their main opposition, banned from being a political party, and where they're now passing laws where they can basically put troops on the street next time there's a lockdown.
	So that is the paragon of liberal democracy.
	They've obviously also all impoverished themselves for the bastion of liberal democracy that is Ukraine, which has banned all enemy press and enemy parties and in 2014 supplanted their previously democratic elected leader with a comedian who's somehow now a billionaire.
	Anyway, we won't say any more about that.
	What a character.
	I really loved his piece playing the piano on the penis.
	Sorry, playing piano with his penis on TV. That's...
	Yeah, that's the route to billionaire status.
	Right, now, I am going to come back to environmental now, because this ties in with the last section where it starts to get really interesting.
	So, environmental.
	Now, I'm not going to dig into what they're concerned about, because as far as I'm concerned, it's all a massive grift, basically.
	You know, I just ask myself questions.
	Why have private jets not been banned if all of this stuff is real?
	Why do the elites all go and buy beachside property, which, according to the ICCP, are going to be underwater within 20 years?
	Why does Bill Gates import sand from the Caribbean via shipping container to his beachside property every year?
	And all the banks, all the WEF-affiliated banks, they all go along with this stuff, but they lend 40-year mortgages on property which is supposed to be underwater within half that time.
	So are the banks prepared to lose money, or do they just go along with it and don't actually believe it?
	Anyway, so I'm not a big believer in the grift, but nevertheless, it is a big section on there.
	What I would note is I went through this report trying to find any references to nuclear power.
	There wasn't any.
	But basically, the last part of the report gets quite scary because they acknowledge that their massive push for net zero is going to have to involve the mining of a vast amount of resources.
	I mean, a really, really big deal.
	And so basically, the last third of this report is what they call polycrisis.
	Now, the polycrises is basically a combination of a number of different crises at the same time.
	So, for example, the plebs pushing back against this stuff.
	It could be a lack of globalisation, which we talked about.
	It could be then combined with a shortage of natural resources, which they say is basically definitely going to happen.
	And their environmental concerns.
	So they then get into four futures as to what the 2030s are going to look like.
	Now, this is something I do on my Brokonomics channel as well.
	I'm going into a lot more.
	It's, you know, what could the futures look like?
	Here's their version of what the 2030s could look like.
	So their most optimistic scenario is something called resource collaboration.
	Now this is one where the population is kept under control, so big win there.
	Globalism is still on track, so big win on that one.
	And even in this case, they are still anticipating, if everything goes right, a shortage of resources needed to achieve their net zero targets, which is going to lead into, and these are their words, a humanitarian crisis across the world.
	So do you remember when they were worried about people not agreeing on abortion?
	What do they mean by population being kept under control?
	Oh, in this sense, it's them not rising up and pushing back.
	So it's not the lack of social...
	Definitely not the number of people which would use a finite number of resources?
	Yeah, that might be in their thinking as well, they just haven't written it down.
	But for this stuff, they have written down.
	So, yeah, even in their best-case scenario, they admit that their push for net zero, and this is all in black and white, is going to cause a humanitarian crisis in their Best case scenario.
	And they still don't say, well, maybe we should have another think.
	They still don't say, well, maybe we should look at nuclear power then.
	It's all about, okay, yeah, we're just going to push ahead with it.
	Right.
	Second least worst scenario is resource constraints.
	Now, in this scenario, it's as before, but now the population is not cooperating quite as much.
	Maybe they're still trying to eat meat instead of bugs.
	And they're trying to leave their smart city more than 100 days a year, or whatever the number is, five days a year by that point.
	So the energy and feud crisis is starting to get more intense, and basically the humanitarian crisis starts to spread to the developed world as well.
	This is still in the top half of their most likely scenario.
	Oh, this is the glass half full prediction, right?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Right, after that we get on to resource competition.
	Now in this world...
	Globalism is over.
	I think it already is, but this is the scenario where it's gone.
	This is why I do think this is trying to bring the Belt and Road into the fold, because China has Afghanistan's lithium reserves, the salt flats in Argentina, most of the mineral processing places in Uganda and the like.
	They've got so many rare earth minerals.
	The WEF are like, come on, give up.
	Yeah, and effectively at this point the world is split into two blocks, so presumably the WEF-affiliated side and the Eurasian side, which is basically what we're seeing play out at the moment in geopolitics anyway.
	Right, now in this one, basically Europe is proper screwed at this point.
	And again, they still don't start pushing back against things like closing down on farms.
	They still don't talk about nuclear power.
	Right, resource control, the worst scenario.
	Okay, so this is where the WEF agenda to promote globalisation and control populations has failed completely.
	Right, quote, This results in a truly global multi-resource crisis with widespread socio-economic impacts that exceed those faced in other futures in both scope and scale, including famine and water scarcity, refugees, Geo-economic warfare is widespread, but more aggressive clashes between states become one of the few means to ensure basic supplies necessary to maintain populations.
	Right, so you could just lift all of your policies which are deliberately immiserating us, based on the worst projections from the IPCC which are unlikely to pass, Or you can ensure the worst excesses of the 1970s population crisis climate change scaremongering predictions and have us all starving, dying and irradiated in the streets.
	Still, no pushback on policies.
	These people simply do not have a reverse gear.
	So what this report is basically telling you is they are prepared to do all of these things...
	Basically, no matter what the cost, no matter what the impact.
	Final figure I want to show you, it is figure 3.4 on page 63, yep, that's the one, where they start talking about how this splits out in sort of country terms.
	Now, this is where it starts to get interesting.
	Again, look at the oil and gas bit across the top.
	Russia's dominating that.
	So if this is the future that you're concerned about, and you want to control energy and commodities, It looks like controlling Russia is a pretty key part of that agenda.
	It leads me to think that maybe if Western powers could engineer a situation in order to get Putin out and replacing basically a Slavic version of Justin Trudeau, who will do exactly what he's told, that would be...
	Very beneficial.
	Yeah, that would help them a very great deal in the future that they see coming.
	Isn't it strange that BlackRock has just secured all of the loans for Ukraine?
	Interesting again.
	Yeah, well, maybe that's again another sort of land for happiness or, you know, you will own nothing.
	I'm sure it's very benevolent of them to fund the continuation of the war rather than reach some sort of settlement.
	Second point, look at all the clean energy technology.
	So what we need in order to sort of get this clean energy technology.
	Again, the name that you see crop up in this lower half is China.
	It's China all over it.
	I've said for a long time, I think what we're going to go into is we're going to go into a multipolar world.
	That's what they've said in the 2030 period.
	I mean, actually, myself and the WEF agree on a lot of what's coming.
