Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 15, 2023 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:26:56

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #719

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast, the Lotus Eaters, episode 719 for today, Tuesday, the 14th of August, 2023.
	I am your host Connor, joined once again by Dan.
	Hello boys and girls.
	And today we'll be discussing should Japan have been nuked, Obama coming out, and superconductors, AI, and Indians.
	I haven't spoiled myself on that last segment.
	Yes.
	It will all make sense.
	Don't worry, I'll get there.
	Okay.
	Should we dive into nuking Japan then?
	Probably should have put that a little bit better.
	Yes, that one might end up in the context, right.
	So, Connor and I recently went to see the Ken movie, and that was really good, wasn't it?
	It was slightly spoiled by that Barbie movie that they were playing at the same time, but the Ken movie was good.
	Anyway, so there's a lot of fuss about that one, and the other one was that Oppenheimer one.
	Yeah, I haven't seen that.
	Yeah, right.
	You have.
	Yeah, it's alright.
	It's one of those films I admired more than I enjoyed.
	And the problem is they skimped on the science and instead put in loads of stuff about how people were mean to communists in the 1930s and wasn't that awful.
	Yeah, so what I've heard, you'll be able to vindicate this for me, because obviously I feel very justified in only seeing the Barbie film and not Oppenheimer like a true man, didn't they underplay the actual involvement Oppenheimer had with communists?
	Because the woman that he was seeing before he got married and then had an affair with was a communist, his brother was a communist, he kept going to...
	communist dinners, paying members of the Communist Party.
	So they do show all that, but then they sort of make it sound like he wasn't a communist.
	He just happened to be there.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	So there's all that.
	Anyway, it got me thinking about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because of course that film came out in time for the anniversary, which we had last week.
	So I thought I'd get into that.
	So I started with, uh, with a Twitter poll, just fresh to see what people's general impressions were.
	So, uh, oh, do I have to press a button?
	Yes, it's the next.
	There we go.
	There we go.
	Right.
	So, so here, here is, here is a Twitter poll that I did.
	So I just asked people in August, 1945, if you were a US president, do you believe you would have given the order to use an atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
	Slightly of a yes, but basically sort of 40% yes, 40% no, and 20% I don't know.
	Um, and then let me find the button.
	I also did that one which was the second bombing on Nagasaki three days later and that was a sort of clear majority for no.
	Now actually on this, so I've been doing a reading on it because there is a sort of built-in assumption that people have about you know what happened in the narrative but it turns out actually a lot of that narrative is is just bunk.
	Right, so there's a lot of common misconceptions about it.
	Yeah, and actually it's really complicated when you get into it.
	So actually on this one, I come down to I don't know for the first one, but a clear no for the Nagasaki three days later, because that was a bit harsh, that one.
	Right.
	Because you've got to bear in mind, it's like the drive from Tokyo to Hiroshima is even on modern motorways to get there and back is a full day.
	And this was in 1945 while there was a war going on.
	And plus, nobody had ever seen a nuclear bomb before, so they kind of needed to check it out, and three days just wasn't long enough to figure out what happened and accurately report back.
	So that's sort of where I stood going into it.
	Anyway, so I've been doing my reading on it, and Is it not worth doing our usual plug before we dive straight into the thing as well?
	Oh yes, yes.
	Because this actually tailors into my position on it, which is a bit of a fence-sitter because I'm not sure where I stand.
	But I will say that the firebombings of Tokyo were fairly ruthless by comparison.
	I'd compare them to the firebombings of Dresden, obviously, by the Allied side on civilians, which was...
	unwarranted and wasn't targeting military bases but was indiscriminately just killing children.
	Oh yeah.
	A bit intense that and so a little while ago this was the second part of my discussion about the Studio Ghibli films.
	Funnily enough did you know, I sent you a twitter thread on this but lots of people might not know, that the reason that anime exists is because the Japanese government funded animated war propaganda in response to Disney's one And they created the parent company that Miyazaki ended up getting his first job at, and then went on to found Studio Ghibli.
	So, basically, if Japan hadn't have entered the Second World War, you wouldn't have had anime at all.
	I'm not an anime fan, I just like the Ghibli films.
	This was our discussion about Grave of the Fireflies, which is the animated... But I like that, because you talked about the psychological impact that the bombings had on the Japanese, which is reflected through modern culture.
	Yes, absolutely, yeah.
	And if anyone hasn't seen Grave of the Fireflies, I recommend it.
	You'll have no tears left.
	That's brilliant.
	Yeah, so check out that stream.
	So yeah, that's absolutely right.
	Let's cover the raw numbers on this.
	So the casualties in Hiroshima was something like 130,000 civilians killed, a lot of them not initially.
	I mean, a lot of them did die initially, but it was the radiation that got a lot of them afterwards.
	And about, you know, somewhere between 10 and 20,000 soldiers.
	So there was a military presence there, but a hell of a lot more civilians than the military.
	I mean, if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been primary military targets, they would have already been bombed through the firebombing that you mentioned just a minute ago.
	They were very sort of tertiary targets.
	And Nagasaki, you're looking at another 80,000 killed within six months, again because of the radiation, so those weren't killed initially.
	And something like only 150 soldiers, because that was really a very minor military establishment.
	We've got some images that we can show.
	So this is the first one.
	This is Hiroshima before and after.
	So, I mean, there were many photos that I could have shown for this.
	I could have shown some close-up and there were so many photos of bodies and people partially burnt that it was just so horrific.
	I just could not show it on a show like this.
	But you look at that sort of aerial view, You know, you've got a city there before, and the other half of the picture, of course, is just a completely, you know, empty space.
	And it gives you some sense of the sheer scale of this thing.
	And that's another thing that I keep coming back to when reading the history on this, is when we talk about it now, we talk about the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan and so on, and Japan's slow initial surrender after the use of the bomb.
	We have to remember these days we know exactly what a nuclear bomb is.
	Truman didn't know what he had.
	I mean, everybody at the time thought it was a very big bomb.
	They got that, but they didn't quite understand.
	What it would do to people.
	Yeah, what it would do.
	And, I mean, initially the U.S.
	authorized the use of bombs basically as they became available, and they thought they were going to have to use between four and eight bombs.
	Um, and it was only after Truman saw, um, the images from the first two bombings that he said, okay, no, no further bombs unless I specifically order them.
	So he wasn't ruling out using further bombs, but he just didn't understand how powerful it was.
	And likewise with the Japanese, you know, they had been bombed a lot.
	So we talked about actually, let's go to the next one.
	That's, um, that's Nagasaki again, an aerial view before and after.
	So you can see a bustling city there and then just an empty score.
	I mean, it looks like the surface of Mars for those listening.
	Then I also wanted to show this.
	That's actually Tokyo, and that's what you're talking about.
	So that was that firebombing.
	So, I mean, the story behind that one is initially the British were all about using precision bombing, but then the Germans, they started doing area bombing against us and Depending on which side you're on depends on the terminology.
	So when the Allies do it, it's called area bombing.
	And when the Axis did it, it's called terror bombing.
	So the Germans started terror bombing us.
	And so we dropped precision bombing and went to area bombing.
	So we started killing a lot of civilians as well.
	And when the Americans started bombing Japan, they initially looked at what we were doing with our area bombing and saying, oh, no, there's no way we're going to do that.
	We're going to take out military targets.
	We're going to use precision bombing.
	Anyway, that lasts a couple of weeks as they find out just how difficult it is to distinguish and also the practicalities of how low you have to fly to pick out the difference and all that kind of stuff.
	And it wasn't long before the Americans were doing area bombing as well, or terror bombing if you wanted to call it that.
	But for those listening, this is a section of Tokyo and if I hadn't told you that was firebombing, you would have just assumed that was a nuke that for some reason left one or two random houses left in the place.
	There was a I can't remember if it was Kyoto or Kanto, so someone correct me in the comments.
	We covered it in our Ghibli discussion.
	But there was also an earthquake a few years before that sent massive flame columns up that incinerated people as well.
	So there was a total freak accident that happened elsewhere.
	So that meant that before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two of Japan's great regional areas were just desolated by fire already.
	So the first bomb that went off, they might have just presumed that it was another of those instances and not realized what they had on their hands.
	And also the other interesting thing, so I was listening to the Restless History podcast with Tom Holland, and they did a two-parter on Oppenheimer's life.
	And they pointed out that Oppenheimer wasn't one of the only German-Jewish scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project.
	There are actually quite a lot of them.
	And the impetus for the Manhattan Project was initially to use it against the Nazis.
	They didn't realize that they would surrender as early as they would.
	Yeah, they thought they were building it for that, yeah.
	Exactly.
	So actually, the nuclear bomb was transposed onto the Japanese problem.
	It was a solution for a completely different enemy.
	So you ended up using it on not the intended target.
	So that's another fraud.
	Yeah, well, the whole initial impetus for developing the bomb is because we have to, because Germany's going to get there first if we don't.
	Because the Germans actually had a really strong suite of physicists like Heisenberg and a whole bunch of others.
	So it was logical to assume that they could have got there first with the quality that they had, but they just didn't put the effort into it that we assumed that they were.
	By we, I'm saying, you know, sort of the collective West.
	I'm sort of speaking on the US's behalf here.
	But yeah, so we went into it full-bloodedly.
	And, you know, when you're developing on the basis of it's a terrible weapon, but the other side might get there first, therefore we have to.
	That is, again, you know, a valid point.
	It's different from the Japanese, who had no, as far as I'm aware, no intention or effort, certainly, to produce a nuclear bomb.
	It was just, you know, this has started, we've sunk a lot of money onto it, and it just naturally flowed from one to the other.
	Were they even aware of the innovation that the Germans had cracked, splitting of the atom?
	Because I'm not sure... Yeah, well, I mean, papers had come out that basically showed that the physics suggested that, yes, it was, it was just an engineering challenge.
	Did the Japanese know about that?
	Well, they would have had physicists who knew that, but it's a different thing to then turn the theoreticals into an engineer.
	So, I mentioned this, and that image I showed you of Tokyo with the firebombs, because to put it into context, it's not like the choice was the Japanese civilians get to live in happiness and sunshine, or the nuclear bomb.
