The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1344

Jan. 30, 2026 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:28:58

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1344

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Join Us: Oil Under Five 00:01:52
	Hello everyone, welcome to the glorious podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	I'm your host, Telios, and I'm joined today by brother Dan and brother Nick.
	Hello.
	And this is podcast number 1344.
	It's Friday the 30th of January 2026.
	This has been the worst month for chat jack lovers and I am one of them.
	Lots of things have happened and today we are going to discuss how Spain is being destabilized.
	How Trump is a lion and not a faulty fox.
	Does it have to do with some foxy lasses or anything?
	I guess it's a Machiavelli thing.
	And why we should embrace our inner penguin.
	An outer.
	An outer.
	Right, so we have Oil Under number five.
	You should definitely check it out.
	It's running out $40.99.
	Check it out.
	It's one of the, I think, the best edition in the series so far.
	I'm sure that the next ones are going to be even greater.
	It has articles, it has an interview of Rupert Lowe.
	It has articles by Carl, AA, academic agent, Luca.
	I think, is there any from, yeah, Will Tanner, Morgoth, of course.
	So check it out.
	Oil under number five.
	Right, so we also have a gold tier Zoom today at 3 p.m.
	Join us.
	My mistake, carry on.
	Okay.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Join us at 3 p.m. UK time for our usual gold Zoom.
	And I want to say something.
	Check today for the daily channel because I ranted about Mamdani and I was in an unusually good mood when it comes to ranting.
Shrinking Demographics Impact 00:15:16
	Right, let's talk about Spain.
	Spain is an interesting case.
	And recently we have had several bad news coming from that country.
	There were train disasters and there is also a very interesting choice by the government where it says that it wants to legalize at least half a million undocumented migrants in the country.
	And several Spaniards are saying that it's even more.
	It's close to 850,000, could be about a million, that the government is downplaying their numbers.
	So we are going to talk about that and we are going to talk about Spain's adventures with multiculturalism, the way that their economy is impacted by mass migration and the narratives that are given as to whether mass migration is a net drain or net gain for the country.
	But one thing to say is that we are moving slowly past the narrative where mass migration is something that is treated as a panacea, as a cure for all diseases.
	And we have had the rise of several parties in Europe, but also in the West at large, who have been critical of mass migration.
	Now we hear some criticism of mass migration from the WEF, which I didn't expect, but it's interesting.
	Let us play this from Larry Fink of BlackRock, now saying that countries that avoided mass migration will be better positioned in the future for AI development.
	And AI is going to be one of the major industries of the future.
	And he says this.
	You know, we always used to think shrinking population is a cause for negative growth.
	But in my conversations with the leadership of these large developed countries that have xenophobic immigration policies, they don't allow anybody to come in.
	Shrinking unemployment, excuse me, shrinking demographics.
	These countries will rapidly develop robotics and AI and technology.
	And if the promise, I didn't say it's going to happen, but if the promise of all that transforms productivity, which most of us think it will, we'll be able to elevate the standard of living of countries and the standard of living of individuals, even with shrinking populations.
	And so the paradigm of negative population growth is going to be changing.
	And the social problems that one will have in substituting humans for machines is going to be far easier in those countries that have declining populations.
	So when I'm old, I would rather have a robot look after me than a Bamalian.
	Like proper old.
	I mean, robots are, generally speaking, reliable.
	Especially if you'd have a human being.
	I'd rather have.
	I'm not having a robot than a human-based motion.
	Especially if you put your face on the robot and it's cute.
	Yeah, unless it suddenly turns haywire and kills you, it probably won't hate you or resent you as much.
	Yes.
	Or do you quite neutral?
	I think the robot is probably less likely to kill you, I'd imagine, all in all.
	Yeah, certainly than beat you randomly.
	Yes.
	Yeah, this was shocking because they've been telling us for so long.
	Oh, I have loads of immigrants.
	You've got to have loads of immigrants.
	Then they go, guess what?
	Actually, the people who didn't let anyone, they're going to do better.
	SARS.
	So annoying.
	But you said that you had a very insightful tweet that was about investment.
	It was about predicting the market.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, you can't make it at high levels of finance if you're not living in the future.
	Because if you're not living in the future, you're somebody else's exit liquidity.
	This is why I'm kind of cautioning people on the gold and silver stuff at the moment.
	Just be careful, you're not somebody else's exit liquidity.
	So what you have to do at Larry Fink's level is be thinking, okay, what does the world look like in 18 months, two years, five years down the line?
	And then start positioning for that.
	Otherwise, you just don't make any money.
	And clearly what he's doing is like, yeah, okay, the world is going to go right-wing.
	Remigration is a thing.
	Scrap all that DEI stuff.
	I know I won a load of pension mandates five years ago using the DEI nonsense, but scrap that.
	We've now got to win mandates for pension funds in xenophobic countries, and that's going to be all of Europe.
	Is he reacting or suggesting, though?
	Because it's almost like these people suggesting, go, here's what we should do.
	The question for me, you know, you're sort of saying like he's reacting like this where it will probably go.
	Probably people like him are forming what happens.
	Well, the question to me, though, is why they let all this happen.
	Why did they say infinity migration?
	Then he gone, whoops, got that wrong.
	Changed our mind.
	Well, because that worked at the time.
	He won the mandates at the time by doing that.
	He's completely mercenary.
	Right.
	So right now we listen to this paradigm shift on the WEF, which Nick pointed out before.
	It was the exact opposite narrative coming from the WEF.
	And we see now the Spanish government trying to move towards the other direction.
	And obviously, you can't expect any government to change direction just because Larry Fink said so.
	But I want us to say that there are arguments suggesting that this is a mistake by the Spanish government.
	And it sort of neutralizes all the economic arguments that are being given for mass migration as being an economic net positive, which are given by the people who are promoting these policies.
	And we are going to talk about them in a bit.
	So let's talk about this article written by Kieran Kelly on the Telegraph.
	It was released three days ago.
	It says, Spain gives half a million migrants legal status to defeat the far right.
	Applicants will be allowed to work in any sector to help curb institutional racism that only fuels exploitation and racist hatred.
	Right.
	So it says Spain has started to legalize half a million undocumented migrants and give them the immediate right to work and a move to fight the far right.
	Madrid officially began the process on Tuesday after a last-minute deal between the ruling Socialist Party and the left-wing Podemos party, which has propped up Pedro Sanchez's minority government since elections in 2023.
	So what's happening here is that they are saying that they have to legalize undocumented migrants.
	And one of the things that are interesting here is to talk about the arguments that are given about mass migration being a net positive and how they don't reflect the reality on the ground as it is felt by native people.
	In this case, by native Spaniards.
	So the argument goes like this.
	There are many people who accept that illegal migration is a net drain.
	Even people who are promoting migration.
	Why?
	Because they're saying that precious time is lost because you have lots of people who can't work because it's illegal for them to work.
	And they have to be given benefits.
	So this causes economic strain, but also integrationist strain.
	But they're saying this changes if you make illegal migration into legal migration because that's when they can work, they can integrate easier and they don't have to be reliant upon the state.
	So one thing to notice is that the way that a socialist government is pushing this is bound to fail.
	And it's bound to fail for several reasons.
	We are going to talk about them.
	But they are, in a nutshell, what's going on is the following.
	Socialists are egalitarians.
	They want to level everyone down.
	They want to achieve a kind of equality.
	They market that equality as raising the weaker.
	But at the end of the day, what they're doing is they're pushing everyone down into a flat line.
	They try to level everything down.
	And what is happening here is that they want to introduce also minimum wage laws.
	And as I have here, they do this at the moment.
	They're proposing a 3.1% minimum wage rise to Spain.
	So when they're pushing minimum wage laws, what happens is that they are causing an artificial strain on the economy.
	Why?
	Because lots of the undocumented, who will become documented migrants who are unskilled, won't be able to get jobs because the employer is going to say that they're going to lack the skills that are going to justify the new higher minimum wage.
	So what's going to happen is that you are pushing, again, a significant number of them back into the territory where they are dependent and there are problems with integration.
	So in a socialist paradigm where they try to do this, they actually make things worse.
	Let's look at it.
	And there is extra question here as to why they are doing it because there are economic arguments.
	They are doing it in order to create more jobs and there have been arguments for this.
	But there is also the other question as to why are they losing in the polls?
	And they're losing in the polls for several reasons.
	So they are losing in the polls right now because they had the recent train disasters, which suggest that the government is very much corrupt.
	We did a segment on this one that was released about a day ago called the Spanish Train Disasters.