	We just disagree on the solutions.
	They are clearly concerned about a future where Russia and China get into a sort of Eurasian bloc and in this multipolar world and then you've got these two strong power centers.
	And they recognize that in order to build the future that they want, they need to get hold of them.
	And they can't because they're moving away.
	This is a panic scenario for them.
	So, yeah, and regardless, they're not going to push back.
	Not good.
	I don't think they're going to get their way, but they're bloody well going to try.
	It's going to be fun, isn't it?
	We're going to be paying for all of that.
	Alright, finally, we're on to the one that everyone's waiting for.
	This should be a bit of a laugh.
	So, Stephen Crowder has gone to war with the Daily Wire concerning the conditions of a non-binding term sheet for his prospective partnership with the network.
	We're going to establish a bit of a timeline of events, discuss the grievances of both sides, try to cover it as neutrally as we can, because I think we both watch and enjoy various parts of the content that both people...
	Yeah, I've been a subscriber to Mug Club and Daily Wire in the past.
	Yeah, I really enjoy a crowd of stars.
	Again, I've watched both of them for about six years.
	Frankly, this entire drama has left me speechless, just like Michael Knowles' book, Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds, which, if you sign up to lotusces.com and pay £5 a month, you'll be able to watch Harry and I's book club on it, which Michael himself actually tweeted out, so that's wonderful.
	Those are the only ad reads you're going to get for us, because we don't sign contracts that have four or five ad reads in them.
	We also, on the website, linked down in the description, there's a bunch of sources as well as some of our friends like Nick Riccata and Lauren Chen's commentary on this.
	But we have some other content that we've done with Daily Wire folks, like coverage of Matt Walsh's What is a Woman?
	or an interview with Andrew Clavin.
	Crowder has interviewed Cole a couple of times over the years, I think.
	Our network, if not us personally, are friendly.
	We're on the same page as both of these guys.
	And so what we want to do is go through what's happening at the moment and maybe how we can ameliorate the terms of discussion and also the terms of future contracts to try and create a more healthy space.
	Because for full transparency, we aren't kicking around terms like this for any of us over at Lotus Eaters.
	We don't take any sponsorships at all, and we're not American, so we don't really have much of a dog in this fight other than we want to see both succeed.
	That's true.
	When I joined Lotus Eaters, I was not offered 50 million.
	No, it would be nice.
	It wasn't basketball money, but one day, keep signing up, I guess.
	So this is the video that kicked it all off.
	You can watch these in your own time.
	We're not going to be playing any clips from this.
	So Crowder decided to read out, without naming the network, by the way, and obviously quite a few people guessed it, but he did later clarify that he got three to four offers from different networks and that this wasn't even the highest paying amount he was given.
	He read out terms of the term sheet, the prospective contract, that ended up being from the Daily Wire.
	And his grievance in this video, he framed it, was not just that it was the money amount wasn't enough, because I don't believe he gave a figure in this initial video.
	What he gave was the fact that he would be penalized if he was demonetized, when he has already been demonetized since 2019.
	It's very famous.
	He was the cause of the adpocalypse, his battle with Vox.
	So anyone dealing with Steven Crowder, let alone someone who was friends with him for 10 years, Should have known this came part and parcel of his personality and that he's very successful in alt-tech platforms anyway, so it shouldn't be contingent on that kind of thing.
	And also he was saying to the up-and-coming creators who would be by the balls with these terms if they didn't have the same established audience as me, this is going to keep them beholden to the media giants for as long as they're there and they won't be able to carry on that platform, just the brand recognition, but none of their work, none of the infrastructure which they haven't built if they were brought up within the network themselves and then had to jump ship if their contract wasn't renewed.
	And this actually has happened with some people at the Daily Wire.
	I know Michael Knowles used to just be an editor before he was put on screen.
	Brett Cooper was plucked from relative obscurity.
	She was a child actress, and now she has a YouTube show alone.
	I don't think it's on Daily Wire platforms at all.
	I think it's just free to view the comments section.
	And so when they, should they ever go elsewhere, they're going to have to start from scratch.
	I don't think any of them are resentful about that, but they are going to have to renegotiate deals.
	They're going to have to build up the infrastructure from relative nothing.
	And if the Daily Wire really were the only game in town, that's a bit of a problem, because you'd feel left out in the cold.
	So, he says that, number one, he's not happy that his friend of 10 years didn't take into account some of the unique terms he would be entering under contract with.
	And number two, later on, and he goes on to say this in the Timcast episode, which was released last night, that they offered him $15 million over the course of four years.
	Now that works out to $12.5 million every year.
	And lots of people are going, well, that's basketball money.
	That's a ridiculous amount of money.
	It's a lot less when you think about it, because it's about a million a month.
	So again, that still sounds quite good.
	But I mean, Uncle Sam is going to take four or five months of that.
	Yes.
	Then he's got a production company to run.
	So that's going to take, you know, at least another three, if not four months.
	Unlike any other show on The Daily Wire, Stephen Crowder's team makes all of his content.
	And he has 25 going on 30 employees, which are all salaried.
	Yeah.
	And then you've got legal fees, because he's always embroiled in some legal battle of big tech, so I think that's going to take another two months of money.
	So Crowder himself, under this deal, might be at a pocket somewhere between £1 and £2 million, I reckon.
	He'd be taking a real terms pay cut.
	Yeah, I mean, it's still big money, don't get me wrong, but...
	Relative to him, no.
	Because he is the largest conservative content creator, not just YouTuber, on the platform.
	He has nearly 6 million subscribers on YouTube.
	And when he streamed on election night in 2022, him and the Daily Wire had co-existing streams.
	He had a million people watching him on Rumble.
	Daily Wire had a quarter of that across all of their channels combined.
	And when Crowder jumped ship and joined them for a little while...
	Making fun of Ben Shapiro during the Kanye West saga, which was all quite funny and everyone had a good chuckle about.
	They increased their viewership just by association by about 30-40%.
	So he would bring a lot of people over.
	And I've seen some numbers suggested, and he seemed to confirm last night on Timcast, that on day one they would estimate a minimum, especially after they have their Mug Club Forever sign up, Of 300,000 new paying members to the Daily Wire.
	Now, that is contested a tiny bit, because of course, if he joined Daily Wire, some people like yourself may have been subscribed to both at the time.
	So some people might already have a Daily Wire subscription.
	But even if they just increased it by $2 due to inflation and adding Steven Crowder's entire back catalogue to...
	To the Daily Wire platform, you could justify the amount of money that people would continue to pay upwards of that.
	And there are plenty of people, especially now, who maybe subscribe to Crowder and would not subscribe to Daily Wire.