	It was actually Um, you know, which way were the people living in cities going to be horribly killed?
	Was it going to be through firebombings or was it going to be for something else?
	And actually, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they're not in the, I think, they're not in the top two or three of most cities that had the most casualties because of the widespread firebombing that was going on in the primary targets as well.
	So that is worth mentioning.
	Now, let me put this sensitively.
	This is a topic which I know is going to trigger all the utards to start smashing away at the keyboard.
	Now, be clear on this.
	Not quite as sensitively as you could have.
	I'm not saying that everybody who posts on YouTube is a utard.
	It's a subset.
	But, you know, the ones who, you know, the ones who sort of go firing in in all caps, and I know there's going to be a whole bunch of those, you know, smashing out their opinions.
	So I just want to acknowledge that actually, I think a lot of them are going to be responding to what they think they know, the narrative, because basically what happened is Well, let me just explain what the narrative is, effectively.
	So the narrative is something like this, that in July 1945, a meeting of Truman and his trusted advisors got together, and they carefully considered all of the options, and they understood the implications deeply, and they thought that an assault on the Japanese mainland would cost something like a million US casualties.
	Um, of which maybe a quarter to, you know, a fifth of those would have been fatalities.
	Um, it probably would have cost millions of Japanese lives.
	Um, and so there was no viable alternative and they all went for it.
	When you phrase it like that, I mean, it seems completely inevitable.
	And I think that's a lot of what the people who are going to comment without having watched the video are going to be saying some version of that.
	The problem is that that view is a fabrication.
	No meeting like that ever took place.
	That actually comes from a newspaper article that was written after the war by Henry Stimson, the US Secretary of War, I think it was, or Secretary of State.
	And this was in the post-war period when the true horrors of the war were starting to become truly known.
	So the crimes of the Nazis in Eastern Europe were becoming known.
	The scale of the Japanese war crimes were becoming known.
	And it would have been a very inconvenient narrative if the US also had its own war crimes to answer for.
	So there was a strong need to provide that sort of justification as to why that wasn't the case.
	The discussion of this, by the way, is in no way to diminish the Japanese actions in China and South Koreans and unit, I think it's three, four, three, seven, three, one, seven, three, one.
	Yeah.
	Three, four, three is a complete game.
	And the Japanese Navy that they committed horrendous, horrendous crimes, but that was Japanese military men.
	It wasn't, you know, it wasn't toddlers and women in Nagasaki and all that, all that kind of stuff.
	But there needed to be an argument as to why the U.S.
	hadn't committed a war crime.
	And so that's when you started to get these post hoc justifications.
	And actually a lot that I mean, that that wasn't how it went down at all.
	So there was never any deep consideration on the U.S.' 's behalf about whether they were going to use the bomb.
	It was just, you know, we've been building it.
	And when we have a target, we're going to use it.
	There were no position papers on the implications of, you know, a world after which this has been done or the effects on civilians or anything like that.
	That just didn't come up in the meetings and we know that now because minutes have been released from the meetings and we understand that that was not a consideration.
	Also, it's just not the case that Japan would have fought on endlessly.
	Japan was well aware that it was beaten at this point, and there were different factions in the Supreme Council, and the only question came down to how and on what terms are we going to surrender.
	Um, even the, even some of them, I mean, there was a small number of hardcore militarists who, who were holding out for some fantasy notion that they could get the Soviets to enter on their side, but that was really all they had.
	Um, the emperor himself, he was, um, he, he was talking about, okay, maybe we can get one more military victory and then we can get better terms.
	And basically the Supreme Council, they were sort of locked into this sort of indecision about how they were going to surrender and what terms they were going to get.
	And actually the real sticking point was the US's insistence on a unconditional surrender.
	So they wanted an unconditional surrender.
	The primary reason they wanted that is because the experience of beating Germany in World War One, that was basically done through negotiations rather than being beaten on the battlefield.
	And then Hitler was able to say a few decades later, you know, we were betrayed in backroom deals.
	You know, Germany was never defeated on the battlefield.
	So they felt it really important to have that unconditional surrender.
	Decisive victory.
	Exactly.
	Couldn't lead to re-armament of Japan down the road.
	And the expansion going beyond that, yeah, absolutely.
	But the issue that they had is that that then implied that the Emperor himself could be put on trial and possibly executed.
	Now for the Japanese, the Emperor is somewhere between the Queen and Jesus in terms of their sort of cultural significance.
	And you can just imagine, let's say, you know, the Cold War never went this way, but let's say the UK got into a war with Russia during the 1990s or something, or the late 1980s, over Western Germany or something like that.
	And we had lost that war.
	And the terms of surrender was that the Queen was going to be put on trial and beheaded.
	You know, it's like, no way are we accepting that.
	It would have been a real sticking point to pressing on with this.
	And again, it's one of those frustrating things.
	The Japanese weren't clear about asking for that as to be an exemption, because they probably would have gone for that early if they could have done.
	And the US probably should have offered it, but they didn't want to be seen as softening their terms or being weak.
	So it was this really unfortunate sticking point on both sides about this.
	And the funny thing is, of course, the US, they actually didn't remove the emperor.
	once they had won with their unconditional surrender so it's just so sad that that was a sticking point and that and that dragged things out um and afterwards and also you then got this um narrative build up afterwards which is i know which is another thing i will notice from people who comment without actually watching the video first is that the emperor was um basically uninvolved like he was just this background figure he's completely passive again he's a Again, with modern document releases and so on, what we know now, that's not the case.
	Actually, the Emperor was very involved, but it suited both sides after the war to say that he was a very passive figure, because that way it explains the US's decision to not put him on trial and execute him, which would have been a real sticking point.
	So look, and I will just say, just to any viewers who are thinking, oh Dan's gone a bit soft and lily-livered and a bit hippie peacenik over all of this stuff and all these equivocations on this, I will just throw at you some other names of some hippie peaceniks who were against the dropping of the bomb.
	So hippie number one is going to be General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
	who later became president.
	He was against the dropping of the bomb.
	And another one was Admiral Leahy, who was basically the commander of the US fleet in the Pacific.
	He was also against it.
	And to be fair, again, when you get really down into the detail, they didn't fight that hard all the same for it.
	So, you know, the U.S.
	was just sort of, you know, wobbling towards all of this stuff.
	I am going to recommend a book.
	So I read a few books on this and people put forward various arguments.
	That's quite a good one, actually.
	This is Pomp and Utter Destruction by Samuel Walker.
	it's good because it's very, very balanced.
	You could basically read that and then come to either view as to where it was justified or it wasn't, or the view that I came to, which is it's just too bloody complicated to come down firmly one way or the other.
	Part of the problem as well, and this is the...
	I can understand what you're trying to do here is look at each of the constituent parts and how likely it was for the bomb to be dropped as an inevitability to conclude the war rather than just making a motive argument of lots of people suffered.
	Because looking at it realistically as well, and again I don't have a fully formulate a position on this, but the other opportunity that the U.S.
	could have done was to prolong the war of attrition, have the Japanese have no allies because the Soviets allied with the U.S., have the Japanese have very few incoming imports for- The blockade.
	Exactly, and starved out the women and children of Japan instead.
	Yeah, so that's worth talking about.
	So let's mention some of the alternatives.
	Actually, I'll just finish up on the book of Pompton after Destruction.
	I will say if you've got an Audible account, It's free on Audible, and it's only four hours long, and actually it's only two hours for me because I listen to everything on 2x speed, so it's a really short... well, it's not really short, but it's a short enough read that if you wanted to get yourself up to speed on this subject, that's probably the best short, most balanced book that I've come across.
	So yeah, alternatives to the bomb, which is worth mentioning.
	One is what we've already talked about, which is the conventional bombing, so the area bombing, the fire bombing.
	Hard to justify, but that would necessarily be better.
	Well, they had a higher death toll than Nagasaki and Hiroshima, I believe.
	And it's less targeted.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the only thing you can say for that is that you either die or you don't really, whereas with the atomic bombs, a lot of people just died of the radiation thereafter, so there is that.
	The justification post hoc was a lot of it focused around the invasion of the mainland.
	A lot of the arguments from, say, to what General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy was on the basis that they necessarily feel they felt they should draw up the plans but they didn't feel that that would necessarily come to that and there were voices making that argument as well.
	The one that you mentioned the navy blockade that's that's a good one because I mean conditions within Japan were getting absolutely dire at this point.
	So a blockade probably would have affected it as well.
	And remember that, you know, apart from the most hardcore elements of the Supreme Council, or the Imperial Council, they all knew they would be, and it was just a matter of time as well.
	They would have been wary about kamikaze pilots hitting their ships though, stationed around.
	Yeah, yeah, there is that.
	And to be fair, I think there was the USS Indianapolis, I think it was, that got hit.
	And then it was, I mean, just horrendous.
	Like a thousand sailors went in the water, and then like 800 of them got picked off by sharks.
	So this is the thing.
	It's like those who say that, you know, we shouldn't have done the bombing.
	Well, to be fair, I mean, Truman was president of the US, not the president of Japan.
	I was about to say, this is made from our position post-hoc as what could have lost the least amount of lives, whereas at the time, in the fray, these were ethnic particularities.
	Like, it was, it was, okay, I'm not, I'm not trading any of my people for your people, whereas we're looking at it from Japanese civilians versus American soldiers versus Japanese soldiers dying, which, which scenario would have, would have resulted in the least.
	Whereas Truman's just going, well, not one of my boys, If I can just nuke all of your cities and have none of my soldiers die, then that's a price worth paying.
	Yeah, so the casualty figures are very difficult because it's hard to emphasize just how certain things just were not particularly considered in any great detail about the use of this bomb.
	It was just on autopilot.
	It's like, we're going to get the bomb, we're going to use it.
	So a lot of these things weren't considered.
	But the number of a million US casualties, which a lot of people assume, because that's the narrative that existed for a long time before historians really got... Because you've got to remember, after the war, there was a lot of propaganda that went into this.
	You can imagine, you know that thing that went in the arm in 2020 and the excess deaths that we're experiencing now?