	Check it out.
	It shows how unbelievably corrupt and inefficient the state is.
	And also, the question is that the kind of economic growth that they are attributing to the economic miracle of Spain and also OCD, OECD is attributing to mass migration here isn't exactly felt by the average Spaniard.
	Let me tell talk to you here about the OECD's claim.
	They say dynamic labor market and declining unemployment.
	And this is the case.
	It does seem to be the case that there is growth in Spain.
	It's about 3%, which is higher than the average in the EU.
	It's definitely higher than in the UK, which is projected to be about 1.1%.
	If I'm not misunderstanding that.
	Well, I was just looking something up while you're talking about that because you showed the average wage that Spain is proposing.
	And I just double-checked what is the average wage in Bomalia.
	And in northern Bomalia, it is around half that.
	And in most of southern Bomalia, that's about five times the average wage.
	So that's a pretty strong pull factor.
	And that's the question because if people are leveled down to a particular line, let's say, for lots of native Spaniards, this may be a huge disincentive to raise a family.
	You probably don't have kids, will you?
	Yes.
	And at the moment, the current Spanish birth rate is about 1.2%.
	So it's fairly naked population replacement.
	And it is also that in that level, lots of people who aren't from Spain and come from, let's say, the third world.
	And obviously, we have to talk about the various kinds of groups that make up the migrant population of Spain because not all groups are equally productive or criminal.
	Well, I bet they're pretty much all less productive than the Spanish are.
	Unless they're from more northern Europe.
	The issue is that for many of them, this kind of flat line that socialist egalitarians are trying to push everyone is something that looks like just its experience like hitting a gold mine.
	So OECD here says the positive labor performance of recent years is projected to continue throughout the forecast period.
	The expected employment gains are mainly attributable to continued migration inflows, which are considerably expanding the labor force and boosting the pace of job creation.
	And the unemployment rate is projected to maintain its downward trend.
	It's about 10.4 in 2025 and is falling below in 10% in 2026.
	Now, what I saw is that, let's say they set a statistic that about 450,000 new jobs are 410,000 out of 450,000 new jobs go to migrants.
	So it looks like the migrant population is profiting way more than the Spanish population from these migration flows.
	But also, sorry.
	I was going to say they're just a bit behind, aren't they?
	You know, you used to go like to Europe on hold, they'd always seem a bit behind.
	The coke cans looked older and stuff.
	They're just behind the trend because Larry thinks analysis is over.
	Yes.
	And even Kierstama has said it doesn't work financially anymore.
	Just feels like they're still on the old programme.
	I think the thing I remember from Teen Spanish holidays is they were all getting excited about something that had left the charts like a month ago or something.
	I thought music was always behind.
	Yes.
	They're behind on this trend.
	I think that there is a tremendous leftist streak in Spanish culture.
	Yeah, I've noticed that.
	It's a problem.
	So what is the case here?
	And what I want to mention, because these are historical conversations for another time, is that despite the strong GDP growth and the falling of unemployment rates, there is a significant downward trend of the ruling party in the polls.
	They're losing popularity.
	One of the reasons has to do with several scandals and corruption that they are perceived.
	To be involved in, and the other has to do with the same kinds of problems that we are talking about when it comes to economy, like housing crises, and they say that there's a severe shortage of affordable housing in major cities like Madrid and Barcelona, and it's one of the primary sources of primary of frustration of the young voters.
	Then there is stagnant productivity.
	While people are working, productivity GDP per capita again per capita strikes back, has barely improved since 2019, keeping real wages lower than many hoped for, given the inflation seen in the last years.
	And there's also tax pressure.
	Increased tax pressure to manage high public debt has alienated middle-class voters and it looks like the panacea for socialists is always, raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes.
	And one thing to say about about leftists right now is that they have gone global.
	They don't operate just on the old domestic proletariat versus capitalist, Marxist framework.
Tax Pressure Globalizes 00:03:31
	They are.
	They have gone global and international.
	So when they're talking about taxing the rich to give to the poor, they are talking about taxing the globally rich to give to the globally poor, and by that they are.
	According to their calculations, almost every native Spaniard counts as globally rich, because there is a fundamental hatred of Western civilization in the left, and that's one of the reasons why they are trying to say that the, the west Westerners, have to pay for the entire world, and they're promoting the worst kind of combination welfarism and relatively relaxed, open borders, which doesn't work.
	Here we have accusations of the Catholic clergy as being supportive of it.
	They are saying that the Catholic clergy worldwide are almost universally in favor of unrestricted illegal migration at the expense of western nations.
	And here they are talking about Catholic bishops being in favor of the royal decree to legalize 500 000 undocumented migrants in Spain.
	This is definitely something to check out.
	Here we have Santiago Bascal he's the leader of the third largest party, the VOX Party, who is talking about this as being this decline.
	He says, when a country like Spain has received three million immigrants in the last five years, but the public services, the hospitals, the housing, the number of doctors and the police remain the same, there is widespread collapse.
	And here let's let's, Let's end with this one.
	So to talk to the Spaniards, here we're going to talk about Denmark.
	There was an economist article here, why have Danes turned against immigration?
	And the Danes are governed by social democrats.
	It's important to bear this in mind.
	And they have said here that the average net contribution to public finances differs according to population groups.
	And it's one thing to talk about migration and foreigners.
	It's quite another to break the population into groups and talk about these groups' culture, which is the exact opposite of what abstract universalist humanitarians who aren't actually humanitarians want to say.
	And this is what they consider to be far right, talking about the harsh realities of culture and how culture affects people and how people being affected from their culture manifests occasionally in things like contributing to a particular country, but also like in crime, how they are represented in crime.
	And here they find a pattern that we see in several countries across Europe of migrants from the MENAP countries especially, which is Middle East and North Africa, who are a net drain.
	So it looks like at the moment, maybe the economic argument for mass migration shows a link between mass migration and the economy of Spain.
	But bear in mind that this is also not helping the average Spaniards the way they see their country long term.
Behaving Like a Lion 00:15:04
	All right, so Johnny Pat 18 No one else came to work today because of snow, so I guess I'm getting paid to watch TV.
	I'm a Euromaxing right.
	If you're cool, you're Euromaxing.
	Sigil Stone 17, no one expects the Spanish situation.
	Can I grab course?
	Heck.
	Thank you.
	So the box is not working.
	I click with this thing, do I?
	And then it works.
	Right, good.
	Let's do that then.
	Okay, so there is a disturbance on the Jedi Council.
	There are those who feel that Trump is a bit erratic and chaotic.
	And there's a minority of us who are, yes, but that's the point.
	So broadly, I'd say the camps are, you know, AA is a big proponent of this.
	Morgoth, I think yourself and Harry, you see Trump as very chaotic.
	Mark did a stream on this last night.
	And then there's a minority of us, you know, myself, maybe Carl, maybe Alan McIntyre, who say, no, no, he's not a fox.
	He's a lion.
	He's not a faulty fox.
	He's not behaving right.
	Sorry, I want to see how the framing goes.
	So we go from erratic to fox because you started by saying that AA, Morgoth, Harry and myself think that Trump is erratic and now you're framing us as trying to...
	I think it comes across to me like you're describing him as a faulty fox.
	Why isn't he being more cunning?
	Why isn't he being more...
	What's a lion and what's a fox?
	What?
	Well, let's get into that then, shall we?
	So it started originally with some Machiavellian chap.
	And he kind of alluded to this, but he didn't really sort of flesh out the theory.
	And then this Frodo Pareto chap comes along and he writes a book, Mind and Society.
	And he basically describes two kinds of elites.
	He says there were foxes, and these people use sort of cunning, persuasion, negotiation, narrative, procedure, complexity, that kind of stuff.
	And lions, they're all about enforcement, hierarchy, boundaries, assertion of order.
	So the simple way to think about this is foxes are the ones who used to be in charge basically for the majority of human history.
	And it's foxes that really prospered in the later eras.
	Almost every world leader that you can think of today, almost all of them are foxes.
	Yeah, like Blair is your classic fox.
	Yes.
	But your lion is like one of those African generals with loads of medals.
	Yes.
	We like that.
	Anyone with medals of a snapshot uniform, you could probably put a lion.
	Yes.
	So fox government works when there's already order and it's credible, but it's largely untested.
	Because Fox works within this sort of framework.
	And by the way, I've got a lovely preset background slide thing that I found on Google Slides.
	So I've made a lovely presentation.
	So foxes will dominate when trust is high and volatility is low and rules broadly get obeyed and the legitimacy has been inherited but not really tested.