	Yeah, certainly a good deal in that.
	Look, I've got to say, I followed this.
	I mean, I'm going to assume that the audience has followed this to at least some extent, especially if you're watching this video.
	I've got to say, I watched the first Crowder video.
	I was on Crowder's side.
	Then I watched the Jeremy Boring response, and I thought, oh, actually, yeah, that's quite good.
	And then I started to stop and think about it a lot more because I think the way that the Daily Wire framed their pushback on this was a little bit clever in some places, especially once you start getting into the detail.
	Furthermore, and I want to be very careful about how I sort of phrase this next bit because I don't want to come across as having a prejudice that I don't like, that I don't have.
	But there is a type of lawyer, let's call them God's Own Chosen Lawyers, that like to operate contracts in this sort of way, which is they load it up to the gills, they put it out to you, and then you sort of get into this back and forth where you start crossing stuff out, and then eventually they get to a point where they say, look, I've already given you all of this, I've given you all of this stuff, and they use it as basically a way to protect the things they really do care about.
	There'd be a few things in there, but they're actually...
	They're wearing you down because you have to pay the legal fees to go through there.
	That's the other thing as well.
	I also, just to interject, the framing itself, that this is a non-binding term sheet, so this wasn't the final offer.
	Crowder already confirmed that when he came back to them saying we don't like these terms, they didn't offer him another offer, even though they said we were prepared to offer him more money.
	And also, as if someone...
	If Crowder would have signed that without looking over it, as if they wouldn't have held him to those terms, because they would have had an absolute steal if they would have got him on those terms.
	So I think that Crowder's point that he's been making...
	Really more on this is the one that I really agree with.
	It's not so much about Crowder.
	I really don't think it is because Crowder, I mean, he's spending two million a year on lawyers fees, he revealed, on Timcast.
	He would have been able to go through this with, was it Bill Rich or whatever?
	Bill Richmond.
	Bill Richmond.
	He could have gone through this and he could have got to something that he liked and he could have bumped up the money and he could have struck out a lot of clauses.
	But what has emerged from this is that this is a sort of standard boilerplate.
	So what if you're not Steven Crowder?
	What if you're some new guy?
	What if you're the American version of you two years ago who comes along, got a bit of talent, might get picked up?
	If the Daily Wire is the only show in town, I guarantee some new guy coming onto the scene is not going to be able to pay for the lawyer's fee to go through this and start redlining.
	He's just going to get told, no, these are the terms, you either take them or leave them.
	And that concerns me a hell of a lot more because this stuff is a bit sharp and it is really pushy.
	And what's basically emerged in my mind is that, you know, what's going on here?
	I think the Daily Wire, their role in life is to make as much money as possible.
	And to do that, they're going to be conservative.
	Whereas Crowder, and I think a lot more of us, certainly here are the Lotus Eaters, we're trying to be, well, not conservative here because it means something slightly different over here in the UK, but we're trying to do that thing, and if we make money as a product of it, brilliant.
	If we get to pay the mortgage, brilliant.
	That's fantastic.
	Yeah, if we service what you guys want, the direct paying subscribers, rather than selling you guys to sponsors or to big tech as eyeballs that we can put down on a sheet saying, aren't we justifying, charging more of a rate to do your ad reads because we've got X amount of people watching us, then we're fulfilling our purpose.
	We're trying to stay authentic and we hope the audience finds us.
	And the fact that you guys pay us to keep the lights on, likewise with Crowder, that's just a fantastic happenstance and something that's outgrown of the digital economy.
	That was the other thing that when I started to think this through more is that Crowder's point about something fundamental about how you configure your business in the first place.
	Because basically, DailyWire, because they've gone in there for revenue maximisation, they've exposed themselves fully to let's see how much revenue that we can get.
	I mean, you had this really good point about Bender in the middle of his rant had to...
	Yeah, well, so if we just move on, John, because we can just show the audience this is the video.
	If they haven't seen it, please go and watch this for full context.
	But Ben did a response video after Crowder then did this video next in response to Jeremy's response video where he played some of Jeremy Boring's phone call conversation that he'd had a week ago with Jeremy where Jeremy said you would be wage slaves.
	Now, just an aside, I don't think that was the best way to go about it because it may mean that Crowder is in precarious business relationships in the future where people might distrust him if he don't want his phone calls recorded.
	But I don't think that was the way to do that.
	But he is well within his right to be irritated with the terms at least.
	But then after this, Ben Shapiro and all of the Daily Wire hosts did response videos other than Michael Knowles who just did a tweet.
	And Ben Shapiro went on a rant saying it's despicable, it's disgusting, we're no longer friends.
	But we'll say more on this later.
	First, are your savings in trouble?
	Go talk to my friends over at Birch Gold.
	He did an ad read in the middle of the rant.
	Same with this Sunday special.
	I was watching it with Father Frank Pavone the other week.
	And Father Pavone was kicked out of the Catholic Church for associating with Trump.
	And midway as Father Pavone is telling his story, he said, I'm going to ask you more about being kicked out, the thing you really care about most.
	But first...
	Go buy ball and branch sheets.
	Really?
	Like, it's so jarring.
	It's inauthentic.
	It's so legacy media, and it just makes me tune out of certain daily podcasts.
	I can't watch Ben Shapiro.
	Ben Shapiro, for me, is a sort of example of somebody, and some people are able to do this, are able to be really smart and really bloody dumb at the same time.
	I have lots of disagreements with Ben Shapiro.
	Ben Shapiro is one of those.
	In fact, Ben Shapiro, I'm pretty sure, is going to be replaced by the next iteration of ChatGBT.
	It will just be, you type in, give me an audio-visual representation of a conservative commentator, and then you click the speed up to 1.75.
	That's Ben Shapiro.
	Or me.
	Yeah.
	I don't think that's fair.
	So yeah, I can't get on with him, but some of those other guys at Daily Wire...
	I love Knowles.
	Andrew Claven.
	Claven's fantastic.
	Absolutely fantastic.
	Walsh is doing loads.
	He's actually pushing, not just what is a woman as a cultural landmark, but he's pushing in the Tennessee legislature to shut down child gender transition clinics, to make sure that there is legislation on the books which stops drag queen Storia.
	He helped with the Loudoun County School Board cover-up and get Glenn Youngkin elected.
	The guys are actually on the ground fighting.
	Candace Owens, even though I didn't like her tact on Tim Cost, calling Stephen Crowder a bitch and getting very salty and doing what Stephen Crowder said as talking like a girl who gets her boyfriend involved in a bar fight, I didn't appreciate that.