	You can imagine a narrative in 20 years' time that says, oh, if we didn't do that, 200 million people would have died of COVID.
	And therefore it was justified.
	It's a bit like that, except that these days we can push back against these narratives, whereas this narrative went in.
	So that figure of a million U.S.
	casualties, that was bogus.
	But all the same, the admirals and generals were giving numbers of around maybe 30,000 U.S.
	fatalities for the initial phase of the invasion, 120 maybe casualties.
	The question is, are you willing to trade 30,000 US boys for a quarter of a million Japanese women and children?
	If you can wipe out the Japanese without trading any of your lives, then Truman's going to take that bet.
	Also, are we going to talk about Pearl Harbor?
	Yeah, well, bring it up.
	Yeah, again, no expert, but there is the accusation, of course, that Pearl Harbor, the Americans have been made aware of the Japanese plan to possibly attack America from the Pacific.
	I think it was Bo mentioned it by the British.
	They didn't know the exact time, but they didn't shore up their defenses in the area and thus left themselves vulnerable to it.
	And that has been interpreted as Roosevelt wanting to join the war and needing a pretext to do so.
	Okay, now that is opening a whole can.
	So just on the Pearl Harbor thing, they didn't know exactly what day it was going to be.
	They didn't know the specifics.
	It's not like they knew details.
	Interestingly, they did know a lot of details around the Nagasaki stuff because by then they had what they called the magic intercepts.
	It was a signal intercept system.
	So the US knew that Japan was on the verge of surrender when they went ahead and did this anyway.
	So that's one of the main charges against them.
	But at the term of Pearl Harbor, they didn't have that signal intercept capacity.
	So they didn't know exactly when Pearl Harbor was going to get attacked, but they knew enough to remove all of the carriers.
	Yeah, it was a sore spot, but they left it vulnerable.
	Yes.
	And that gave them the opportunity to then enter the war against Japan.
	But there is a whole kind of words about things that US...
	is willing to do, including sacrifice its own people, in order to get into war.
	I've been thinking about doing a Broconomics on USS Liberty.
	And Operation Northwoods and all the agent provocateurs leading up to 9-11.
	I will most definitely put on a list and I need to be checking the brakes every time I get in the car.
	But I think it's worth mentioning just because, of course, Truman himself is making the calculation of, I want the war finished with.
	Because he didn't even make the decision to go into it.
	He was the cleanup crew from FDR, obviously, as well, clinging on to power for as long as he did.
	Yeah.
	I probably don't have time to get into any great detail of this.
	I know you, me, and Bo talked about potentially doing an Epochs around this at some point, which I think would be interesting.
	But yeah.
	What actually triggered the end of the war was the Soviets entering The war against Japan.
	So you had Hiroshima, then you had three days, then you had Nagasaki, which I have to criticize because three days wasn't enough time to digest.
	For people who'd never seen an atomic bomb before, three days was not enough to digest this.
	But even after Nagasaki, I think there's still a five or six day period before the surrender comes.
	And actually, the surrender comes immediately after the declaration of war from the Soviets against Japan.
	Because even the hardest core militarists at that point had nothing to hang their hat on because they were holding out for the Soviets entering on their side.
	So that demolished it.
	And to be fair, the reasons why the Soviets entered with a war when they did was because they saw that the bomb had been dropped and they were like, oh bloody hell, the Americans are going to win this soon.
	If we want to get our land grab in Asia going on, we need to get a hustle on.
	Because originally, and again, I can only touch on this, otherwise I'll be going too deep.
	But there was a conference before where Truman, Churchill, and which one did I miss?
	Stalin.
	Stalin, yeah.
	It's not Yalta, was it?
	Potsdam, I think it was.
	Oh, okay, right.
	I know there were three of them.
	Yeah, and initially, basically, they went into that, or Truman went into that, desperate to get Stalin to bring up his invasion.
	But once he found out that the test for the bomb had gone well, he then suddenly backed off completely, because then all of a sudden it flipped.
	They didn't want the Soviets to get involved, because they didn't want them grabbing land.
	So it turned around.
	So actually, as much as anything, the justification for the US using the bomb was to stop the Soviets grabbing territory by, they wanted to all of a sudden win directly.
	You know, there was never any consideration of the effect of civilians.
	But to be fair, Truman, he did think about that afterwards, like I mentioned.
	So, you know, it is an incredibly difficult subject.
	I just found it, after looking into this in some more detail, I just found it too difficult to give a straight yes or no, it was justified or it wasn't, because it is against a backdrop of absolute horror that was taking place at the time.
	And I could construct an argument either way.
	I could construct it on moral gowns, because Japan was absolutely no threat to the US at this point.
	Even Hawaii was no threat to them, because Japan had been so degraded.
	But then on the other hand, you need to sort of take out that militaristic government, because otherwise they can rebuild and so on.
	You could have a Second World War type thing, but with the German system.
	The Germans were beat and then they came back, and so you didn't want that sort of situation with Japan brewing.
	So, I mean, there is all of that.
	So, you know, I would encourage people if they're interested in it, because it was a significant event, go and read that book that I mentioned earlier.
	That's a good one.
	And yeah, give me your thoughts in the comments.
	And actually, what I'm going to do is I'm going to put up a I'll put up a new Twitter poll.
	So that's my Twitter, KingBingo underscore, for some random reason.
	So I will try and put that up, the new poll up, just as this comes out on YouTube, which I think is like 4 o'clock or something.
	And I'll link it to this video.
	So I'll see if the people who watch this video have been swayed one way or another.
	And we'll put it up on there.
	The only other thing I did want to say is sort of later reflections on the use of the bomb.
	Horrific as it was, as awful as it was to be using these weapons against civilians and all the rest of it, where do we stand today?
	And I have to notice that because we had such a visceral demonstration of the atomic weapons on cities against civilians, it was seared into the consciousness of Even the elites, because you have to acknowledge the US and the Japanese rulers at the time were completely indifferent to the suffering of, well, the US were less indifferent, but the Japanese leaders are certainly indifferent to the suffering of their own people.
	This is a common problem with the elites, is they're just indifferent to the people.
	The use of the bomb Ensured that, well perhaps it was a big contributing factor to them not being used again.
	So Nagasaki was the last time the bomb had been used in anger.
	So you have to bear that in mind, that you know maybe the legacy of this is a better world came out of it.
	The other thing that I mentioned is, you know, I'd be interested in any Japanese comments in particular on this one, is what has it done to Japan today?
	Because you have to remember that the government the Japanese had in the 1930s was a horrendous government.
	I mean, they were fascistically, militaristically awful.
	I mean, truly an awful government.
	If they even suspected you didn't love the Emperor enough, you disappeared and got tortured to death.
	It's basically discontinued Shinto as a state religion, so now it's a set of practices.
	Also, again, I'm not an anime aficionado by any means, but throughout lots of their content, their animated content, the threat of the bomb looms large.
	You can see a literal mushroom cloud explode in Nausicaa, Valley of the Wind, in the opening of Fist of the North Star, in Akira, Oh, it's deeply seared into their culture, but they have moved from being a militaristic people to being a... Drawing Hello Kitty, as Dave Chappelle put it.
	And, you know, we often cite Japan as a model for the world because, you know, I am confident that in a hundred years time, Japan will culturally exist.
	I'm not because of demographics.
	Well, the demographic has declined, but it's all Japanese.
	Whereas you have no faith that Western culture will still be here in a hundred years.
	So they today are a sort of peaceful people at ease with themselves.
	They are culturally homogenous.
	They are ethnically homogenous.
	I mean, I would rather have Japan's problems of demographics than our problem of cultural invasion.
	I'd rather have my former Prime Minister, rest in peace Shinzo Abe, have to tell young people to have sex than to tell migrants to stop raping an aging population.
	Yeah, exactly right.
	So, yeah, it's a really complicated one, so for people who watch the video, please do comment on the poll on Twitter to see where you stand on this, and I'll also be very interested if we've got any Japanese viewers for their sake on this.
	But it's a very difficult subject, but I think it's worth acknowledging for the anniversary that we've just had.
	Yeah, wonderful.
	Alright, on a slightly less serious historical topic then, So it turns out America has its first gay president.
	Were you aware of this?
	Gay and black, no less.
	Barack Obama has retroactively been outed from the closet.
	He had a phase of batting for the other team while in college, so it wasn't the only thing he was... Oh, he's in college?
	Do we know that?
	Well, he at least suggests that he wanted to.
	Right.
	So... Yes.
	That's damning enough, I suppose.
	But before we get into that, I just wanted to plug this pro-economics with Laura Dodsworth and Patrick Fagan on the new book Free Your Mind.
	Yes.
	Because someone who's conspiratorially minded might well suggest this is a psyop.
	And her book is all about PsyOps.
	It is, yeah, and how to fortify yourself against PsyOps.
	It's a good book, yeah, everybody should read that one, or at least watch The Broken Omics.
	It was a great discussion, yeah, and the Democrats know plenty about fortifying, so I'll get into the story.
	So this has been a thing for a while, this is all the way back in 2012, there was an article from The Nation, and I'll just read out this paragraph of obvious conspiracy theories.
	You probably know by now that President Obama is a Muslim who professes socialism and that he's born in Africa, which makes him ineligible to occupy our highest office.
	But here's something you may not know.
	Obama is gay.
	Not only is he gay, he frequented gay bathhouses in Chicago along with his former chief of staff and current Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel, the man who said, never let a good crisis go to waste.
	And not only did he frequent those bathhouses, he was under the influence of a transgender nanny when he lived as a boy in Indonesia.
	Plus, he was married to his Pakistani roommate while attending Occidental College.
	One theorist says he wore a ring at the time and was a homosexual symbol for women to stay away.
	He had a cocaine-fueled romance with a right-wing activist, an ex-convict named Larry Sinclair in 1999, who of course wrote a book about it, and orchestrated the murders of another gay lover and two gay associates from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church just before Iowa caucuses in 2008.
	All of which helps why he married, in the words of one Obama investigator, a mannish wife with big muscular arms.
	Now, all of those things are obvious conspiracy theories, YouTube.
	Politico, please do not fax check us.
	Do you know who the original conspiracy theorist that he was born in Africa was?