	And I've slapped in some quotes.
	I've got a bunch of quotes from Pareto here.
	Most of them are slightly paraphrased because otherwise I'd have to quote a whole bloody passage, but they are legitimate for what he's actually trying to say in those sort of broader passages.
	So basically foxes do well when everybody believes in the system and everybody just kind of expects the rules to be enforced.
	They all kind of go along with it.
	So the sort of hidden dependencies that fox rely on, well, actually, I just kind of overexplained the last slide, but that's basically going on.
	Where does he say this?
	So the governing class is complete, when the governing class is chiefly composed of foxes, it is rich in cunning, but poor in force.
	But yes, when foxes try to use force, it looks really bad.
	It looks bad.
	Like Starmer with Southport, suddenly he was trying to use force.
	He started slamming people in prison, Lucy Connolly, and it was just poorly done.
	Everyone ended up hating him.
	Yes, that is a really good example of foxes trying to use force.
	They just do it badly.
	COVID would be another era, and Justin Trudeau and all that kind of stuff.
	Whenever they try and use force, it just looks cack-handed and clumsy.
	I believe that every leader needs to be cunning.
	And I think it's funny that you say he's a Machiavellian.
	Yeah, he was in some respects.
	But I think in Machiavelli, it's nice because he's linking force with cunning in several respects.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, Machiavelli.
	I mean, I think from what I would call him Machiavelli.
	He's going to be cunning.
	Because he said one thing that stuck is when you want to do something that is unpopular, get someone else to do it.
	That's a good idea.
	And he gave the example, I think, of Cesare Borghi, I think, who had to do something to a particular city-state in Italy.
	And he put someone else, and that person was really unpopular.
	He did the job.
	He became unpopular.
	And then he came and he severed his head and became popular.
	Trump should remember that one, because that is a good tactic.
	Yeah, I think Machiavelli, I mean, he had these stories about how leaders should be, I think he used bears in his example as well, but you should incorporate elements of both.
	But what Pareto is basically saying, there are two different kinds of elite.
	And basically, one gives rise, a certain set of conditions give rise where one is more likely to step in than the other.
	So why do lions emerge?
	Well, lions emerge when persuasion stops working and order must be reasserted.
	So if legitimacy has been eroded and No longer people believe in it when enforcement has become selective or symbolic.
	I mean, you'll recognize all of this in modern society.
	When boundaries have dissolved, I mean, quite literally, that is exactly what has happened in our modern society.
	I mean, boundaries of all sorts, everything from borders to every other kind of boundary is dissolved.
	And the narratives are just not working anymore.
	Nobody believes them.
	I think they're a load of rubbish.
	And so basically, what Pareto was saying is that the lion is a resurgent.
	He's a corrective phase.
	So a lion can build order, but he can't, but he's not good at arbitraging the differences in the power structures.
	So let's put it this way: is the lion the force that restores order in a situation of disorder?
	Well, they build it in the fox.
	The fox is administrating peace, peaceful times.
	So foxes are natural administrators.
	Yeah, and when it starts to break down, suddenly that's when your lion has to come in, especially legitimacy.
	I mean, everyone talks about legitimacy crisis.
	No one believes that police are fair.
	No one believes that prisons are fair, etc.
	So the whole, that's when you start to need a lion.
	But it's quite hard for a lion to get in in a world of foxes.
	That's another.
	Yes.
	Well, I mean, quite.
	Yes.
	I mean, the whole system we have at the moment is just entirely a fox system.
	But because it's eroded everything, because it is relying on an inherited order structure, it's basically arbitraged everything away to the point where it's just a joke at this point, and they can't generate their own order because they don't know how to do that.
	It's just not in their nature.
	So, and they look, and these, and these different kinds, they look bad to the other one.
	So, I think that criticizing lions for not behaving like a fox is a category error.
	If you've got a lion and you're demanding that he be more persuasive, well, no, that doesn't work because legitimacy is gone.
	And you can't expect elegance from them because, again, that's a fox characteristic.
	And I think what we've got at the moment is a situation where we're starting to get lion leaders re-emerge.
	And I'll go from examples in a minute of people who I think are the sort of lion leaders.
	I mean, Bacali in El Salvador, he's a good example of a lion.
	Yeah.
	You know, he was, we were told about El Salvador.
	We had all those experts.
	I did a segment on it once.
	We had all these experts who were saying, oh, the crime situation in El Salvador, it's impossible to solve.
	And they kept on studying it and doing these commissions and doing inquiries and just kept on coming to the conclusion, yeah, it's impossible.
	It's too complicated.
	Yeah, because they're trying to use fox methods and it needed a lion, much like our small boat situation.
	And the craving for a lion is so great that when you just see a video of prisoners chained up in El Salvador, normally you'd be like, that doesn't mean anything to me, but now you're like, I want that.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Exactly.
	A lion.
	A lion would solve the small boat thing in an afternoon.
	He'd eat them all.
	Yeah.
	But the foxes, they just cannot.
	Like with the ECHR.
	Oh, yeah.
	The lion doesn't care about anything.
	He's like, okay, this rule and that rule.
	And then we've got to do the piss off you little fox.
	Just to pop them, pop them.
	The mistake is to suppose that methods which succeed under certain conditions will succeed under all.
	So basically, he's saying, you know, there is a time and a place for both of these.
	And actually, if you've built a nice lot of order, but it's a bit blunt, well, maybe you do want a fox to come along and arbitrage it a bit and realign it and do this, that, and the other thing.
	And it's just a bit smoother and nicer.
	But if you leave foxes in for too long.
	You know, another good example of that is Churchill probably after the war.
	No one wanted him because he was a lion.
	And they're like, hang on, no, we want a fox now.
	The war's done.
	We don't want to be looking at that lion anymore.
	He reminds us of all the nasty lion stuff that went on.
	Wasn't he re-elected?
	After the war?
	No, he was kicked out very, very quickly after the war.
	Didn't he get re-elected afterwards?
	Oh, yeah, he came back for a little bit.
	Yeah.
	And then they got rid of him again.
	But that was later.
	Hang on, I need to.
	Yeah, not instantly, but they got rid of it in the middle.
	It was PMA.
	Yes.
	Is what I meant.
	Yes.
	Let's have a look at the other one.
	I have several things to say about the previous slide, but I don't know if you want me to say it.
	No, I don't know how to go backwards on this thing.
	Can you remember what they were?
	Yeah, by the category error.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Right.
	So there are two things to say.
	Three things to say here.
	Number one, you say criticizing a lion.
	for not behaving like a fox is a category error.
	Well, number one, you could say criticizing a fox for not behaving like a lion is a category.
	No, I'm saying it's the time to get rid of the foxes.
	Let's get the lions in.
	Okay, also, the other bit is that you could have someone who is a lion in that framework, whatever exactly that means, but you don't want them to act like a lion.
	So for instance, let's say I'm an anti-communist.
	You can have people in the communist camps, in the communist camp, who have, let's say, a tremendous amount of strength of will.
	But you don't want them to be able to enforce that on the corrections.
	Can you remember that and bring that up in a couple of slides' time?
	Because there was the perfect bit that relates to that.
	So foxes look corrupt to lions.
	Lions look at foxes and they see selective enforcement and hidden veto players and moral language, masking power, and process to avoid action.
	And they think, yeah, these guys are corrupt.
	Whereas a fox looks at a lion and they say, well, look, they're breaking procedures and they're needlessly escalating things in public.
	They're ignoring the narrative finesse.
	Yeah, but it could be due to corruption.
	I love how all sorts of cases.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	This is my point.
	As soon as you start looking.
	You were building towards it.
	Yeah, you're trying to frame it in order to make Trump the lion.
	Well, no, I'm just saying.
	I'm just giving the facts.
	I'm just giving the facts.
	Exactly right.
	And the lion damages institutions that the foxes rely on.
	And so to the fox, the lion looks stupid and blunt, needlessly escalating in public, needlessly tearing up cooperation.
	And basically each judged the others by standards that have ceased to be appropriate.
	That's perhaps the better, Churchill and Laji Cinchi tried to ruin my other one.
	Halifax trying to negotiate Chamberlain, but Churchill going, no, no, you can't.
	You can't negotiate with this guy.
	Because he was lying and they were fox.
	Yes, exactly.
	Yes.
	So what my argument is, is that Trump is an early stage lion.
	He's not a failed fox, as a lot of people are arguing.
	He's not a fox in disguise.
	He's an early stage lion.