	But what she's done for BLM, exposing the narrative around George Floyd, pushing back on the idea that BLM is just a benevolent organisation and not just one giant money grift, Fantastic work.
	I'll tell you why I stopped subscribing to The Daily Wire.
	It's because it felt sanitised to me.
	It felt like they were pulling their punches all the time.
	Now, I subscribed to both of these platforms before the last US election because the US elections are actually quite interesting, even for us Brits.
	We must be careful what we say on here, of course.
	Well, yeah, we do, because...
	And this is the point that Crowder makes really well, is he has designed his business, a bit like we have here at Lotus Eaters, so that, I mean, yes, we get a little bit of income from the social media platforms, but primarily it's from subscribers.
	And I would say to people watching this, if you're watching this on YouTube, You will also get a sanitised experience.
	So you should go over to Lotus Eaters and you should sign up there.
	Because if I start talking about certain subjects, if I start saying, for example, that the vaccine is obviously bloody killing people, if I say that Joe Biden stole the last election, if I say that the last midterms are rigged in various places, we're going to have to edit that out of YouTube.
	So you'll be watching on YouTube and then all of a sudden the last 30 seconds are going to be filtered out and you'll be like, you know, what did he say there?
	So, you know, go over to Lotus Eaters and sign up there because subscription models are better.
	We also, when we stream on Lotus Eaters, we have an extra 30 minutes at the end where we discuss viewer comments that you can send in WeChat to you.
	It's well worth it.
	Stephen Crowder basically established that business model, and The Daily Wire admitted as such in trying to call him a hypocrite for saying, well, Stephen Crowder plays ball by YouTube.
	Number one, he is the reason that borderline content standards exist, which basically means YouTube can pick and say, well, you didn't violate the rules, we just don't like you.
	So he is changing the space, and his piss-off YouTube segment, where he has 30 minutes behind the paywall, is what Daily Wire Plus now do for all of their shows.
	So Crowder is intelligently saying we can reach a maximum audience on here, By doing the full hour and then reserving 30 minutes for the people that actually pay to keep the lights on.
	Because if big tech deplatforms us overnight, as it would here, it wouldn't impact our bottom line too badly because our core audience want to keep us on the air.
	It just means we'd have to skim a little bit off the top for budgeting for expanding.
	And that's actually why I signed up to Tim IRL as well.
	I love Tim.
	Because he does that, because they do the normal show, and then afterwards they do a 30-minute piece where they just say what they really think.
	And actually, if I'm ever pressed for time, I just watch the last 30 minutes, because that bit is so authentic, it's so real, they can say all the stuff that you can't say on YouTube.
	And again, as you mentioned, it's something that we do here.
	So look, I've been looking at this, and actually, I'll make one point about the contracts.
	Did you add up what they all came to?
	Yes, Crowder also said this last night, and I'm glad that you did it around the same time as he did.
	So just for clarification, if Crowder is demonetized on any Silicon Valley platform, which is not limited to the ones that they actually list in there, because I believe Nick Riccate has said this, as well as Gerald, who's now Crowder's CEO and expanding their operation, they said you could add Twitter on there, which doesn't bring in any revenue yet.
	But if you were banned on Twitter, they could count that as a demonetization aspect because it could count as limited reach.
	Therefore, they could penalize you.
	So it could be even more than the amount they added up.
	But they added up all of the penalties, including that if you were demonetized on YouTube for three months, you would, from ad revenue, and they couldn't replace it in that time because you'd said something, you would lose 25% of your monthly income, even though YouTube monetization may not make up 25% or 50%, and even though YouTube monetization may not make up 25% or 50%, and you may be bringing in more So that wouldn't add up properly.
	If you added up all the platforms, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google, YouTube, all ones they listed, it comes to 110% of cumulative penalties.
	So it incentivises leftist boycotting or the exact kind of coordinated deplatforming action that we saw with President Trump.
	Yeah, I mean, I got that.
	I got 110%, but actually the wording around the terms is slightly sloppy, and so actually it could be anywhere between 110% and 185%, depending on how you read it, right?
	And that's just on that bit, okay?
	It gets worse because you're just talking about the content strike stuff.
	Yes.
	Also, there was penalties for failure to produce content.
	Yes, there was.
	That he would get fined if he didn't produce the content.
	192 episodes a year.
	Yeah, and at first you look at that and you listen to the Jeremy Boring response and you think, okay, well that's fair because if you don't show up for work, you don't get paid for it, you kind of think.
	But actually those penalties went way beyond the sort of pro rata rate.
	So then I worked out what is the maximum possible fine that he'd get if you added on the last bit that we talked about, plus he didn't produce any shows.
	And basically it comes to $413 million fine.
	So...
	So this is what I mean about a certain type of lawyer does like to sharpen their contracts, and then you better make sure that you're in a position to push back before you sign.
	And this is what I didn't like about the framing of Jeremy Boring's response, and I'm not going to accuse anyone of malevolence here.
	It's that he said in this...
	Obviously, Crowder doesn't know how to run a business.
	That was the message, right?
	Crowder runs his own business.
	He's worked with the Blaze in order to have the infrastructure for Mug Club, but he is the boss of Louder with Crowder with 25 salaried employees.
	He's upgraded from filming in his basement to a fully-fledged studio.
	He's the most successful person online, and as Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Chen revealed, he at one point wanted to expand his operation by offering them contracts to bring them aboard and have their own shows.
	I wish I could not run a media company as badly as him.
	Yeah, I know, yeah.
	I wish I could be the most successful person on the platform and not know what I'm talking about.
	So it didn't feel genuine.
	The attacks on Crowder didn't feel particularly genuine.
	So if we can just go through these tweets just as a little addendum.
	So after this release, Ben Shapiro decided to tweet out, Crowder's latest video tragically proves he knows nothing about three things.
	Business, contract negotiation, friendship and decency.
	Again, here's Jeremy going through our full, initial, non-binding offer to Stephen line by line.
	That seems disingenuous, because again, if he was ignorant and would have signed up under those terms, you guys would have gotten him for pennies on the dollar, and you would have been happy to have him abide by those contractual terms.
	And you would have watched him and you would have thought, this feels sanitised.
	This feels wrong.
	Yes, because, of course, what Crowder did allege and reveal in his Timcast episode is that The Daily Wire have routine meetings with YouTube executives and possibly by Facebook ads and so have meetings with Facebook executives, which is why they've never gotten a content strike.
	Now, I will say, I had heard at one point in time...
	That Matt Walsh had received a strike or temporary ban from YouTube.
	I do not know if that's true, so I would need that vindicated in the comments.
	Everyone knows when that happened or for what reason.