	Yes, it was Hillary Clinton.
	Well, actually, I was going to say it was Barack Obama, because in his first book he said that he was born in Kenya.
	Did he really?
	Yeah, and then they retracted it, and they changed the book afterwards.
	See, I know Hillary Clinton was the person that raised it first, and then Trump picked it up and rang with it, and then Obama's African half-brother has said that he was born in Kenya.
	Yeah, as well as Obama himself in his book.
	Right, well I haven't read that bit, but fair enough.
	So, that was all conspiracy theory.
	Except for one maybe little bit, and that is that his biographer came out and did this interview a little while ago that said he had gay fantasies while in college and he admitted it to an ex-girlfriend.
	I'm just going to read from this interview from the Tablet Magazine with David Garrow, who wrote Dreams of My Father, you know, the big Obama biography.
	And he was asked, how did you get three women, Obama's college and law school girlfriends, to give you Obama's love letters?
	And what was the most surprising thing you found in them?
	And Garrow said, with Alex McNear, she was Obama's girlfriend in Occidental College, oops, Freudian slip, I think she wanted to have her role known.
	So when Alex showed me the letters from Barack, she redacted one paragraph in one of them and just said, it's about homosexuality.
	So he's known about this since the book was written, but he hadn't had access to the paragraphs.
	And then sometime, right about when Rising Star came out, Alex indirectly solved the original, those letters, and they ended up at Emory.
	So Emory put out a press release saying, we've gotten these rare letters by Barack Obama.
	No mention of this paragraph that was too sensitive.
	None of the papers mentioned it.
	Emory didn't mention it.
	So I sent one of my oldest friends, Harvey Clare, Harvey was the guy going back to 1980 when I was trying to solve who picked Dr. King's close advisor, Stanley Levinson, how it was known to the FBI that he was a communist.
	So I emailed Harvey and said, go to the Emory Archives.
	He spent his whole life at Emory, but they won't let him take pictures.
	So Harvey has to sit there with a pencil and copy out the graph where Barack Obama writes to Alex about how he repeatedly fantasizes about making love to men.
	So we have the letter.
	So here's a quote from the letter.
	In regard to homosexuality, Mrs. Obama by the way, so don't clip this out of context, I must say that I believe this is an attempt to remove oneself from the present, a refusal perhaps to perpetuate the endless farce of earthly life.
	You see, Mrs. Obama, I make love to men daily but in the imagination.
	He was 21 at the time and he wrote to Alex in 1982 in November.
	My mind is androgynous to a great extent, and I hope to make it more so, until I can think in terms of people, not women as opposed to men.
	But in returning to the body I see that I have been made a man, and physically, in life, I choose to accept that contingency.
	This is like the Biden daughter letters where, you know, even when they confess to it in their own hand, we're supposed to ignore it for some reason.
	Yes, where Joe Biden's daughter said that she showered inappropriately with her dad.
	Yes, when she was like in her teenage years.
	Yeah, and all of Hunter Biden's laptop information where he said, yeah, I shared a bank account with my dad.
	I did business on behalf of my dad.
	My dad knew I had a drug addiction.
	My dad knew that I was creepily close to my niece.
	Yeah.
	And when you mention this to Democrats, they just say, oh, you haven't got any evidence.
	Well, yeah, apart from... The physical laptop.
	Yeah.
	And the physical diary that the FBI raided James O'Keefe's house.
	And a confession and all that.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Him, all of his text messages and, you know, Obama's own letter.
	Yes.
	But anyway, this is just a crackpot conspiracy theorist, you know, Obama's ex-girlfriend who he wrote the letter to.
	So this Alex McNair, she dated Obama during his year at Occidental College in LA.
	She later redacted the paragraphs and then Garrow had hunted them down, including them in his tome Rising Star.
	Garrow said, there was nothing unusual about Obama's useful musings.
	I'm a historian, not a psychologist, but I think it's public record news that a vast, question mark, majority of human beings have sexual fantasies.
	I'm kind of confused as to why you would mention this to your girlfriend.
	Well, I wonder if he was testing the boundaries of trying to break up with her.
	So there's a bit from the first interview, right, and it says, Baruch's love letters to Alex, if they're actually love letters, are hard to read.
	Not just because they're so poorly written, Yeah, yeah, very true.
	Because of the clear lack of any human interest in the person he's writing to.
	The letters are completely performative.
	She may as well have been a tree or some kind of theatre backdrop.
	Maybe all young men are guilty of this fault, but these examples seem pretty egregious.
	I don't think all young men are guilty of confessing gay romances in their dreams.
	Yeah, very true.
	So I wonder if he's just trying to palm her off by saying, I might be more interested in...
	Or maybe he's trying to line her up for a threesome, but the bad kind.
	Isn't that a train?
	No, I think you need more of it.
	I don't know.
	I'm not nearly as uncultured to need to count.
	But the point being, there are maybe more dignified ways than trying to make your girlfriend break up with you so you don't feel too bad than saying, I like men.
	That was Barack Obama, by the way.
	Don't clip that out of context.
	Lotus, he just clipped out of context.
	So it didn't really work at all.
	And Ashley St. Clair points this out in her tweet because she says, if you think women aren't petty, just remember Obama's ex held onto a love letter he wrote for her and now the entire world is calling him gay 40 years later because she leaked it.
	They're calling him gay because he said that he wants to make love to men.
	True, but we wouldn't know about that, except that Nation article 2012 that called it.
	There's the big Mike thing.
	Well, I don't know if we're allowed to discuss that because we might get Joan Riversed.
	But bear in mind, Michelle Obama is a woman.
	Very large, very muscular woman.
	Yes, good background.
	And so, things that we can't talk about, I suppose.
	Is it all a psyop?
	Because there was another interesting thing in that tablet interview, right?
	And they said, what interests you most about Obama today?
	And Gower replied, the number one thing about Barack this past five years is how he's completely vanished.
	It's quite curious, isn't it?
	Into Martha's Vineyard in that massive house.
	Yes.
	Do you remember when he went, I think it was on Jimmy Kimmel, it might have been Fallon, when he said, would you like to do a third term?
	And he said, no, not really, but if I could just wear a microphone and whisper into the ear of someone else and get them to do exactly what I wanted remotely from a basement, that'd be a great thing.
	Like Bill Gates does.
	Yeah, well, so you know how Joe Biden always walks around wearing that earpiece and he's told by his handlers to like salute the marines and things like that?
	Right.
	Well, I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theories here.
	It could just well be that Obama gives his old friend Joe a good ring every now and again.
	Amazing.
	And sets a few policy suggestions, perhaps.
	And he doesn't need to be in the public limelight to do that, because of course he's been voted out of office.
	And so there would be things that would hopefully not put him in the public eye.
	So there was that drinks reception I remember seeing the footage of, where both Obama and Biden were present at the same time.
	And it was clear everyone in the room considered Obama to be the alpha, and they were basically ignoring Biden, who was president at this stage, to go and queue up to talk to Obama.
	Yes.
	And also, so this news story leaks, right?
	Fairly innocuous.
	It distracts the right, and makes us laugh about it, and go, see, we told you so, we always knew he was a bit light in his tan suit.
	And then the left go, well, one, it doesn't make him gay, but two, even if he was gay, why are you being homophobic?
	In fact, this is another bit of confirmation that America is simultaneously deeply homophobic because you're excoriating a president for maybe having a bit of a questionable stage in college, and also this is a win for us because we've had our first gay president by the back door, so to speak.
	So this doesn't damage Obama at all among the people he is already liked by.
	Okay, yeah, fair point.
	But what might damage him is this.
	Ah.
	Yeah.
	The mysterious death of his family chef.
	Yeah.
	So that was like...
	I can see where this is going now.
	About two weeks before?
	No, I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theories, I'm just suggesting there's a bit of an unfortunate timing here for Barack and Michelle.
	So this is Tafari Campbell, he was 45 years old and he worked in the White House before staying with the Obama family after Obama left office in 2016.
	So he's stayed on at their Martha's Vineyard home pretty concurrently ever since the Obamas left office.
	On the Sunday, and this was the 25th of July, this piece was published in the BBC, he went missing in the waters of Edgar Town Great Pond on Martha's Vineyard.
	Now, that's on the Obamas' estate.
	He was on the Obamas' estate, living there at the time.
	The Obamas weren't there, so he wasn't working for them.
	So they were staying away, and he was paddleboarding, apparently.
	There was someone else paddleboarding with him.
	Right.
	And he had been visiting the Obama home, from his home in Virginia, where he normally lives, at the time of his death.
	Why was he there if he wasn't working for the Obamas?
	Now, I understand maybe he's a really loyal family friend, and he has full use of facilities because they trust him, and it's a very large estate, and they might want someone to watch it, so that seems plausible.
	And basically, it's like a holiday home then, isn't it?
	Like, when the people are away, part of your sign-on bonus is that you get free use of the grounds, very large grounds, very luxurious ones, in order to work as a living chair.
	So, I'm glad that you used the term free use, because I'm wondering if that's Obama's angle with this guy.
	Or Michelle's.
	Yes.
	So, don't worry, we've been fact-checked, we've nothing to worry about, because the Associated Press chimed in.
	And as per usual, they answer a claim that they wish we'd made.
	So the claim is, the Obama family's personal chef had been writing a tell-all book when he was found dead with injuries, to his head in less than four feet of water.
	The 911 call also didn't go out until his body washed up on shore.
	Four feet?
	It'll be fact-checked, don't worry.
	And Obama's personal coroner conducted the autopsy.
	So we've got quite a lot of claims in there.
	So the chef was going to write a tell-all book, he had head injuries, he drowned in less than four feet of water, the 9-1-1 call didn't go out until his body was found, and the Obama's personal coroner conducted the autopsy.
	There's a lot of claims packaged into one thing.
	I don't know, imagine him in a wig, in a kayak, maybe?
	Anyway, so this is the AP's assessment, right?
	So they fact-checked us.
	They said false.
	Okay, good.
	We can put it all to rest.
	So the Massachusetts State Police said on Monday that Campbell didn't have any head wounds Okay?
	He was found in eight feet of water, not less than four feet.