	And what he's actually doing is he's publicly escalating this stuff.
	And by the way, I don't think he's doing any of this consciously.
	I don't think he's sat there and he's read Machiavelli and he's read Plato and he's like Machiavelli.
	I don't think any of that is happening.
	This is a character type and he's just running an autopilot.
	But nevertheless, it is exactly what Pareto was predicting.
	Yeah, but there's the most...
	Okay, personally, I don't see why we need to bring the fox and the lion in, but let's do it for the purpose of the discussion.
	Because it's illustrative to my point.
	No, because I don't see what it adds to your point.
	Well, because you are missing the most important thing, that when you have a lion, lions represent, let's say, force or the will to use force to a much larger degree than the fox wants to use force.
	The question is, right, you have force.
	What do you want to do with it?
	Well, whatever your agenda is.
	I mean, you can have left-wing lions and right-wing lions.
	Yeah, but that's the important thing there.
	What is he doing with the exercise of the power he has, to whatever extent he has?
	What he is doing, I'll have a slide for that, is he is publicly escalating about, in fact, I'll go on to the next one because I think early stage line is right because I knew you had Cage Lion and I thought it really is a lion cub because he's an early lion, but he's not doing all the full lion things, so early stage is perfect.
	Well, he's got, yes, he's got serious constraints on him.
	Yeah, but just to say to your point, it's not Le Dan's, the political theory is there, right?
	So it must be able to apply to any leader potentially.
	So it's not really Le Dan's bringing it in.
	It's just it's there, isn't it?
	Well, especially.
	No, but I want to say that it, to me, doesn't matter where someone feels that they have wasted potential.
	I guess the reason I'm using this...
	Life is incredibly wasteful in that respect.
	Yes, I guess the reason I'm using this framework is because one of the key people on your side of things is not just you and Harry.
	It's you, Harry.
	I mean, AA uses the fox lion distinction stuff a lot.
	So therefore he's useful to this.
	But you know, new elites arise by, you know, not by persuasion, but by proving where Trout power really lies.
	That's the job of an early lion, is to prove where power really lies.
	And I want to give you a couple of case studies on this.
Critiquing Trump's Strategic Ambiguity 00:14:54
	So the tariff stuff, because the criticism will be, well, Trump is just a fake lion.
	He's just a fox disguised as a lion.
	And he does all of this stuff and then he backs off.
	And I think they've got a term for it.
	What is it?
	Taco?
	Trump always chickens out.
	Yeah, tacko.
	Yes.
	What I'm saying is the tariffs were not about optimal trade policy.
	They were forcing the global system to reveal who subsidized who.
	Okay.
	yes i have there is an issue here which i mean well you could disagree with who's doing the subsidizing I'm saying this is what the lion behavior is trying to expose.
	Maybe, maybe.
	There's another bit here that I think is important: it seems to be the case in commentary that there are some people who are buying into a framework where they can't criticize Trump because everything is treated as a tactic.
	And that's how the people who are promoting the taco narrative, they're saying in the beginning, Trump makes a wide hacks have this tactic.
	Everyone starts going, the MAGA info space starts going, ooh, that's great.
	That's a great plan.
	And then when he backs down from the initial demand, then it's the art of the deal.
	It's like, yeah, but what would he have to do for you to criticize him?
	Well, I have criticized him plenty.
	So he would just have to do the things I've already criticized.
	I'm not saying you're brain dead.
	When you did criticize him, why did you criticize him?
	Because he hasn't gone far enough.
	Okay.
	Yeah, not building the wall.
	I criticized him when he seemed to criticize the UK military.
	Lots of things he's done.
	Yes.
	Not building the wall, not going strong enough on immigration.
	Right, okay.
	Then why not go?
	Well, he's a lion there.
	So when he said that the NATO sold, that the Allies played it safe in Afghanistan, why not just say, well, it's okay, he's a lion.
	I also criticize him for this, but why not just go?
	Bad lion.
	Again, become the lion and do bad things.
	We come back to the point there that having power is one thing.
	Asking yourself how to exercise it and whether you exercise it for good or bad.
	But it's a style, isn't it?
	So you can do good or bad lion and good or bad fox, but it's the style.
	So the way Trump does good things is lion.
	It's like, hey, we're suddenly invading Greenland or whatever it is, and we're taking Maduro.
	That's kind of lion.
	But the way he does bad things is lion.
	This is not about good or bad.
	It's about the character of the good or the bad thing.
	If Trump truly wasn't erratic, would he have done the Madero bag on the head in the helicopter thing?
	Yeah, exactly.
	I don't think so.
	No, there would have been a bloody treaty or something.
	Probably he wouldn't either bomb the Narco.
	Nor would he say that Somalia's not even a country.
	It's just people walking around killing each other.
	Well, I do.
	I'll finish the examples and it will highlight some of the stuff that you're talking about.
	So the wall is basically the same pattern again.
	It's less about the lump of concrete itself.
	It's more what he was doing was just completely exposing the asymmetries that had built up in the immigration system and proving where power lies.
	And that's kind of a key thing.
	With an early stage lion, it's not so much about because there were different stages to your lion.
	It's not that he comes in and in one term, he turns it in America into a based mega state of infinite baseness.
	No, the job of an early lion is to come along and say, look, this is a massively fox-built structure.
	Let's expose who actually has power, who actually does things.
	And the border stuff was great for this because it kind of exposed, well, actually, it comes down to actually, it's just a lot of media narrative and Ninth Circuit judges who block everything if you try and do anything.
	But that wasn't obvious until he came along and flushed all this stuff out.
	It's kind of a good image.
	He's like a lion lashing out, surrounded by loads of foxes, nipping at his tails and he's like, ah, he can't deal with them all because he's in a fox world.
	Yes.
	But one or two of the foxes, they're the big bull foxes.
	And he's not fully grown either.
	Yes.
	And he wants to know who the big bull fox is.
	What's going on here?
	A couple more case studies.
	He's absolute genius.
	I mean, the thing that I think he should be put on Mount Rushmore for was exposing the media.
	Fake news.
	Yes.
	Now, if you're young, it's difficult to remember.
	But for those of you who can remember, say, George Bush or any right-winger prior to Trump, they all did the sort of massive, you know, deference rituals to the media.
	All of that has just ended now.
	And that was brilliant.
	He exposed them.
	He goes and he names them.
	He refuses the whole narrative discipline stuff.
	He treats them as an adversary.
	You know, that just wasn't done before Trump because he just exposed what is the actual power here.
	And it turns out not a lot.
	You can just bypass them.
	I don't want to confuse things, but of course he could make an argument.
	Bush and the whole chain era was quite lionish.
	They just went, you've attacked us.
	We're going to take out the whole Middle East.
	You know, get those, go get those.
	Well, I mean, that's another narrative running through this is the further back in time you go, the easier it is to be a lion, certainly.
	So, and Greenland, which is kind of directly dressing, you know, yours and Harry's sort of objection with this.
	You know, it's, you know, he wanted Greenland.
	He wanted to buy it.
	And he did rule out doing it by force.
	But all the same, he kind of did it in a way where it was a little bit, well, he's actually going to invade them.
	There was a little bit of ambiguity around there.
	You know, it's a lovely bit of early lion chaos to see what comes up.
	So he went out and he made all these maximally public claims.
	He was a bit ambiguous about how he's going to get it done.
	He forced his allies to react quite openly to this.
	And you actually saw how are they going to respond.
	Well, they responded by sending 13 troops to Greenland to defend it from the 101st airborne.
	Good luck with that.
	He accepted the short-term panic.
	Now, a fox would have handled all of this quietly.
	and this is the sort of main criticism of Trump on Greenland, is, oh, he got a deal that he probably could have negotiated in three years in the background without...
	Trump is a discombobulator.
	You know, he has that weapon, the discombobulator.
	He's actually, that's what he does.
	Yes.
	Right.
	So.
	But let me quickly finish the report and then come back to you.
	But what he exposed, I mean, it's everything at the bottom there, is that Greenland is indefensible without the US, that Danish sovereignty is paper sovereignty, that NATO without the US is just symbolic, and that European defense autonomy is just non-existent.
	Okay.
	May I say what I think Harry and I were saying, right?
	Okay.
	So you're saying a fox would have handled this quietly.
	Probably a fox would understand that there were very few things to say there.
	Why?
	Because what happened was that there was already an agreement in 1951 about military presence of the US in Greenland.
	This is all fox thinking.
	This is just, oh, we're going to go to the middle of the moment.
	It already exists.
	Yeah, but that's the point.