	But I don't know how Daily Wire can routinely say things that seem so near the mark, particularly on the trans issue, but never receive any of the repercussions that Steven Crowder did in his war with Vox, or has since interviewing Carrie Lake for all of her election misinformation.
	YouTube definitely don't ban us, please.
	If we move on to the next one as well, Ben Shapiro has also gone, Now, that tries to insinuate that he's just doing this for controversy,
	and Crowder has tried to rebuff this, particularly because he put out the announcement for Muck Club over a month beforehand, But then he did also, as we will find out later, register the domain name for Stop Big Con before he announced his departure from The Blaze and from Mug Club.
	So it seems like after the contract negotiations broke down, maybe he didn't pick...
	Well, it's clearly something that's been on his mind for quite a while, and this was a big example of it.
	I've got to say, on the phone call stuff, that's the bit why I struggle to back him the most.
	I think it's tactically dumb.
	Yeah.
	I think that's fair to say.
	I mean, to be fair, it was a fairly clipped part of the call that was on topic, but all the same.
	Also, it came off, and I find Crowder very funny as well, doing the Talkboy gag, it came off a bit smug.
	It came off like, aha, I'm glad you responded because now I get to get you.
	And That comes off spiteful, particularly because you're both friends.
	Yes, I do think Crowder has the right to be aggrieved by the conditions of the Daily Wire contract put to him.
	I know Lauren Chen said, for example, they really lowballed her offer initially, and she said, oh, I'm just not interested.
	And they said, no, no, you've got to come back and negotiate, putting the onus on her to read through the contract, pay for lawyers, especially if you're a startup, that's silly.
	Not everyone wants to do business that way.
	And I think if you know Crowder for 10 years, you know the kind of personality he is, you know the kind of person you're getting, and you know the liabilities involved with making him contingent on big tech income, you shouldn't give him that term sheet and expect him not to be disrespected.
	That's just how these guys do business.
	And they're not doing anything technically wrong.
	They're not doing...
	Are they doing something morally wrong?
	I think they probably are.
	I think by their own standards they are.
	And if we would like to advance the movement in creating parallel institutions, we shouldn't hobble ourselves by sticking to the old media paradigm which basically works people to death and creates a large burnout rate.
	Yeah, well, I mean, it comes down to that thing, the Daily Wire, they're trying to maximise revenues.
	And, you know, being conservative feels like a by-product of that.
	It's why I struggle with that content.
	How did your poll do in the end?
	Because you put a poll out on this on Twitter.
	Oh, I did, yes.
	John, would you be able to get that up in 10 seconds?
	No, you won't be able to see that, Dan.
	So earlier on, I put a poll out, and Cole decided to retweet it, so I won't be able to look at my radioactives.
	Twitter mentions for the next two days, so that's fantastic.
	But as time of when I was looking at it, the poll was leading...
	There it is.
	It's currently 61% in favour of Stephen Crowder and 39% in favour of the Daily Wire, ratioed with a bunch of comments of people arguing, which I obviously encouraged.
	I'm not Tom Harwood.
	So, perceptually, I think this has been a win for Crowder overall, because not just has Daily Wire had the recent scandal of selling all their email lists to Republican candidates.
	There you are.
	Thank you very much, Dan.
	And so lots of people have gone, well, hang on a minute, why are you sending your information out to the Uniparty?
	We didn't consent to that.
	Or if we did, we didn't see that in the terms of conditions.
	We weren't really happy about that, and that's very establishment.
	Now they've also been seen as doing as, if we go up to Jeremy Boring tweet, for example, just on the next one, please, John.
	Jeremy Boring is saying, oh, he's not playing the part of the phone call where I talk about my family and my kids at Christmas.
	Well, yes, of course, because he doesn't want to reveal private information about you.
	That would be kind of awkward.
	of what she said on Timcast, it's not about the money, if you give me yours, I'll prove it, bratty child actor.
	It is descending into infighting.
	Again, don't think Crowder releasing the phone call and doing a smug cutaway gag was the best idea, but this is just devolved into character attacks now.
	It doesn't look good for the Daily Wire when people subscribe to both and they might be revoking their subscriptions from them.
	He certainly could have done it better, but I do come down on Crowder's side because there are going to be young people coming up on this who are not going to have the ability to push back against these terms.
	And it's starting to feel that actually what the Daily Wire is, it's a net.
	So if you've got the mainstream media bubble, at some point you've got Fox News, which is still sort of in the mainstream media bubble.
	If you fall out of the bubble, the Daily Wire is the first big net waiting to catch you.
	And it's going to, so, you know, you haven't fallen very far You're still not talking about those things that the elites don't want us to talk about, the uni party don't want to talk about.
	You're still pretty close to that.
	And I think what Crowder is trying to do is he's willing to sacrifice these friendships to cut a hole in that net because he wants people to fall further away from that sort of uni party thinking.
	I think Crowder is, in many respects, too maverick for the Daily Wire's current business model.
	I think if Daily Wire were to be malleable and bring Crowder aboard, that would be pretty fantastic because then you really would have a proper parallel media platform bringing all people together.
	Of course, you run afoul of the same concerns that happen with any entertainment monopoly should it start to be governed a different way and new people take over and they start to...
	Leftward slant the entire institution but people would get more bang for their buck and you wouldn't get the same streaming service burnout that the left and big corporations are currently seeing where people are cutting their Disney Plus or their Netflix just as things get a bit tight.
	So it would have been a really smart business move to do if egos could have been Put aside, somewhat on both sides, let's be fair, and contract turns were slightly less old guard media, and more personalised, because I don't blame Crowder for being slightly offended and saying, I am the guy that annoys YouTube, and you make some of my income dependent, not just for me, my production costs, and my loyal staff's income, some of whom are family members that work for me and do hair and makeup.
	You make that dependent on if I say the wrong things, if I don't want to read four sponsored ad reads that are totally unrelated to the stuff I do.
	And even worse, the next Crowder.
	I mean, that for me...
	He's the sort of nub of his issue.
	And that is his issue as well, yeah.
	So if we just move on to the last little bits then, Crowder is, this was him registering the domain, but if we go on to the last one please, John, here.
	So Rumble tweeted out, the beauty of Rumble is that we allow everyone to go independent.
	All the tools are available to broadcast a show and build a subscription business without very restrictive contracts.
	And Crowder just tweets back a strange-looking meme saying, interesting.
	Just for full disclosure, we use Rumble, obviously, to livestream on.
	We'd be very happy if you chose that to watch on instead of YouTube, because you can build up that.
	There are plenty of very successful creators over there, Dan Bongino, Nick Riccata.