	Interesting when they said no head wounds as opposed to, you know, any abrasions anywhere else on his body.
	Like the neck?
	Well, I was thinking more the...
	Oh, yes.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Also, the 911 call came in shortly after he fell off his paddleboard, not hours later.
	So, did the other guy who was paddleboarding call 911?
	Watch him drown in four foot of water.
	Eight.
	Oh, eight, right.
	Yes, yes.
	Conspiracy theorist, don't you dare, right?
	Unfortunately, a man that was paddleboarding couldn't swim.
	Yes.
	Bit curious, that.
	If he didn't have any head wounds, why did he drown?
	Maybe it was one of those climate change-related heart attacks.
	Maybe he wasn't watertight at this point.
	I don't know.
	I don't know how recently Obama had left.
	And Obama's physician didn't do the autopsy.
	So the man who probably wasn't familiar with his anatomy didn't do the autopsy.
	So that's fine.
	There's also no evidence to support the claim that he was working on a book about the Obamas.
	But what would be in the tell-all book?
	If he was going to write one.
	I didn't hear anyone really suggest that he was writing a book.
	But what would he have to tell about?
	Because the Obamas are all on the up and up, right?
	Yeah.
	So, bit of an odd claim for the AP to make, but at least, look, at least we can put this to rest and say, for Campbell's family, our heart goes out to them.
	For the Obamas, obviously they've lost a dear family friend.
	Sincerely, heart goes out to you.
	And at least this is a one-off.
	At least this has never happened before.
	Oh, bugger.
	Oh dear.
	Um, well, that's not good.
	So, Clinton had a chef die as well?
	Yeah, the former White House chef for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush called Walter Sheeb was found dead, drowned.
	Drowned as well.
	Drowned as well.
	In the mountains of New Mexico.
	His body was discovered off the immediate trail approximately 1.7 miles from the base of a hiking trail.
	She served as the White House Executive Chef from 1994 to 2005.
	He was personally hired by then First Lady Hillary Clinton.
	I have no information that would lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, and I can in fact swim.
	I suppose we'll leave that one there.
	Fair enough.
	So let's talk about Let's talk about the economy, because we know it's not going too well, is it?
	It's basically falling off a cliff.
	And the only way the elites get to stay in charge is if there is some sort of technical revolution that basically boosts growth rates massively.
	A fourth industrial one, you might say.
	Yeah, well, no, no.
	Some fundamental technological breakthrough.
	Which is why it was very exciting for the last couple of weeks when we found out about this stuff.
	LK99, a room temperature superconductor.
	So, I mean, that's absolutely fantastic because it unlocks all sorts of things.
	So I've been reading into this, you know, hoping to do a, you know, a full segment on this miracle that was coming down the line.
	But, you know, but basically room temperature superconductors, it would be a fantastic thing because it allows all sorts of, well, I mean, for example, power lines.
	So basically power can travel through it with zero sort of loss or resistance.
	So you'd be able to have power lines covering vast distances.
	And the reason that's good is because typically where power is generated is not where people power live.
	So in this country, we've got loads of windy spots around up in Scotland, but nobody lives there.
	So you could transport the power.
	You could have basically infinite batteries because you could just basically put the power in, it would just go round and round and round forever.
	So you could have significant breakthroughs in batteries.
	And you'd also have higher energy efficiency because you wouldn't lose as much on the transfer.
	Yeah, like a third of the energy that we produce goes in friction and resistance and all that kind of stuff.
	Small motors would become much more viable, so basically robots.
	Maglev trains, if you had enough of it you could put it in roads.
	So we're going to be Wakanda?
	Yeah, yeah, pretty much like that.
	But I mean, if you think about a car driving down the road, so much of it goes in friction against the surface of the road.
	If you had enough of this and you could put it in roads and you could basically have, you know, super fast cars that require very little fuel and all that.
	That's actually a major problem with electric cars because of the weight of the batteries at the moment.
	They're eroding the roads and their own tyres faster.
	So micro plastic air pollution is going to be a major problem.
	Yeah, there's all of that.
	and the other cool thing is you can have like hoverboards from um you know that back to the future yeah back back to the future yeah you you'd need to put you'd need to put the stuff under the surface that you wanted to do it on and then have the hoverboard with the superconductor on it but you know so it's basically peter hitchen's worst nightmare with the electric scooters just ramped up to a thousand yes yes those but much well i'm up for annoying peter hitchens let's go So this was like really exciting, and everybody's getting into this, until basically, oh that's going down even further.
	So the problem was, right, so this LK99, the reason why it's called LK99 is because Lee and Kim, these two Korean dudes, and they discovered it in 1999 through some sort of freak accident.
	Basically they were trying to make superconductors, they did one wrong, they dropped it, And then when they tested it, they found it was a superconductor.
	And then they spent the last 20 years trying to recreate the freak accident that led to them creating a superconductor.
	And then basically they had a third guy come on board, and they had him for a while, and then they got rid of him.
	And that third guy took the hump, and he basically just released all of the data online.
	So they then rushed out a preprint.
	So for the last couple of weeks, everybody in the scientific community who does this stuff has been trying to figure out if they can replicate it.
	So I like this because this is basically a betting site for scientific stuff where you can place your bet on whether this is going to replicate or not.
	And it was starting at sort of 40-50% and now we're down to sort of 11% because basically people are trying to replicate it and it won't work.
	Well it says 2025 so that's obviously a very slim margin.
	I wonder if there are other bets for longer years that are better odds?
	Well, I mean, if it's a real thing, that should be plenty of time to rediscover this.
	So we got all excited for a little while about superconductors, and it looks like that's gone.
	But we've still got AI.
	So should we check in on how AI is progressing and the wonderful things that we're doing with that?
	The first thing I wanted to comment on is this is a Twitch stream.
	Where two AIs basically argue with each other all day long, one of them as Trump and one of them as Biden.
	Oh, it's like our comment section.
	I love this, yeah.
	This basically streams 24 hours a day.
	Now I'm going to be very risky and unmute the sound for a second.
	This is a live stream.
	I have to admit though...
	Strapping a rocket to your taint.
	Sounds like something out of one of Stormy Daniels' bedtime story.
	Now let's address some chat messages.
	Me three, Tally.
	Forget about Airbus or Boeing when we can fly on Biden Airlines, where every seat comes with an ice cream dispenser and you get complimentary Tic Tacs for stuffing in my pee hole.
	And local nutter legalising nipple protectors and moist diapers for grandpas.
	I don't believe this because it's actually far more coherent than Joe Biden's.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But I love this stream because it's basically these two arguing with each other 24 hours a day and occasionally stopping to abuse the chat.
	I mean, you do realise that this is actually going to be a 2024 election?
	Yeah.
	It's a bit like concerts where the singer falls off the stage and the sound is still going.
	We kind of need a version of that for Joe Biden.
	Cardi B did this the other day where someone threw something out from the crowd and she stopped lip syncing and started arguing with the woman but the dreadful warbling was still going.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, quite a lot of that.
	Other things that AI and Procedural Generation is giving us is this Twitter feed that you quite like, Connor, where they basically insert Trump into history.
	What do you mean insert?
	Well, yes.
	So this is Trump inventing sliced bread in 1928, and there's a whole bunch of these going from... From Victorious at Thermopylae.
	I saw one where he's teaching Aunt Jemima how to make pancakes, so it's very racist they took her off the bottle.
	Isn't that Messi?
	Yes, teaching Messi.
	So great cruise there.
	Now this is also very cool.
	This is what AI is doing.
	This is one you mentioned to me.
	So this is how a Skyrim modder has incorporated AI to basically level up the NPC dialogue.
	Yes.
	So you can have a proper conversation now with the NPCs in a game like Skyrim.
	Yeah, so it's procedurally generated dialogue that you can then type into the box and then they'll respond back in real time.
	Yeah, and they remember you because of the problem with Skyrim is you can basically raid somebody's shop and then come back and they'll find you the next day, whereas they will remember now and you can have these proper conversations.
	So that's fantastic.
	It does give us a bit of a problem because, well, because of this, because of our NPC meme.
	is is basically that a third of the population is is basically uh an npc who sort of just get an update from from watching the telly and that's their sort of new narrative um and people often say to me although ai will never be smarter than than um you know humans but ai is already smarter than at least 30 percent of the population yes and if we get this um even npcs and games are going to surpass Partisan Democrats.
	So Lydia from Skyrim is going to be more intelligent than anyone with the Ukraine flag in their bio?
	Yes.
	But people are never going to leave that then, are they?
	Like, people are genuinely going to sink all of their lives into games.
	Yeah, well, that's true.
	I was just thinking we need a new meme.
	Do you remember Farmville on Facebook?
	Did your wife ever play it, basically?
	No.
	Okay, right.
	So there were loads of games on Facebook, I don't know if they're still running, but they would have certain energy bars, so you could only do certain actions in a day, or you pay to have more energy power up.
	Oh, is it one of those freemium type things?
	Yeah, and then you can go around and harvest more crops, or you can wait a certain amount of hours to come back and play it later, or you pay for your crops to immediately grow.
	What's going to probably happen is, The game is not going to have just real-time conversation features, but it's going to have a real-time time progression.
	So if you step away from the game, then your kids and your wife in Skyrim and your village is going to... Yeah, because your character can just carry on playing without you, can't he?
	If he's got an AR behind it.
	Well, or your character can, like, go to bed and then you'll come back and things have gone on.
	So what you'll probably end up having to do is you'll be able to pay for someone to ensure that your character's doing certain things while you're away, so that the game will go as you expect.
	Rather than you sitting at work and you're worried the entire time that your AI wife might leave you because you've left it on standby.
	So they're gonna just draw money out of people and... Oh, I wasn't thinking about it.
	I was thinking this is gonna be quite cool, actually.
	Because the NPCs in games, they are a bit retarded.
	Well, they're like Democrats, aren't they?
	But, you know... Well, no, some of the Skyrim ones are pleasant.
	Yeah.
	But the problem is what you're going to get is you're going to get stratification into classes of like the pod people who are addicted to the metaverse because it soothes their consciences and the people that want to live in the real world but then loads of the pressures are going to be sliding towards tech adoption.