	That's when, in some cases, you may need to use some tranquilizer with some lions.
	No, because, I mean, it's all built on fiction.
	Danish sovereignty is a fiction.
	Can I give...
	Oh, sorry.
	I don't want to.
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	Excuse me.
	I don't think that the things you are saying that he exposed were things that were much doubted.
	So I don't think he...
	They were, because in a Fox system, you get all of these...
	None of these assumptions were ever tested.
	And it's just this network.
	I don't think that anyone doubted that the US was the biggest party in NATO before this.
	But there was these layers of obfuscation.
	People weren't naming it.
	Some forced everyone to name it and therefore say, well, hang on, given that we back all this, you need to do what we say.
	And he got rid of the illusion that they had any control, is what you're saying.
	Yes.
	He's stripping away all of the illusions and it forced it to surface.
	I mean, who was it?
	I mean, one of the things that surfaced is who was it that actually came to Trump in the end?
	It was Mark Root, the head of NATO.
	It wasn't the Danish prime minister.
	It wasn't the head of the EU.
	For example, that's one of the things that it flushes out.
	If you don't stir this stuff up, if you don't test those assumptions, it forced all of the European leaders to sit there for three weeks and think, well, what does our defense without the US actually look like?
	And one thing here, I think he said that they didn't discuss about Greenland.
	That's the interesting part.
	Rute said that Greenland wasn't discussed with Trump.
	Interesting.
	Right.
	Which sort of suggests that's actually reinforcing your point.
	Okay.
	That it wasn't about Greenland.
	By the way, there's a real-time breaking news from Don Lehman.
	Yeah, that Don Lemon has been arrested, which totally proves Dan's point.
	That's pure lion.
	They've actually arrested Don Lemon.
	There we go.
	Pure lion.
	More and more lion behavior is surfacing.
	But what I'm saying is, unless you shake this, unless the early stage lion shakes this stuff up and see where power actually sits, there's nothing for a later lion to then attack because otherwise the foxes will just scatter into their web of fox bullshit.
	So basically what I'm saying is there's one pattern, which is across all of these domains, what Trump is doing is the same diagnostic move, which is to force the system to reveal who actually enforces the outcomes.
	That's the important bit.
	And yes, it looks like chaos short term because those hidden dependencies are forced open.
	The procedural ambiguities collapse into, well, who actually does stand up in the end?
	Who actually does push back?
	Who is really enforcing the miasma on the border?
	Oh, look, it's the ninth search of judges.
	How powerful really is the media?
	Oh, actually, they're not.
	You could just ignore them.
	Who really is going to put their foot down when it comes to realignment of NATO and the defense structures?
	And all of these things, everything is exposed.
	So a fox wants to minimize disturbance.
	The lion isn't trying to necessarily maximize disturbance.
	They're trying to maximize information.
	Trump isn't someone who says that you can ignore the media.
	You can ignore some mainstream media.
	But also, he doesn't ignore it because he's very media-minded.
	But he hates the media.
	He creates chaos like a lion.
	They try and follow him and go, oh, what's he just done?
	He smashed everything up.
	First of all, he doesn't have classic lion behavior.
	He has intentionally created.
	I think he's a bit more strategic thinking than you make him.
	He isn't that moving on a day-to-day basis.
	I really don't think that he didn't plan how he was going to create and utilize what is called the MAGA info space.
	I think that was entirely intentional.
	Well, I'll just rattle through the last last line.
	And also, trashing mainstream media is one of the ways in which he's galvanizing his base.
	Right.
	Yes, I'd accept that.
	So, you know, I think, you know, perhaps yourself and Harry and AA and Morgoth and so on would say that, you know, a real lion follows through regardless of trust, regardless of cost.
	Whereas Trump, he escalates and then he stops, leading to this whole taco thing.
	You know, my view is that Trump is basically pushing as far as the system will allow without breaking it.
	But, you know, all of the structures that the US have do impose a kind of hard constraint on this, unless you're willing to really break it.
	Unless you're willing to do that.
	Was that federal?
	Wasn't that Morgothvy?
	Well, actually, no, to be fair, Morgoth did hint at the constrained lion thing.
	But I heard him say that he's a fake lion, but then he did hint at the other thing as well, which I quite like.
	So I thought, yeah, steal that.
	That's good.
	But, you know, you can't criticise Stump for not going full Stalin and just going around and machine-gunning judges in the street.
	Yes, obviously, it would be awesome.
	But you can't really do that without, at that point, you're not correcting the system.
	You're just destroying it.
	And then you'd have to build something else entirely on the other side of it.
	And I pushed AA on this, for example, and I said, well, who are our lions then?
	And his answer was Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Frederick II, Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin.
	Now, I think that is setting the bar just a little bit high because it would be tricky.
	He's not in that category.
	Especially the older category, because you just can't, society has changed so much.
	You can't be a lion like Genghis Khan anymore.
	And then we pushed back and said, okay, what about post-war lions?
	We're getting sort of Mal Castro, Idiar Min, Pol Pot, Pinochet.
	I mean, okay, fine.
	But you are setting the bar at the point where he would have to completely destroy the West.
	Maybe he's a Western lion because it's very hard to get a lion in the West.
	Those are Western examples.
	I think Gaddafi is a surprising example, given that AA knows he was a kind of fake Patsy villain.
	He has said that, hasn't he?
	Yes.
	Yeah, well, we did it on a stream with him about hyperline normalization.
	I don't see how he's a weak lion.
	What happened to all these lions?
	Were they destroyed by foxes?
	I suppose, yeah, in many cases they were, weren't they?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So maybe, you know, going full lion, doing, you know, never go completely unconstrained.
	And just to really irritate the elite theorists, I've gone and lined up the big boys.
	I've got Pareto, Moscow, and Burnham.
	Again, on some of these, there's a little bit of paraphrasing because I'm condensing passages into sentences.
	But Pareto himself says that force does not operate in a vacuum.
	It's effective only in relation to the sentiments and beliefs of the prevailing society.
	Moscow says the manner in which political power is exercised depends on the conditions of the social environment.
	Different social environments give rise to different political organizations.
	Burnham says it is a persistent political myth that foundation of power is just physical force.
	The forms through which power is exercised can vary with the structure of society and changes in social organization brings corresponding changes in political the political theorists understood this.
	You have to operate within the sort of set that you're working on.
	So ultimately, the whole discussion boils down to this, and this is where we can probably get into it.
Lion Or Fox? 00:04:12
	Is Trump a fake fox pretending to be a lion, or is he a constrained lion basically doing as much as he can?
	I don't think he's a fox, honestly.
	I don't think I've won you over.
	Yeah.
	Now we just need Harry A.A. Morgothan.
	Yeah, I don't think that was exactly the disagreement, but you have won me over in this.
	Yes.
	Yeah, I think he is a constrained lion.
	I'm basically saying that...
	There are several arguments as to whether it's good to constrain lions or not, because, you know, the people who went full lion before...
	Yes.
	So basically what I'm saying is, look, after long periods of near total fox domination, what he actually is, and this is consistent, I think, with the Burnham, the Prato theory, is that he's basically the most, he is the plausibly the strongest lion that the system is capable of selecting at this point.
	So yeah, as you said, they don't end well.
	And the problem with Trump is when he gets out, the foxes will try and put him in jail.
	Although the fox will use fox-like foxery.
	I swear he's just going to have more and more lions.
	He needs to line up his next lion, JD Vance, not have elections.
	Yes.
	Well, I mean, that is, I mean, that is kind of a thing, isn't it?
	So, I mean, quite often, and that's why I kind of describe him as a constrained early lion.
	It's quite often you get lions pop up in history, and the first one is quite constrained, and he exposes stuff, and then the next lion comes along, and he finishes the job.
	So I'm probably being a little bit reductive here, but you could think of Caesar and Augustus in this kind of phrase.
	Caesar exposed the corruption of the Senate, but he still tried to work within it.
	Augustus just comes along.
	He's like, yep, right.
	Do away with all that.
	You know what?
	A great historical example is the distinction between Louis XIV and Louis XVI.
	I haven't thought of that one.
	Because Louis XIV, I think he sort of was a lion.
	And he started being the ultra-absolutist.
	He was saying, I am the state.
	He was just, everything revolves around me.
	And he created, he erected this giant absolutist state, which sort of tried, and he sort of tried to play balance of power, several groups.
	And that's also the rise of modern absolutism because they created the centralized state.
	And there was a new group of bureaucrats that the monarchs and absolutist rulers used in order to lower the power of the nobility.