	It looks like Steven Crowder is at least looking to partner with Rumble for infrastructure or become a Rumble exclusive.
	And so I think that is the way to go in future.
	If you can build your own parallel websites...
	Web hosting services is a real pain in the back, so we're going to have to get around that.
	That will take an angel investor of some kind, so that will be eventually.
	But if you can build up alt tech, build up your own platforms, create direct subscription services that can deliver really great content to the people that care, like all you guys that keep the lights on.
	If you don't already, it's cheap enough, and we appreciate it, as Crowder does.
	That's the way out of taking this big tech stranglehold of the things that we can say.
	I can't wait to speak freely for the next 15 minutes exclusively on Notices.com.
	Yeah, exactly right.
	Let's get to it.
	Right, okay.
	Let's have a look at the comments, shall we?
	Because we haven't got any video comments today.
	That's fine.
	Freewill2112.
	A question to Dan, not about any of the articles under discussion.
	What does he think the best thing to invest in that is reasonably future-proof and reasonably wealth-proof, also that's still worth investing in ISAs?
	This is not financial advice.
	Yeah, I have been qualified to give financial advice, but I'm not currently.
	I haven't kept my exams up.
	And besides, I would need to do a whole process with you.
	So I can't give any advice.
	The only thing that I would say is if you do follow Brokernomics, I do get into all of that.
	I talk about my opinion on things like gold and Bitcoin.
	So you can pretty much extract what I think about it.
	And yeah, ISAs are really good because they're tax-free.
	So personally, I would always use an ISA, yeah.
	Captain Charlie the Beagle.
	The most important financial decision a man can make is choosing the mother of their children.
	Ave Christus Rex.
	Absolutely true.
	100%.
	JJHW. The first segment is why MGTOW exists.
	No.
	Okay, right.
	I will say this.
	I think that it is a long and difficult lonely life completely alone, and...
	Men going their own way.
	I get if you've been severely burned by the gynocentric divorce courts.
	I totally get it, man.
	But then, that's not all women's fault.
	That's also your fault.
	You attract the people the energy that you put out.
	You are partially...
	And I say this as a guy with horrendous dating history that I can't even get into on air.
	And that is because you are not attracting quality women.
	What is it about your behavioural schema that makes you select the wrong type of person?
	Fix yourself and then you will attract a woman that should ultimately be alright with you.
	It's harder in this day and age, of course.
	Tons of them have OnlyFans, tons of them have their...
	Schemers of what should be valuable in a man skewed by modern feminism, but it's not hopeless situation.
	I think the focus is...
	You've got to flip the focus.
	Don't focus on getting a woman.
	Focus on being a great guy.
	Being a guy that you want to be.
	Women will come to you.
	They'll offer their hand and then you'll lead the dance.
	That's the way I can describe it.
	I don't think I've ever actually...
	I haven't pursued a woman that hasn't already put interest in me.
	I've done alright.
	Kevin Fox, the female officer is like a scooter.
	Fun to ride, but you wouldn't want your mates to see you doing it.
	I'm now on board with Peter Hitchens banning e-scooters.
	Well, clearly some of those officers did watch each other because they doubled up.
	God almighty.
	Sophie Liv Peterson, I think women have a right to have standards when committing to a relationship or just be romantic with someone.
	And so do men.
	Guys, know your worth and only commit to women who are also willing to actually commit.
	Yeah.
	It's the whole theme, isn't it?
	You've got to pick carefully.
	Louise Perry has the principle of don't sleep with anyone you wouldn't want to risk having children with.
	Because contraception is never foolproof, sure.
	But it's also, evolutionarily, your body doesn't know the difference.
	There's been 50 years of birth control and a couple million years of us being chemically and biologically hardwired to have kids.
	So, just be risky.
	I mean, not everyone does it.
	I won't say any more than that.
	Or at least give a wrong mobile phone number.
	There's a reason why she's giving out the goods to someone else.
	One of the issues with divorce is that even with blatant adultery like this, she still gets half.
	Yeah, she's got absolutely nothing to lose here, right?
	I mean, he has literally everything to lose.
	The most you can hope for is that she decides that she lets you to cut and run.
	This is why I don't marry a crazy woman in the first place.
	Being a guy and listening to some of the stories that come out of family courts, it's very difficult not to get angry about some of the stories that you hear.
	It is quite ridiculous.
	Yeah.
	Not sure.
	period, but not all women make it that easy.
	Plenty of guys thought they found one of the good ones and end up having their lives ruined by her.
	Until the system around male-female relationships change, I can only advocate men to avoid women at all costs.
	No.
	If you do decide to make the fullest decision to get married, no...
	Right, counter-signal.
	I'm not even reading the rest of this comment because, frankly, what's happening is you sound like a BLM member who's saying, yeah, but the system's a systemic racism for keeping a brother down, man.
	There's no point opening a black-owned business.
	There's no point taking charge of yourself.
	I think he doesn't make some fair points, but...
	There is a system, yes, but you...
	Okay, do not...
	Don't be the dead end of your genetic lineage just because the feminists have control of the courts.
	Like, you should make it so that, basically, you are such an indomitable person and have a good judge of character...
	And wait enough time to vet the person that you don't fall prey to these nutcases.
	Don't just go, yeah, I guess that's it for me.
	My future sons just won't materialise because I couldn't be bothered to find a decent enough one to drain my balls into.
	In this day and age, why would a man get married?
	Because you can still do everything else without the marriage part, and I appreciate you're going to tell me from...
	For the kids.
	Yeah, for the kids and the benefit of that.
	But again, even, you don't need to get married for that.
	You should.
	No, I appreciate there's a difference between you should and you need to.
	In this day and age.
	And increasingly, marriage is basically a contract which is going to be incredibly one-sided and interact against you.
	So it's very understandable that if you don't care about the tradition and the morality of it and the standards that you're setting and the lesson that you're giving to your kids, it's easy to see why increasingly men are going to say, OK, well, I'm going to do everything, but I'm not going to do the marriage thing because things have got so out of whack at this point.
	It's easy to see why people wouldn't do it if they don't care about morality, yeah, but you should care about the morality of it because, again, it's about the kids.
	But then we should also have a legal system that makes it easy to do the right things as opposed to making it easy to do the wrong things.
	We should absolutely reform the institutions, yes, but that doesn't mean that you should give up until someone else does the work for you because unless you're a lawyer, you're not really doing it, are you?
	That's just my point.
	The French.
	I have married the wrong woman and it's cost me a lot.
	Thankfully things are not as bad as some horror stories I hear happening in the US. And finally for this one, Robert Longshore.