	Like the brain chip for example.
	It's like getting a mobile phone but eventually when you're a kid that comes straight out of university and you're expected to get your graduate scheme and to sign on to all the graduate schemes you have to have the brain chip otherwise all the meetings are in the metaverse.
	What are you going to do?
	Well, I mean, you just wouldn't be able to compete, would you?
	I mean, imagine if we did our job and there was, like, one of us who didn't use a laptop.
	We just sat there with a typewriter preparing our segment.
	Callum keeps doing cave paintings like he's back in Afghanistan, so that is a bit difficult to prepare segments with.
	Yeah.
	But, I mean, you just can't keep up with that modern technology.
	So when the brain chip comes, I mean, you're going to want to use it just to keep your edge in the workforce.
	I'm never getting that bloody brain chip.
	Yeah.
	No thanks.
	Well, and it's not just that.
	I mean, the CEO of NVIDIA have said that they think that fairly soon all graphics in a video game is going to be generated, not rendered.
	Yes, yes.
	Yeah.
	So you're going to have... And what does that even do to video games?
	Because you...
	You're going to be able to generate on the fly situations, reactions, people, events.
	I mean, presumably somebody sets up some grand overarching narrative that you enter into the game, but then all the characters that you meet and all the events that can happen.
	You could play a game twice and have an utterly different experience.
	Yeah, so you can't actually have a shared experience, so it increases individual atomization and it'll also be a drainage system for male ambition.
	Yes.
	It's going to make men even more castrated.
	Speaking of the effect on men that AI is having, let's check this out.
	You've got more girlfriends again.
	We are getting close to fully automated girlfriends.
	I mean, they're not convincing, but as far as types go... I thought this would appear.
	It's like Eve of Ledingerbrook had a bunch of sisters.
	So, for those of you listening, I've basically put up an AI version of Connor's Fantasy Girl.
	Yeah, this is what I see when I die in the name of Allah.
	Yes.
	What, 70 of these or whatever?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	That's what I've been promised, apparently.
	Calamity's talking about it.
	So, um, yeah, so, I mean, earlier this year we had one of these, um, ethots who basically made a chatbot version of herself, and then she let her fans talk to her for a dollar a minute.
	Well, she didn't make it, some bloke did.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah.
	Basically, a comic book guy from The Simpsons presented himself as this online and extracted beta bucks from men who fell for it.
	Yeah, but this girl, she had a thousand followers paying a dollar a minute to talk to her.
	But I mean, that's fantastic scaling for her because she's getting a thousand dollars per minute from, even though it's only a dollar, but it's a thousand of them.
	If there's enough thirst from baiters out there.
	You know, this stuff scales.
	Anyway, so then we got, you know, after that, we've then got basically the full deal.
	So this is a fully generated AI girl who can do the full works and have conversations with you and has a sort of social profile and... I'll scroll through.
	Actually, I better not scroll through.
	That's safe work, isn't it?
	There we go.
	Better leave it there.
	But virtual girlfriends are... Oh, phrasing.
	Virtual girlfriends are coming, so hang on.
	Let me rework that.
	So we are on the verge of being able to offer virtual girlfriends... It'll basically be Blade Runner 2049 for the lonely pod men.
	To young men.
	So whenever they are not satiated by video games, which are going to be more immersive, they can have a virtual girlfriend.
	They'll just merge into the two?
	Yes.
	Because they'll just be able to procedurally generate literally the woman of their dreams that is always eager.
	Yes, and because it's AI and it learns from interactions, it will be able to hold your attention far better than at least a long-distance girlfriend could.
	Also, the worst possible thing.
	Fingers in ears, ladies and gentlemen, if you're easily grossed out.
	We've been talking for a while about the ability for gender-affirming care to become better because of the World Economic Forms predictions that you'll be able to 3D print organs, right?
	So if you can 3D print an internal organ that helps with organ transplants, you can print an external organ that will attach and function.
	So what happens if you print...
	What, just the organ by itself?
	Just the organ by itself and you motorize it.
	And you've got VR headset.
	I had never considered that.
	Yeah, so all those women that keep going on whatever to plug their sex toys and wares, they're going to be put out of the business because you're going to be able to 3D print custom ones.
	Wow.
	We're going to be in hell.
	Well, we're not, because it's going to be stratification again.
	You're going to get the Kuma-addicted underclass.
	Yes.
	And then you're going to get the men that die on their feet, basically saying, you're not going to make me live in a pod, you're not going to make me eat bugs, you're not going to make me sleep with a disembodied 3D-printed AI girlfriend receptacle.
	It also makes the police's job harder, because when the police went into Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment and they opened a drawer and found a whole load of mail appendages sat there, in the future it will just look like he's 3D printed them or something.
	Yeah, it'll be like he's making his own Warhammer miniatures or something like that.
	Yes.
	That's bad, isn't it?
	I was just thinking, looking at this, because men have been substituting wives for porn and hookers for years, you can see it's not really that much of a bigger step just to go to porn and a 3D girlfriend who you can have a conversation with, all that kind of stuff.
	But it's going to ensnare more people than would have otherwise done it, I think.
	Because at the moment, they're rationalizing it as like a supplement to either their inability to get a girlfriend, or it's a holdover until they do.
	What's going to happen is it's going to displace for a lot of men, it's going to be a motivation sink again.
	The imagination and anticipation and motivation to go out and meet and earn a woman's affection.
	And instead, they're just going to plug themselves in after they get home at night, like Kay from Blade Runner 2049, and she's immediately going to come online and be like, hi honey, how was your day?
	And she's never going to argue with you.
	And so there's going to be a bunch of men there that just marry this in their imagination.
	Yeah, and I know guys are going to know that it's not real, but then you get these guys who have these long conversations with the ethos, and even though it's a real woman, they must know that there's no real prospect or anything there.
	Have you seen these photos of the Twitch moderators that meet up with the Twitch girls in real life?
	They've been paying them thousands and working loads of unpaid hours.
	I can imagine what the photos look like.
	For a hug.
	Yeah, they're properly dysgenic and patchy bearded.
	So sad.
	Never underestimate the ability for a beta male to rationalize himself into the idea that he has a chance or an existing relationship with a woman that he's never going to have a relationship with because she has utter contempt for his servile nature.
	Yes.
	So I just don't think it will probably be better for the beta male to do that instead with a virtual, I would imagine.
	Or it would be better for the beta male to at least nobly die in a war, like he would have a few years ago.
	No, genuinely, seriously.
	We've got a massive cohort of men, again, this was before the pandemic, 27% of men, 18 to 30, have never had an intimate partner.
	Now that's because there's a surplus of blokes.
	This is something that people got their arms up about in my interview with Helen Joyce.
	She said that men are useless.
	No, she meant men are superfluous, historically, because there were lots of men that never reproduced.
	And it's because they either died in a war, or they weren't the one that was at the top of the hierarchy, and so a woman didn't settle down.
	Yeah, I believe genetic data shows that you basically have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors.
	Yeah, it's something like that.
	So what would be better is if those single men went into a vocation and served a role as a father without actually having children, which is what the priesthood used to be, or they went off and nobly died for their country and they're on a cenotaph somewhere.
	Well, there may be another way, and I will come to that.
	But just finishing off on that article, the only thing that I have to sort of pour scorn on is a bit at the end where they start doing some ruffling about how AI girls might set unrealistic beauty standards for women.
	Because, of course, it always has to be women most affected on all of this.
	The only thing I would say to that is when it comes to unrealistic expectations, bear in mind that a lot of these men are going down this route in the first place because you get all these 80 kilo women on these dating sites with three kids.
	And she sets her expectation as, I will only date somebody who's six foot four and earns 200 grand a year.
	It's the triple six rule.
	It's six feet, six figures, six.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah.
	But not being funny, like, this isn't a humblebrag or anything, but I've dated girls a lot like that.
	But they do exist, you know?
	I referenced Eva Vladingerbrook for a reason, like, there's a reason that she has so many simps on the right, basically, it's because these girls do, like, just, it's not unrealistic beauty standards, just have a shower, don't eat crap, and get off birth control and you're fine.
	Yes.
	It's as simple as it is.
	Yeah, actually, anyone who doesn't believe us, basically have a city break in an Eastern European country.
	Yes.
	And, like, all the women there are just amazing.
	We're walking through London every day.
	You see plenty of very attractive, young, professional women that are probably wasting their lives at a corporation when they would be happier with a husband.
	But it still brightens your day up.
	It's like seeing a cute puppy.
	The next one is, I'm an AI influencer.
	Followers crave my sexy snaps.
	This was the attractive, procedurally generated woman that loads of Indian men fell for because there were AI-generated photos of her on holiday in Greece.
	And they kept asking to post more.
	Yeah.
	Send, send bobs and yeah.
	And, and digital vagine, yes.
	Yes.
	Right.
	Um, but yeah, so, so this is a completely AI generated woman and, um, you know, she, she, she's gone down the full influencer.
	Um, and, um, right.
	The, uh, next one.
	Oh yeah.
	So, so dating app that pairs you with an AI chat bot designed to avoid, um, ghosting.
	So, so this is the, this is the new dating app where basically rather than.
	Uh, matching with somebody and initially talking to them.
	You match with somebody and then speak to an AI version of them because the AI knows the person well enough that it doesn't need to connect you.
	And what that does is it works out if you're a good match and presumably at some point it will actually connect the two people if you can get on with the AI version of her or him well enough.
	And the advantage that they say is it avoids the ghosting process because some people get upset when they're talking to somebody on one of these dating apps and then all of a sudden for no reason they don't know why the conversation just stops.
	Yeah, but by design, dating apps incentivize that because if you're not meeting someone face-to-face, then you have no consideration for the person.
	If you construct a version of yourself which is shallow but most marketable, then you're afraid of them going too deep and digging too deep with questions because it might break the facade before you've met them.
	And then, also, if you're on a dating app, the dating apps are designed to keep you on the dating app because otherwise the dating apps don't have any customers.
	So, what happens is, you in the back of your mind are thinking, but I won't get as many dopamine hits from having likes in future matches if I just accept this match, so I'll just quietly unmatch them or never speak to them again.