	And Louis XVI was incredibly weak.
	I hadn't thought of that one.
	The other ones that I thought of was Rob Spear.
	If he weren't weak.
	If he weren't weak, most probably the revolution would have failed.
	Yes.
	I mean, the other examples that I could think of was Rob Spear leading to Napoleon and Cromwell leading to William III.
	They had aura.
	That's the problem.
	You can't see someone following Trump.
	Stephen Miller's quite lying, obviously Bannon, but JD Vance seems more fucked in his nature.
	He seems a little more, he's not as extreme as Trump.
	But then Trump's loosened the lid for him.
	Yes.
	Let's see.
	And the next line will get a hell of a lot more done because the early line has come along and shaken everything up.
	Examples of, I mean, quickly, examples of this is the bit that you were going to bring in, Stelios, earlier, but examples of sort of actual lions.
	I would say that Putin is.
	But Putin, you know, was an early lion and kind of did the whole life cycle of the lion because he's been in for so long.
	He's now a late-stage lion because he's been in for whatever it is, 27 years.
	Who else?
	Pekali, absolute lion.
	Yeah, I mean obviously Putin's sly and everything, but starting a land war in Europe has to be lion.
	Yes.
	And a Bakay lion, yeah.
	And I just ask the critics this: if Trump isn't a lion, why is the entire system of foxes reacting to him as if he is a lion, not a fox?
	They might say that's all theatre, and really they want him.
	Well, yeah, but I think you're really stretching at that point because, I mean, the immune response has been pretty damn strong.
	So, um, yes, also, Rupert Lowe lion, Farage Fox.
	Farage is a fox.
Nietzsche's Nihilist Penguin 00:15:34
	I'll give you that.
	He's totally, he does everything within, he tries to manipulate the narrative and it's all fox-like behavior, but yeah, Lowe, lion.
	Lowe comes up with his wheelbarrow full of, I don't know if I can say it on YouTube, but and he just takes over Parliament with one wheelbarrow.
	That's pure lion.
	Yes.
	Yes, that's that's what we need.
	100%.
	Right.
	Um, couple, do we have any comments on this one?
	Uh, I have to, yeah.
	So, uh, Sigilstone 17 says, all this fox and lion talk is just a cover for what Dan really wants to talk about.
	What fur suit would each world leader wear?
	What is a fur suit?
	I don't know.
	No, this sounds cringy, AF.
	Kassadwin says this is all happening because the last several decades of anti-white, anti-Western folks activity has essentially served as some kind of a cult summoning ritual for the lion to rise again.
	The lion will rise.
	Okay.
	All right, we've got a bit of time to blast through the penguin then.
	Let's embrace the penguin.
	It's the last segment on a Friday.
	I thought we'd have some penguin-related fun.
	I'm amazed it hasn't been covered yet already, so I want to cover the penguin meme and I'm going to ask the question, but why?
	And that's what we're all trying to find out.
	Are you going to explain why everyone's been talking about penguins in my timeline?
	Because I've got uncomfortable.
	I will completely get that.
	That's exactly what I'm going to do.
	Good.
	So this was the clip, and it comes from Werner Herzog's 2007 film, Encounters at the End of the Earth.
	Is my mouse working?
	Can I just not see it?
	Because I'm a boomer, or is it not working?
	There we go.
	Okay, and so there was a clip from this film.
	It suddenly started going around, even though the film is almost 20 years old.
	And this was the clip, and then we'll talk about it.
	These penguins are all heading to the open border to the right.
	But one of them caught our eye, the one in the center.
	He would neither go towards the feeding grounds at the edge of the ice, nor return to the colony.
	Shortly afterwards, we saw him heading straight towards the mountains, some 70 kilometers away.
	Dr. Ainley explained that even if he caught him and brought him back to the colony, he would immediately head right back for the mountains.
	But why?
	So Herzog said he actually got that from Unsolved Mysteries.
	Apparently, you'd see a murder at the start of the episode.
	Then the mate would say, but why?
	And he's just like, and I love the supervillain voiceover.
	Yeah.
	That is kind of creepy supervillain.
	Yeah, but that's how Herzog's always spoken.
	That's why he was in Jack Reach for the baddie, and it was perfect for him.
	Oh, was he?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I'd heard it before.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	He's like, prison in America, a retirement home.
	This is how he talks.
	He's just hilarious.
	I've been doing a Vernon Herzog impression for years, and it's only just now become relevant.
	This was the original film, Encounters at the End of the World.
	It wasn't really about the penguin.
	What's kind of ironic about it is that it wasn't supposed to be about the penguin at all.
	It even says, Herzog said that the film will not be a typical Antarctica film about fluffy penguins, but will instead explore the dreams of people in the landscape.
	But it ended up being a penguin meme.
	It's a throwaway part of the film because he's always capturing these little things in his.
	Have you ever seen many Herzog films?
	No.
	He has a couple of recurrent themes.
	One is that nature, he sort of talks about, he's like, the jungle is cruel and pointless and futile.
	So he sees nature as like futile and indifferent.
	And he also just has weird stuff happen.
	One of them has a lot of dwarves in it.
	There's a lot of dwarves popping up and things like that.
	The jungle.
	Not in the jungle.
	He hasn't put those two together yet.
	Okay.
	I mean, that's the obvious next move.
	Yeah, it's far as you might even see Grizzly Man about.
	Oh, that was great, but I want to see dwarves on location, dwarves with bears, dwarves in the Arctic.
	Just dwarves everywhere, basically.
	That's the Grizzly Man where he's like, the bear doesn't care about people.
	All I see is stupidity and indifference.
	There's that stuff.
	I like that.
	But the penguin now is in a completely new context.
	So everyone relates to the penguin.
	Every man trying to sleep tonight, I bet he's thinking about other women.
	I'm the penguin.
	That's all that men are thinking.
	I immediately resonated with the penguin.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But why?
	But why?
	And we're going to look at it.
	So here's the debate.
	The penguin is an ubermensch.
	No, he's the last man.
	Did you ever even read Nietzsche?
	No, did you?
	No.
	But excuse to put Sidney Sweeney in.
	But that's the question.
	Is he the Ubermensch?
	Or is he the nihilist or the bug man last man?
	Or is he something else?
	He's just had enough.
	Yeah, well, that's the debate.
	I just explain, in case anyone hasn't read Nietzsche, the last man.
	The one on the left has defeated John Wick.
	The one on the left.
	Anna Diarmas.
	Oh, I like both of those girls.
	Both impressive.
	But the last man represents the lowest stage of humanity.
	This is straight off AI.
	A nihilist who shuns risk, creativity, and ambition in favor of comfort, safety, and mediocrity.
	And obviously, the Ubermensch is the opposite of all those qualities.
	The White House have embraced the penguin.
	But some people don't get it.
	So here's the people who don't get it and think of it as the nihilist penguin and fail to see the romance of it.
	And they are the left.
	This guy seems to be more on the sort of Mearsheimer left than the sort of Libtar.
	But he says there are no penguins in Greenland.
	They're actually in the southern hemisphere.
	I do not think the White House know what they're conquering.
	It's like, bro, you didn't get the meme.
	No.
	That's a pretty hard fail.
	I've got to say.
	That's a hard fail.
	Left don't get it.
	Guess who else doesn't get it?
	Midwits.
	The penguin is happy.
	The penguin is depressed.
	The penguin is happy.
	So the bell curve, midwit doesn't get it.
	Penguin doesn't have to put up with the other penguin bullshit anymore.
	Of course he's happy.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	He's free.
	Women don't get it, of course.
	How it feels to watch the depressed penguin.
	This is why women were dismissed by all the great philosophers incapable of philosophizing.
	She just doesn't get it.
	She thinks he's depressed.
	He's not depressed.
	He's a hero.
	The cancelled Netflix show meme doesn't get it.
	Why did he go in the mountains?
	Why are they posting about it?
	Doesn't get it.
	Guess who else doesn't get it?
	The French.
	French don't get it.
	So this French spoke, a bit more eloquent, but he says, Americans have discovered the clip from Werner Hertzel's documentary where a confused penguin decides to commit suicide for no reason at all.
	They think it's an example of heroic behavior.
	These people have a stupidity that defies understanding.
	very French, and he goes on to point out how the Herzog clip in Grizzly Man where he's like...
	And what haunts me is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy.
	I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature.
	That's one of his big themes.
	So Herzog himself is a bit of a...
	He wouldn't get the Penguin, but the Penguin has now been brought beyond the Herzog context.