	Can't be too mad at these officers in reality.
	Whilst in my younger days I would target the mousy ones and the chunky ones they put out quite easy.
	Okay, quality over quantity, my friend.
	And also...
	Look, I'm sure we're not all saints here, and we're not all immune to maybe have gone home with one or two women we shouldn't have, but let's put it this way.
	As I said in my Patrice O'Neill dating advice video, someone articulated this as, leave the campsite tidier than you found it, but I said, do you really want to sleep with a bunch of women, promising them that you like them more than you do?
	Basically breaking their hearts, Billie Jean song style, and then sending them off out into the world as an emotional suicide bomber to screw over another dude's life.
	Because if we all did that, then we're all going to be marrying someone or settling down with someone that all your mates have shagged and they will be resentful feminists in the future.
	So maybe don't shag about lads because you're screwing over some bloke in the future that you might be friends with.
	The 20s version of me has just got so owned by that.
	Yeah, I'm not going to say any more.
	Anyway, on to you all.
	What the WEF fears.
	So, Mr Silver says, the WEF fears when people prefer the local to the global, the particular to the universal and the populous to the elites.
	Yeah, that's true.
	No, Dan, the early WEF meetings weren't popular for the food.
	More likely the ladies they kept flying in.
	Yeah, all the prostitutes.
	My understanding is that the ladies were in no short supply.
	I saw an article out that if you attend Davos, the code is you point at the ceiling and then a hooker turns up, which is handy to know if you're making your way there next year.
	Quite literally handy to know.
	Yeah, yeah.
	General Hai Ping says, And Free Will says, is this a future where the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand merge versus the Eastern Bloc or Eurasia?
	Didn't Orwell write about this?
	Yeah, Orwell is prophetic in so many things.
	Right, and...
	Should we do the ones on Crowder section?
	Yep, let's go for it.
	I'm sure we can swap one or two back and forth on these.
	Lord Nerovar, on the Crowder Daily Wire issue...
	See, Pete's just put this in here to make us feel good.
	Can we have a little moment of appreciation for the Lotus Eaters?
	I'm not trying to be a kiss-arse here, but you genuinely haven't had a single major controversy with any former or staff or major interpenet personality, unless you're counting Jess Phillips.
	Other than with the leftists, obviously, it feels like a little island away from the non-stop conflict across the rest of the internet, just as Carl intended from the beginning.
	Long may it continue.
	Yeah, we're actually all friends off air.
	This is the funny thing about random YouTube comments we get sometimes.
	It's like, oh, I can't believe that you made this jibe at him.
	Or like, oh, these two hosts clearly don't get along.
	No, we genuinely do.
	We rip the piss out of each other all the time.
	It's a great atmosphere.
	Yeah, really, really great.
	We have after-work drinks.
	We're genuinely all mates.
	And I'm not just saying that to keep you guys paying for some sort of illusion.
	No, no, I love these guys.
	And I wouldn't have this horrendous train journey to and from work every day if I wasn't working among friends.
	And done.
	Anyway, Bald Eagle 1787 says, The whole situation with Crowder and the Daily Wire is a result of what I've been saying for a while.
	Daily Wire has no intention of actually changing culture, they just want to make money, becoming the monolith they despise.
	Businesses cause a situation we're in now and businesses can't fix the problem.
	Crowder's ideal will create and spawn independent creators.
	Independent creators is the only way to fix the current situation.
	So, yeah, I mean, this is the thing.
	So there are two versions of future that we go from here, and this is why this subject is important, why it was worth talking about, is because we can either end up 10 years from now with big media and then a group of smaller big media, which we call independent, which is going to be the Daily Wire, or it can be the big media, which is going to be rapidly shrinking and...
	Thousands of independent media operations and outfits all over there, utilising the model that we've got here, or utilising, I don't know, Rumble or something else.
	And I prefer the latter vision.
	Right.
	So my issue is, I think, people, especially in the transitional phase where we all get some sort of federated, unhackable, permanently powered internet...
	people who have the infrastructure side.
	So one of the reasons I joined Loader Cisus for example is because I was in the mainstream and I hated it.
	I still do the occasional gig but only with friends and that.
	Because the - got to be careful what I say here - the mainstream has all of the problems and more that you would suspect are coming out and being shown of this Daily Wire stuff, especially the so-called right-wing ones, but I'll leave it at that.
	And also, if I wanted to go on my own, I wouldn't want to do all the editing.
	I'm not nearly as competent.
	I wouldn't want to do all the tech side, the distribution.
	It's fatiguing.
	It takes away from it.
	So you do need institutions to be built, especially as well if we want to build parallel infrastructure like Rumble or we want to build our own web hosting service.
	So yeah, you do need these counter-businesses and you will reach peak content.
	Like, we have a lot of shows at the moment, but there's only a few really successful ones.
	Some dude behind his webcam might speak to an audience of a couple, he's not going to be earning a living.
	And unless we're all on some digital universal basic income, by which point you'll be unable to say anything because you'll be deplatforming from that anyway, not everyone needs a show.
	Yeah, I mean, I tried doing my own YouTube channel.
	I made about three or four videos, and like you say, the editing and the after-effects that you need to put into it, the work you need to put into it, I just thought, sob this, I'll give Carla a ring instead.
	Yeah, I didn't have the toolkit.
	Exactly, yeah.
	BasedApe, who doesn't agree with us, actually, so this will be interesting.
	I don't see the issue with the penalties in the initial offer.
	We will become communists overnight or something.
	If Crowder can't bring money in, why would that entitle him to cuts of other people's work?
	We are happy to tell female footballers they don't get paid like men because they don't bring in as much money.
	Why would Crowder be entitled to cuts from other people's shows if his income gets cut off?
	Right.
	No.
	Because what they're doing is they're establishing quite a lot of his projected income onto sponsors that he doesn't have.
	And also onto Silicon Valley platforms, which they should be actively fighting against anyway, and those terms are in his contract for multiple years, and they're signing Crowder up to this when he brings in more revenue than what they've offered him through direct subscriptions without any of that monetization, because he hasn't been monetized for four years.
	So it's not communism, it's just that they've offered Crowder less than he currently earns, With his contract being contingent on things that are actual disincentives for him to either be deplatformed or for Daily Wire to let him be deplatformed because then they can pay him less and still keep him on there, which is worrying, when he's guaranteed to bring them in more money and he needs to pay people out of that package.
	So my response to this is that that contract bears no relation to the underlying economic reality.
	So he could get fined 25% of his fee for being taken off a platform that contributes 1% of the revenue to the overall picture.
	Exactly.