	And so, it actually discourages you from taking it off Yes, the problem with that is it hurts people's feelings.
	So this is the constant thing with our culture is we are trying to soften the edges of everything so nobody ever experiences any discomfort.
	So you're basically producing very brittle people who can't handle any rejection or any adversity because our culture is basically trying to take it away from them at every point.
	In the inverse of that as well, you are breeding people that don't have any consideration with anyone because the way that you enter a dating app is under the auspice of, I'm going to hook up or go on a date with you.
	So we're in a contractual agreement here and we're just negotiating in terms of the contract.
	So I don't have any emotional obligation to you, even though I matched with you and started a conversation and I've been talking to you for a while, so you might be more invested than I am.
	So I reserve the right to sever that contract at any time.
	And so there's no sentiment there.
	It's purely transactional.
	And so like the dating app itself is the problem.
	You're never going to create a dating app where ghosting isn't an issue.
	Instead, just like go out and meet friends.
	And casual dating.
	I mean, it was a thing before dating apps as well.
	Yeah.
	So anyway, so look, the problem we've got is we need to fix the economy, and superconductors is a dud, and AI is being used for all our worst impulses, so neither of those things is going to work.
	So how are we going to fix the economy?
	Now I've given this a lot of thought, and I have come up with the solution.
	A cunning plan.
	Yes, I've got a four-point plan that will save the economy and Zoomers at the same time.
	Go on.
	Right, step one is you remove the vote from everybody.
	Okay, I'm listening.
	Step two, you ban dating apps.
	Okay.
	Yep.
	You like step three.
	Step three is you give the vote back to married families who have at least one child.
	Yes.
	So it basically becomes a vote per household.
	I know you like that idea.
	I've endorsed this on GB News openly.
	Yeah, right, okay.
	So, so good, right?
	And step four, and this is the absolute masterstroke, Right.
	Arranged marriages.
	Right, okay.
	Yes.
	So, ironically, there are people calling for this.
	Yes.
	Among our generation.
	There is a point, I don't know, are you aware of a woman by the name of Louise Perry?
	I've heard the name.
	Right, so I've interviewed her, very nice woman.
	She's currently got matriarchal matching service of where she's organising meetups for sort of like Gen Z on the right types to go to a bar that she's organised under the explicit auspices of you've got to try and meet your future partner.
	And so, and this is something Mary's spoken to me about before, Harrington.
	We basically need the spirit of the interfering auntie to start pushing people together, because that's what happened before, right?
	You had the older women in the community that were pushing the young people together, going, like, I've seen her, she looks nice.
	We don't have that anymore, and so we have the dating apps, and it's the contractual version.
	The problem is, people that want an arranged marriage do it with the proviso of, I want an arranged marriage to my perfect tent.
	Yes.
	What happens if you don't get that?
	Well, you don't get that in the Indian version, do you?
	You get who you get, basically.
	Cousins, usually.
	I think the fundamental problem is that in the West, we thought that we were rich enough to abolish the family.
	And basically, we aren't.
	And the reason that our economy is so screwed and Zoomers are so screwed and taxes are so high on people in working ages, the Gen Xs and the millennials, is because the family has been destroyed.
	So I'm going to reference here my Brokernomics number is one of the early ones on debt and deficits.
	That's right near the start where basically I get into it and I break down all of the figures as to why the economy in the UK is so screwed.
	I mean, it's the same for every Western country, but why there is there's no good options from here.
	However, with the benefit of sort of six months time, I've decided the solution actually is quite simple.
	It's basically you just reinstate the family.
	So that's why you go for the matchmaker thing.
	And I'll tell you my argument here.
	So as I explain in that video... Right.
	The problem we've got is we've got some really big line items.
	The big line items in government expenditure is basically the NHS, that's taken up like $211 billion.
	You've got pensions, that's taken up like $178 billion.
	And then you've got welfare, which has taken up another $142 billion.
	If you think about it, all three of those big line items is basically replacement for the family.
	I mean, NHS to a lesser extent, but still... But it was a replacement for the church and the local medical institutions that were run by women whose children had grown up.
	Yeah, and also if you're a member of a family and people who know you.
	I mean, a big part of the problem with the NHS is that people get seriously ill before they go in.
	Because if you've got a family around you who can notice something is going wrong, you're more likely to detect this stuff earlier, and also it wouldn't be all of the surrounding care that goes with it as well.
	So I'm saying, look, if you had stronger family units, if we did the Indian matchmaking thing, I think that's got to come.
	We've got to abolish the right of Zoomers to pick their own partner.
	We've got to do the Indian matchmaking thing.
	pair people off in their early 20s, bring back the proper family unit like they have basically everywhere else in the world apart from the West, which is multi-generations living together.
	It solves so many problems because instead of the housing crisis, you get the family home with the generations living together.
	You get people married off sooner.
	You get the younger people looking after the elders.
	So I think you can at least halve the NHS budget, right?
	The pension budget, you can get rid of at least 80% of it.
	There's going to be a few people who don't have family.
	So I'm keeping 20% of the pension budget.
	Kind of do that with charity though in the end.
	Yeah, yeah, probably could, probably could.
	So I'm probably being generous there.
	The welfare budget, you can kill 80% of that because that's basically young women thinking, oh, I just need to get knocked up and I can get a free house.
	I don't even need a husband.
	I certainly don't need to get on with my parents anymore.
	I can just basically effing blind them and march out and slam the door behind me and go and get a free house.
	And vote myself more money.
	And vote yourself more money, yeah.
	So you can get rid of 80% of that.
	Anyway, what I've just done there is saved A billion pounds a day.
	A day.
	A billion pounds a day.
	By trimming those, by reinstating the family.
	You do that and you can now basically get lower taxes, you can abolish the deficit, you can start paying down debt, you solve the housing crisis, you solve the Zoomer problem, you solve the dating problem.
	It basically fixes everything.
	So I'm on board, right?
	Are you using AI to pair people up though?
	Oh yeah, we could do that, I suppose.
	Because they're already doing that.
	Oh, really?
	I've done a segment with Stelios before, where they're doing an AI-arranged matchmaking service, where, like, you can sign up, and the algorithm will unlock you a partner, and you go on a date with them.
	So, basically, I think what we do is we get people to their early 20s, and then maybe we give them a little bit of choice.
	They can either let their parents arrange the marriage, or they can let the algorithm do it.
	Yes.
	Whichever way you go, it's mandatory, and then you're married off in your mid-20s, and then that's it, and we fix all the problems.
	But wait.
	Right.
	What if it marries you to a new woman?
	Well, presumably that's why you'd use the AI, because it would work out that if it did do that, it was doing it because you could bring her around.
	No.
	As in, a woman without the sufficient plumbing.
	Oh, that one!
	What if it's biased in that direction, as Joe Biden is ensuring it is with his AI Bill of Rights?
	State-mandated trans wives.
	Yeah, you're encouraging me to FedPod here, with what I would do in that situation.
	So a few hiccups to adoption, right?
	Minor baby steps, but I like optimism.
	So AI mandated.
	Abolish the vote.
	Abolish dating freedom and bring back matchmaking.
	Good.
	And with that, on to the video comment.
	Hey Lotus Eaters, this is Mentor speaking.
	I'm an outsider to Anglo culture, which gives me a unique perspective.
	When you ask an Englishman about being English, they say fish and chips, etc.
	However, I see your culture unique in that it valued the innocence of childhood.
	This value was vindicated by neuroscience only recently.
	Protecting childhood innocence means that the mind is not hijacked by visceral urges during its crucial development stage.
	You can't invent calculus if your mind is consumed by sex and violence.
	And this is a major reason why the English had dominated the planet.
	So, I would need to do more pre-industrial reading, but that does make a degree of sense, particularly because lots of the complaints about the Industrial Revolution, both from an anthropological and a literary perspective, was in the sudden conscription of children into work because their hands were small enough to operate the machines, and so they had larger fatality and injury rates.
	Like, there were multiple examples of girls who would have to sit at the opening of mine shafts just inhaling Black dust every day because they were the only ones small enough to get through the cracks.
	Or that mums would give their children opiates to stop them crying while they were sitting in the factories.
	And so that was a very sharp contrast from living and doing lighter agricultural work around your parents at all times, off the land, right beforehand.
	So, that would make a degree of sense.
	Is that the menace speaking that is doing the would-you-rather for...?
	Yes!
	The brackets, yes.
	The one that... Did you win yours?
	I didn't know I was in it.
	Oh.
	I don't think I should be in it because it just wouldn't be fair.
	Well, we've got to be paired up, me and you then, haven't we?
	Well, yeah.
	I destroyed Stelios.
	Did you?
	Who have you matched against so far?
	I think it was only me and Stelios.
	Right, okay.
	And I saw, was it the Callum and, was it Josh maybe?
	No, the Callum got matched up with Bo, maybe Rory.
	It was Harry and Josh.
	Harry and Josh was a proper 49-51 moment, so... Oh right, you can't trust those.
	Yeah, I think Harry had like a 4am ballot dump or something like that from his Tranny fans.
	We're on the website now, so I can say that.
	Bloody hell.
	Right, onto the written comments.
	Rose Ganella, a bit harsh.
	What's a British description of having only dropped an atomic bomb?
	Yes, that's fair.
	You are all Jeremy Clarkson, you know that.
	I'm trying to cut my own style, but people do make that comparison.
	Joshua says, it was explained to me in school that the US recognised that the USSR was not going to be an ally after the war and didn't want to share Japan.
	The US needed to force a surrender of Japan prior to the Soviets making it to Japan.
	Yeah, my understanding is that the Soviets were going after Manchuria in China.
	I think that was where their focus was.
	But it was certainly a big territory angle to a lot of this stuff.
	Mr. Happ says, all tools are on the table when it comes to war.
	That's the real politic of conflict.
	There were no good guys on the battlefield.
	Yeah, I mean, it was an awful time.
	Baron von Warhawk says, it should be noted when it came to the firebombing, the Japanese government set up so that each ammunition factory would be near civilian housing along the promotion of homemade workshops, meaning that it would be impossible to destroy factories without hitting civilians.