	But he's right to say that.
	Can I just quickly add something?
	Yeah, you know how apparently there's this other discussion, completely separate, which is like stupid people don't have an inner monologue.
	Yes.
	Is it possible to get my inner monologue to the point where it talks in Werner Herzog's voice?
	I've got mine because that would be awesome.
	Training.
	You're like, these people are stupid.
	I'm on the tube.
	I don't relate to them at all.
	Yeah.
	That would be very entertaining, wouldn't it?
	That or Jordan Peterson?
	Well, it's a pretty complicated question.
	Anyway, so yeah, he says it's been almost 20 years since the clip we found on the internet.
	It's always been seen as a sad thing.
	People would have loved for the penguin to be saved by the film crew.
	And these morons see your rugged individualist hero.
	So the French guy's not having it.
	Guess who else doesn't get it?
	Redditors.
	So Redditors don't understand the penguin.
	They come up with all these things that it's just, I don't need a sound there, but they're saying in this clip that it's dumb, it's an idiot, this is absurd and pointless, why is the penguin bothering?
	F nature, that's really sad, idiot, absurd, pointless towards oblivion.
	So redditors don't get it, and this was a response, stop, you're headed towards certain death.
	Well, then I guess we have something in common because of course it's the same fate for everyone, so the penguins just embracing it.
	More elaboration on that.
	Reddit doesn't understand that the penguin represents everything they're not.
	They're content to just exist happy in their hedonistic materialism, grind, eat, sleep, wake up and repeat.
	The penguin wants more.
	It wants to know what's out there.
	The dangers don't matter because the question before it is before it and demands an answer.
	Is there more to life to existing than the comforting routine?
	The penguin is more human than any Redditor.
	I almost said penguin gwing there, which would turn me into Candace Owens, not being able to read.
	But see, it's resonated with people because, you know, we're in this bugman existence.
	We saw it, especially during COVID.
	Everyone just watching Netflix.
	But then young people, particularly young men, want more.
	So this is the argument you're seeing.
	Nihilist penguin misses the point, as illuminated by that meme.
	This is a bit long, but reflecting further on this, to reduce a solitary penguin to a meme of depression or nihilistic surrender represents a truly pedestrian intellect is a diagnosis that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the will to power.
	The colony represents the last man, content, loud, driven only by the banal biological imperatives of breeding and feeding, trapped in the safety of the herd.
	To remain there is the true death.
	The deranged penguin is not fleeing life.
	He is rejecting the aesthetic stagnation of mere survival.
	The lion has to eat something, doesn't it?
	You don't get those in Greenland either if you're going to be the penguin is also Euromaxing.
	There is also that.
	Torber, very similar.
	The bugman is fundamentally incapable of understanding the penguins yearning to strive, conquer, and transcend, waddling against the Antarctic winds of modernity.
	It is he alone who reaches for impossible heights and he alone who trades safety and comfort for the thrill of the void.
	Yeah.
	That's the territory where, you know, just say that they made a huge mistake and now everyone is trying to create large-scale narrative aspects to make sense out of it.
	Well, that's the thing.
	People are projecting their own narrative, which we'll get on to.
	So that's why all the people don't get it because they see the nihilist.
	And as this gets into, really, the penguin is a Nietzschean or an adventurer.
	Some say he's an Ubermensch.
	It's not nihilism.
	It's hope.
	It's ambition.
	He's Nietzsche's Uber penguin.
	And this is very similar.
	I know of no better life purpose than to perish attempting the great and impossible.
	By the way, I was going through all these last night with a headache.
	There are so many penguin memes.
	I barely scratched the surface.
	There are thousands of these things.
	Happy Feet now will be announced as a far-right movie.
	Happy Feet.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Sometimes you just have to go to the mountain, babe.
	You can't just go to the mountain.
	I have to go to the mountain.
	The women don't understand, as I said.
	So this is the Nietzsche debate.
	Of course, Lord Miles relates.
	I've been talking about this penguin since 2018, and finally the world has caught up to me.
	So he sees in the penguin a sense of adventure.
	I see the aristocrat penguin here.
	Abandons society, refuses to elaborate further, inspires millions from a completely different species.
	Never complain, never explain.
	Just leave the herd.
	This is a claim that Herzog himself has something in common with the penguin, despite his view on nature that we saw earlier.
	When I came back to Germany and I tried to hold all the investors together, they said to me, well, how can you continue?
	Can you do you have the strength or the will or the enthusiasm or so?
	And I said, how can you ask this question?
	It is.
	If I abandon this project, I would be a man without dreams.
	And I don't want to live like that.
	I live my life or I end my life with this project.
	Pure penguin energy.
	You see.
	So to Herzog, he was always doing these quick.
	Didn't think there'd be a more Faustian Werner Herzog clip than the penguin, but here we are.
	Herzog was always doing these things like getting a whole ship over a mountain pointlessly, and he's like, We have to do it for real, which was absolute nightmare.
	He was always falling out with local pygmy tribes and stuff.
	He did extraordinary things to make his ship over a mountain, yeah.
	With Klaus, and he worked with Klaus Kinski while doing it, which is a kind of insane prospect anyway.
	I'm trying to remember the name of that at that point.
	I mean, I'm not automatically against it, I just don't fitz Carraldo.
	He made he's like, right, we have to actually bring this boat over the mountain and do it for real.
	And it was hellishly near impossible.
	I'm just the movie's not even that good.
	What kind of ship are we talking about?
	Like an oil tank or something?
	No, no, that was like a boat.
	That was uh, it was it was a so this was in 1982.
	Klaus Kinske, um, and I'm just trying to remember how they did it.
	This they had a dissembled steamboat translation.
	Yeah, it was a big, it was a big steamboat.
	They had to try and uh do it exactly how it had been done in reality.
	So, Herzog had his crew attempt to manually haul the 320-ton steamship up a steep hill, leading to three injuries.
	People were always getting hurt on his sets and stuff.
	It was quite nice.
	I mean, I want to watch the Netflix documentary where they try and take a proper ship over a mountain, and they don't need to explain why they're doing it.
	I just want to see them do it.
	Yeah, well, Herzog's got the closest.
	I'm surprised you haven't watched all his films.
	I watched them back when films were good.
	Now, there's another claim I want to make.
	I love this.
	I don't want it all to be about Nietzsche because, you know, there's Christians like me here.
	It's like, hang on, Nietzsche had his problems.
	So, there's also the Tolkien-esque heroic penguin, who's not necessarily Nietzschean, but it's the ancient heroism that Tolkien spoke about when it came to Beowulf.
	He loved Beowulf because of the last stand against impossible odds.
	This is why one thing he loved about Beowulf, it was about facing impossible odds.
	And obviously, that's the theme of Lord of the Rings as well.
	So, it's not strictly Nietzsche.
	This is an ancient theme of the heroic, as we see here with the Frodo penguin.
	I will take the ring to Mordo.
	And our other heroic penguins, memes, the meme is stupid.
	He walks to the penguin is stupid, sorry.
	He walks to a certain death.
	This one gave me your name.
	Yes.
	Yeah, the Troy Penguin.
	Yes.
	I mean, how many individual penguins would you say that has transcended species is well known?
	I mean, it's that one, isn't it?
	Right.
	And try, can anyone name a second famous penguin?
	Jack.
	Who's Jack?
	It's a great point.
	I suppose the penguin on the penguin bar.
	We don't know his name.
	Another one.
	A penguin should know when it's lost.
	Would you, Quintus?
	Would I?
	Very similar.
	The heroic spirit of the penguin.
	So now we've also got the hero's journey penguin.
	Hero with a thousand waddles by Joseph Campbell.
	So this is the hero with a thousand waddles.
	It's Joseph Campbell's influential 1949 book that outlines the penguin's journey, a universal narrative pattern found in myths across cultures, combining psychology and mythology to explore a single archetypal adventure of transformation.
	So check that out.
	So this is the heroic journey penguin, which I prefer slightly to the Nietzschean framing.
	He's beginning to believe, you see, it's all about, see, some people call him the nihilist penguin, but this version, the matrix penguin, is the rebellion against nihilism.
	Why do you do it?
	Why?
	Why get up?
	Why keep fighting?
	You believe you're fighting for something for more than your survival?
	Can you tell me what it is?
	Do you even know?
	Is it freedom or truth?
	Perhaps peace?
	Could it be for love?
	Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception.
	Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose.
	And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself.
	Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love.
	So there you go.
	So he's rebelling against the materialism, the nihilism, and of course it's romantic.
	It's because he mentions love there.