	So, if it was a revenue share model, and we were pushing back against some sort of revenue share model with an appropriate cut for costs, then I would agree with you.
	But that was not what this contract was.
	This contract really was an abomination, and that's clearly what they're signing the new guys up to.
	I suspect that Mr.
	Ape, if you go back and you look at the contracts in a little bit more detail and you run through the sort of numbers in your head, you'll realise that that isn't really the case.
	Yeah, to be fair, Base Ape has been in digital businesses, so he does have a background in this, so I'm pretty sure if he gives it a look, he'll probably agree with us.
	As well, not everyone signed up to those terms because Brett Cooper said that she didn't have some of those in there, and Candice Owens said, yeah, I had some redundant clauses in there, like they would own my TikTok and my Snapchat, but I didn't have those platforms.
	Yeah, again, it's clearly the point that this is the contract they roll out to everybody, and the real problem is not even the Crowders or the Candace Owens, because I'm sure Candace Owens can afford a lawyer.
	It is the young people coming through, getting trapped into this sort of very arbitrary model.
	Mr.
	Journeyman says, I have been a fan of L.W. Crowder.
	L.W. Crowder with March of 2015.
	A day one mug clubber and Daily Wire since soon after launch.
	The whole thing makes me sick.
	Daily Wire is trying to beat mass media at their own game.
	While Lauda Crowder is a counter-culture mindset.
	What I think Jeremy missed is that Stephen sees his strikes as scars of honour.
	Yeah.
	And so Jeremy's response implies that Stephen was both foolish for coming close to the line.
	Yeah, because Jeremy is all about how can we maximise revenue?
	It's just a completely different mindset between the two worldviews.
	Hmm.
	Well, funnily enough, SH Silver says the same thing.
	It's very clear that Crowder and the Daily Wire aren't compatible.
	While the Daily Wire might be trying to create culture, they aren't fighting in the trenches like Crowder.
	With issues like COVID, elections, and Ukraine, all bollocks, because we're on the website now, they've shown themselves to not want to get in the fight while the Uniparty's agenda is in full force.
	Ah yes, Ben Shapiro, go and get the shot, don't be selfish.
	Not great.
	Hasn't aged very well, has it?
	And Crowder, let's just say this as well.
	Daily Wire, I actually admire the fact that they're trying to make cultural products.
	But I'll admire it a lot more when they're good.
	Because I don't know if you've watched that Gina Carano film.
	No.
	I have nothing with any of the people that act in it.
	I'm sure they're all very lovely people.
	Gina Carano seems very nice.
	Shite.
	It's not good.
	It's just badly acted.
	It's poorly budgeted.
	It's not compelling.
	They're doing Atlas Shrugged.
	They're doing King Arthur series.
	They're doing kids content.
	If it's good, brilliant.
	I really want it to be good.
	As of yet, no, it hasn't been.
	And maybe that lack of authenticity is going to be a factor in why they just don't have that extra zush on top of it, because it's very well run for what it is.
	Alexander Drake says, Crowder v Daily Wire is very useful.
	Crowder has essentially exposed Daily Wire as controlled opposition.
	Kind of, yeah.
	Requiring their talent to follow the advertiser-friendly guidelines, not just having to avoid being banned but avoid being demonetised, means that their people are heavily restricted in what they can discuss in opinions and subjects they're not allowed to say.
	I'm just as disappointed that crowd didn't go all the way and express that to the logical conclusion on Timcast late last night.
	I wouldn't read that last bit.
	Yes, yes.
	Maybe not.
	No, of course.
	We love the nation of Israel.
	Yes, we love paying all of that money.
	And America definitely should pay billions every year, of course.
	Royce Pember.
	I honestly think that Daily Wire and Crowder are both acting in good faith, but ascribing bad faith to each other.
	I think some members of Daily Wire are acting in good faith.
	I think that some of the terms of the contract have been misrepresented.
	And then finally, Venomous Toucan says, I pay for you guys and Mug Club.
	Something about De Loire always rubbed me the wrong way, so I'm just not surprised.
	Yeah, I mean, to this day, I mean, I still listen to Andrew Clavin because, I mean, he is great.
	Even though he does feel like he's pulling his punches, I can't get on with Ben Shapiro at all.
	Michael Knowles, I like him as a person.
	Knowles is very much in my vein of things.
	I like him as a person more than I like him as a content creator.
	Right, okay, that's fair.
	And even Jeremy Boring.
	I mean, I don't dislike the guy.
	I mean, he seems to come across reasonably genuine to me.
	He's just got a different set of priorities, too, clearly.
	I think he's very utilitarian in the way he approaches politics and business, because he seems like an establishment respectability Republican.
	He was...
	Always against Trump's moves, no matter, and I have my critiques of Trump these days, but no matter what, just on the grounds of he's not very nice.
	And so I think that he is quite stuck in his ways, and that has probably contributed to this scenario.
	Something that goes to show Jeremy Boring's mindset quite well was, you remember when Elon changed Twitter so that anyone could become verified?
	And Jeremy Boring's response to that was the whole fun of Twitter is that you can engage with interesting people.
	What he means by that is famous people.
	Right.
	The checkmark retard.
	Yeah.
	And it's like, and my response to that, so imagine the whole having to respond to the strength of someone's argument as opposed to who they are.
	Yeah.
	That is Jeremy's mindset.
	Again, it's not necessarily wrong, it's just not how I think, and I don't think the way that he thinks is helpful to this, if this is a movement.
	And also, I would just wrap up before I read one last comment, the Honourable mentions...
	Jordan Peterson, since joining Daily Wire, has also felt that his content has been sanitised.
	Jordan Peterson is a cultural tour de force, and I understand he took a year out because he was very sick, but I would have feared that Crowder had been inadvertently muzzled were he to be on there.
	Has Jordan Peterson been turned into Reek from Games of Thrones at this point?
	I don't really remember that reference, I'm going to be honest.
	You'll pop into your head at some point.
	Okay, probably while I'm off there.
	The last one then.
	Joan of Arc.
	I've been sick for a week now, and while I was getting dressed listening to the first segment, Connor's use of concealed weapon, I started laughing so hard I coughed again.
	Thanks for nothing.
	Well, if you live in the UK, good luck getting some antibiotics, because the waiting list is forever.
	Dan, pleasure as always.
	Enjoyed it eventually.
	Go watch Brokonomics at 3 o'clock releases.
	If you aren't subscribed...
	What are you doing, you freeloader?
	Come on, give us the money, not Daily Wire at this point.
	You probably cancel your subscription anyway.
	Anyway, all jokes aside, join us again at 1 o'clock tomorrow.
	Thank you very much, and goodbye.

▲