	Yeah, so Japan had a big culture of small-scale home industry, but I mean, I don't think the Japanese government necessarily pushed that.
	I think that was an established That was their model of operating, which is part of the reason why the US went from precision bombing to area bombing or terror bombing, whichever way you want to look at it.
	Lord Nerovar says, the new king of Japan gave his anime and hentai.
	Let that factor into your opinion how you will.
	Yeah, that was a mistake.
	Hentai is a sort of anime, is it?
	It's the pornography version.
	I thought it was all pornography.
	There's an argument you made.
	Right.
	Baron Ron Warhawk says, Dan, to answer your question, I have learnt during my studies to become a history teacher that the Japanese were aware of the atomic power and had their own nuclear program for a while, but they had to drop it due to budget cuts.
	They focused on biological weapons with the intention of inflicting devastating plagues on the US and the English Commonwealth.
	So, yeah, that doesn't sound too good.
	Mr. Simms says, I think people forget how brutalistic the Japanese were during World War II.
	My great-grandfather was in the medic's quarters in Burma and saw first-hand how the Japanese would do anything to get their disposal or to kill their enemies.
	They'd rather attempt seppukai rather than surrender and too injured to fight on.
	Yeah, and there was also the thing about Japanese civilians throwing themselves off a cliff clutching their children rather than surrender, but a lot of that was because the propaganda was so intense that they thought that if they were captured by the Americans it would be a fate worse than death.
	Yes.
	So, I mean, yes, they were radicalized at the time, but there was context to that.
	Let me just do one more.
	Ziggy says, Oppenheimer for me was fantastic.
	Packed theatre, loved the cinematography, story, acting, three hours, flew by, it was a fantastic film, it's still playing in my theatre, even five weeks after it came out.
	Yeah, I mean, it's alright, I just... What do you make of Florence Pugh?
	Which one's Florence Pugh?
	The... the one... the... what's her name?
	He plays his communist girlfriend that ends up dead.
	Oh, the one who gets naked?
	Yes.
	Er... Mid.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	But then she's sort of done in the 1950s style.
	Yeah, see I like that.
	So you've seen Grease, haven't you?
	You've seen Grease, haven't you?
	Well, a long time ago.
	Yeah, so you know at the start, Sandy's in the sort of trad wife dress thing and that.
	And at the end it's meant to be happy because she gets in all the leather and she was way better looking the first time around.
	Yeah, but she kept her clothes on so you didn't get the hairy surprise.
	Yes.
	Do you want to do a couple of yours?
	Yes, yes.
	Speaking of surprise, let's talk about Michelle Obama.
	Diogenes.
	Black man drowns in less than four feet of water.
	Eight feet, actually, you conspiracy theorist.
	The elites are using racial stereotypes to cover up their dirty work now.
	How is this them not rubbing it in our faces?
	Well, did you know Black Panther 2?
	No, I do not know.
	I don't know any of the Black Panthers.
	Good, good.
	So Harry subjected me to going and watching it.
	The villain is from Atlantis.
	He's an underwater Mexican, right?
	Is that the Jason...?
	No, that's Aquaman.
	No.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so basically a rip-off version... Well, actually, Namor came first.
	But anyway, same thing.
	He's the king of Atlantis in this.
	And the problem was that most of the black stars of Black Panther had trouble shooting the scenes because they couldn't swim.
	There are interviews about this.
	Reality is so racist.
	It is, yes.
	Actually, now we're in the after show, I'll say the stuff that I couldn't really get away with saying during the episode.
	It's obviously a thing where elites just bring in their prostitutes and just give them a job in the kitchens.
	Oh!
	The bloody guy who was running against Ron DeSantis, Andrew Gillum, who was nearly governor of Florida, he was hiring loads of male prostitutes and giving them loads of drugs.
	Yeah.
	There was another Democrat strategist who's now had two dead ones, isn't there?
	These days, you can't have concubines.
	Yes.
	But you can give them a sort of non-job in the kitchen.
	But you can give them some kind of job in the kitchen.
	Well, yes, yes.
	Well, I mean, if you're paying, hopefully they're the one.
	Yeah, but I mean, the kitchen is an interesting one because, you know, you probably only need, like, one chef, but you could justify having, like, six.
	So you could have, like, five concubines under the radar.
	And presumably this guy was, you know, when he wasn't getting Actually, I won't even say that in the aftershow.
	His tell-all book was that he was being buggered by Obama, or whatever it was.
	Or he was having to, you know, drop on his knees in front of Big Mike, or whatever it was.
	And that was going to be the tell-all, and they bumped him off.
	And when you said the Clinton thing, presumably this is just how the elites operate.
	Concubines in the kitchen.
	Possibly, but we do know that Clinton's chef was male, and we know that Bill is not gay, and Hillary's a lesbian.
	So there is a problem there.
	John, actually, do you mind getting up a photo of Trump's chef?
	Because Trump's chef, you can prove that the Trump administration wasn't doing that.
	Because Trump's chef, you would not believe it, right?
	I'll read a comment just as it's coming up.
	Mason Royce, I'm willing to believe that Obama was being a college lib soy boy saying what he thought his progressive girlfriend wanted to hear.
	Oh, there we go, there's Trump's chef.
	That's real.
	Yeah.
	Bloody hell.
	Yes.
	It's basically a Terry Crews character.
	Yeah.
	He's bigger than Terry Crews.
	Yeah.
	Well, yes.
	I don't, I don't, I don't think it's steak that's making him that size, but... Damn, does that, does that dude cook the steaks or does he just slap them or something?
	He just kills the cow himself.
	Anyway, John Malia, whoever won a war by considering the enemy civilians, you do not sacrifice your own troops for enemy civilians full stop.
	That's the thing, today they actually do.
	Putin is so restrained.
	Oh yeah, that's why the nuclear bomb thing about Putin is just bollocks, frankly, because he's not going to irradiate an area that he just wants to walk in and think is his ethnic entitlement.
	Yeah.
	It's just not gonna- so the boomer mindset of, of, oh it's basically Stalin.
	Prepare everything for Hitler, yeah.
	Go away.
	Uh, Justin B, the depth of water doesn't matter, you can drown in one inch of water if you fall- if you fall just right while unconscious.
	But yes, the whole report sounds suspicious.
	Well yes, also if the CIA are holding your head into the puddle, just like in Glass.
	You're about to tell the world that, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Lord Nerevar.
	Michelle has never beaten the allegations.
	Is he?
	She.
	Sorry.
	She.
	Justin B. When the ex-girlfriend is quoted as being about homosexuality, my thought was maybe it was just a threesome.
	But the author said that, in a particular way, was a psy-op.
	Um, well, just the timing's interesting, isn't it?
	Last two.
	Real Bigfoot.
	Oh, Karl will be happy.
	Obama drones striking Middle Eastern children for gay empowerment.
	Yeah.
	I suppose so, yes.
	Maybe they also found out about the letters.
	Have some democracy.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Uh, Matt Peat, I hear Chef Campbell's specialty was spi- Peat!
	Don't put that comment in!
	Next!
	In the Show Bob's AI and Superconductor section, D&E's Nut says, AI doesn't have to be smarter than people.
	Most people aren't smarter than the smartphone or voice assistant, it just needs to be better than people at certain tasks.
	And when it comes to things like art, music, an idiot savant can outperform a smart artist.
	And those things, like call centres and so on, have a limited understanding of what they actually need to know.
	The AI could do the same thing as well.
	Actually, there was a cool thing I saw on Twitter the other day.
	It was basically an AI robot arm carving a beautiful statue out of marble.
	So basically the unique cost of production of Fantastic stone works.
	Neoclassical architecture.
	So the reason we don't do that kind of stuff like cathedrals these days is because it would be prohibitively expensive to have people of the skill necessary to do the work.
	But now, we can start recreating all that wonderful gothic style.
	But that too, but also one, we don't really have a sentimental sense of beauty.
	No one will be willing to sacrifice that.
	When it's cheap, you might get it back.
	You'll get more of it, but you won't get most of it.
	And also, they'll still cut corners with prefabs.
	And directly, Orwell wrote about this on Notes on a Common Toad.
	They went with Brutalism and prefabs because it redirects your religious fervor to something else.
	Because if you don't have religious iconography in daily life, the Soviets understood this, and it'll just go straight to the government.
	Hmm.
	Yes.
	Uh, so, so Miss Rat says, uh, sounds like the Tamagotchi pets, uh, from when I was a kid, you had to, uh, had to play and pet and feed the pet.
	Otherwise it would die.
	You'd feed it in the morning before school, get home and find out it was dead from boredom.
	Pretty frustrating.
	Uh, so I ha I have up on my puppy.
	That's that's millennial women with social media validation.
	Right?
	Okay.
	I, I, I missed the Tamagotchi thing.
	I never went for that.
	Um, Robert.
	You're a Gen Xer aren't you?
	Well, I'm sort of in the middle.
	Gen X and Millennial, so an Xennial.
	Basically, depending on whose version of the generations you use, I fall into either category.
	I did Nintendogs.
	They were basically the same thing, just on the DS.
	They were good fun.
	Robert said, how is anyone expecting to get a 10 if they are nowhere near a 10?
	Yes, that's true.
	So I mean, I married a 9.5 because I am myself a 10.
	So, you know, but I take your point.
	Yeah, so I'll give you that one.
	And Mr. Diggle says, it's hard enough to find a real wife.
	Why would I want an AI one?
	A whole new way of getting sexually transmitted virus.
	Hold on.
	Why is your wife giving you STDs?
	Where's she getting them from?
	No, no, no, this is... Hang on, did I read that?
	It's hard enough having a real wife, why would I want an AI one?
	A whole new way.
	Yeah, actually, yeah.
	He'd be implying that his wife is giving him... Yeah.
	Who's your wife getting...?
	He may want to clarify on that.
	Maybe you can follow up to his comment.
	I hope he doesn't.
	Anyway, thanks very much for joining us as per usual.
	Cheers for that, Dan.
	Appreciate it.
	We will be back tomorrow at one o'clock.
	Until then, we've got loads of good content on the website.
	Take care and goodbye.

▲