	So I like that idea of the penguin as defying all that.
	And he's the antithesis to nihilism.
Penguin Rebellion Against Nihilism 00:04:04
	A couple more while we're here.
	Oh yeah, the angel, the angels.
	Of course, penguin ends up with the angels.
	And ultimately, he's sent by God, God looking down on the penguin.
	Why am I being sent to the mountain to inspire them?
	And this is what he's done.
	Of course, there are just some pure nonsense ones at this point.
	It doesn't have to make sense.
	That's just the ice penguin.
	No one even knows what that means anymore.
	I like the god bit, though, because is it possible that you know God is not just inspiring Christianity amongst people that he's doing amongst all the other species?
	And what we're witnessing is Jesus penguin.
	It could be a saviour penguin.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And this will then inspire devotion throughout the penguin kind.
	Possible.
	I hope that's not blasphemous, but I hope it's possible.
	Is it suddenly broken on me right at the end?
	Just about blasphemed.
	I could try this one.
	There we go.
	You want another one?
	Well, that's the.
	So that's the.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	All right.
	Oh.
	See how it's gone completely wrong.
	So my point is here, these are just the random ones.
	There's only one man that can save Minneapolis now, and he's a penguin.
	And this was just a penguin in ice, basically.
	It's completely, it's just ridiculous AI slot.
	But these are the.
	Alright, let's check out the next one, which is Amelia Penguin.
	Oh, what?
	Now we've zoomed in.
	Can we on?
	Yeah, right.
	There we go.
	Mine's not working.
	Okay, this is Fight Club Penguin.
	I won't play the music because we get zapped, but this is You Met Me at Very Strange Time in My Life with the Pics he's playing.
	Probably get copyrighted, but that's Fight Club Penguin.
	Can we go to the next one?
	Yeah.
	I can't do it.
	Okay, then our producer has done it, I think.
	Amelia Penguin.
	So these two had to come together ultimately.
	But why?
	Because he met Amelia.
	You're trying to reach the top of the mountain, too?
	Amelia would get it.
	saw what they did to your colony they are damaging my home to together we will get our homes back embrace the penguin Embrace Amelia.
	There you go.
	Two great memes coming together for pure slop.
	And one more.
	Can I go to the next one?
	Which is, of course, Game of Thrones Penguin.
	Now his watch has ended.
	And so, just to conclude, if we move on, there is a thin line.
	The debate over the penguin is because the line between depression and a Faucian spirit is thin.
	It's hard to tell if a man is suicidal or pursuing a goal that transcends life, sometimes even to himself.
	So that's why the debate rages between the Nietzschean and the Nihilist penguin.
	Can we go to the next?
	The penguin is a Rawshark test for your own spirit.
	A Fauci sees him as a hero.
	A Last Man sees him as insane.
	And that is ultimately the difference.
	And it reminded me of this joke from Rorschach.
	I always find it really ironic that this guy claims to oppose degeneracy, but walks around with silhouettes of gay men having sex on his face.
	So I think that's apparently it's a stolen joke.
	Some people said it came from 4chan, but it's because Dan doesn't get it, but it's because the guy's seeing that in the Rorschach test so that he actually is.
	Oh, okay, right.
	So that's the point.
	Whether you see a nihilist, a Nietzschean, or men having sex, it all depends on your projection onto the penguin.
	Of course, I prefer the heroic adventurer penguin than the nihilist claim, but it's inspired.
	It's inspired people for that reason, I think, because we're in this nihilistic, materialistic, utilitarian world.
	So the penguin is a glimpse of something greater.
	I like that a lot.
	I like that a lot.
	Yeah.
	Thought it'd be fun for Friday.
	And now, um, penguin comments, I guess.
	Do you want to read them?
	Uh, where are they?
	Where have the new ones started here?
Penguin Comments Explained 00:02:31
	Here we go.
	Well, that's Sigil Stone says, I can name several famous penguins.
	Mario Lemieux, Sidney Crosby, Evangelie Malkin Jerome, Jeremiah Jag.
	I don't know any of the.
	I mean, there's the Penguin.
	I'm not familiar with those ones.
	There's a.
	One of them's a hockey player.
	The penguin video has risen to the level of divine art thanks to the narrative.
	The nihilistic atheists on Reddit are incapable of understanding.
	Thank you, Cranky Texan.
	That is exactly correct.
	Do we have any videos, Samson?
	Totally impotent when that stops working.
	Samson is checking.
	Ah, we have four videos.
	Great.
	Let's play them.
	The title of these two speeches and the Canadian perspective of Michael Ignatiev intrigued me.
	Predictably, he sets out to describe post-World War II human rights and how they are important.
	He then explains how fragile they are, needing careful protection from activists who would use them for political ends, or ideologues who would use incompatible global positions to dilute what rights are.
	Unfortunately, Ignatiov is too focused on the why, where, and how to realize that the what of human rights themselves is the problem.
	His speeches only show the post-World War II order as a panicked reaction to the horror of war and utterly unsuited to purpose.
	I always like Alex's videos.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I've recently been using Chat GPT to rewrite these screen drivers to show two separate images.
	As you can imagine, the first solution didn't work, and after hours of debugging, it turns out the frame rate is too low.
	When you make something, you face a real threat that hours of work could all be for naught.
	But if you want the thing to exist and work, you have to be willing to make that sort of sacrifice.
	Yep.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Craig.
	Here at the Australia Day celebrations in Wollongong.
	Oh, very good.
	Thank you.
	Next we've got juggling, ma'am.
Counter Segment 00:10:23
	Sounds wholesome.
	Awesome, yeah, I was gonna say.
	Thanks, Craig.
	And the last one.
	I was listening to Stelios' segment about Euromaxing the other day as I cleaned up the park in the local village.
	And I just thought, what are you huge supply of tea?
	I want to hear the counter segment about how you can do things for the.
	About the greater good.
	And while you're doing things for a greater good, you can listen to the podcast while cleaning the snow.
	Just wanted to say.
	Absolutely so.
	Let's go to the comments.
	Let me check.
	Pittsburgh's hockey team is the Penguins, says Sigilstone.
	Right.
	So, Michael Drybobis, what?
	Illegal migrants do better than the native population.
	Well, when you had the illegals free housing, free food, free everything, that's a no-brainer.
	And Sophie Liv, well, be positive.
	We're not expecting the Spanish Inquisition, which is exactly what they're counting on.
	It's kind of weird when you get all these politicians who are saying, well, we need to combat the far right.
	And the next thing they're doing is try to create the conditions that are fueling the far right.
	So every politician of every progressivist.
	Omar what no foreigner willing to break the immigration law would volunteer to follow employment and tax laws when they could work illegally and keep it all for themselves.
	Those from Izad cultures would even find honor in having successfully tricked naive westerners out of their wealth.
	Despite claims that foreigners aren't voting or receiving benefits, there are too many examples to the contrary for it to be the occasional accident.
	White Ryder says you'd think Spain would know better.
	Considering them being completely taken over by foreign Muslims was one of the triggers for the Reconquista, and it lasted for about for centuries.
	Not just it wasn't just a a quick event, but it's leftists it.
	It all starts from there.
	Leftists are eco-phobic right, someone online.
	A smaller population does mean there will be less unemployment.
	He's accidentally right about that, Hossop.
	Yeah, here I think also he's talking about the percent right, Hossop Yenikomshian.
	What purpose is immigration supposed to serve in a country with chronic unemployment?
	Roman Observer, we will defeat the far right by proving them correct and everything they warned about.
	And Derek Power, master of chippies, remember.
	Hyperinflation turns everyone into a billionaire.
	I like that.
	I don't know, but yes, I'd welcome being a billionaire.
	That would be good.
	The lion is not a fox, Sophie Lives says.
	I love how Dan is using all this fancy terminology just to describe alpha and beta males.
	No, I don't think I would reduce it quite that far, but I see where you're going with that, Omar Ward.
	Between lions and foxes, to varying degrees, both use and dominate the rodents.
	When there are no foxes or lions in leadership, guess who takes charge?
	It's hard to ignore the imagery when our resident rat visits a Chinese fox and was made to look like a midget in front of the cameras.
	Yes, did you see that image of the very, very tall Chinese people?
	They're all like six foot four.
	Now they're obviously like, that's like all of the six foot four men in China.
	They just rounded them up and say, Manchurians are very high.
	What was that?
	The Manchurians north, northeast China.
	I think they have a reputation for being very tall.
	Really, I've not encountered lots of tall Chinese.
	But my only criticism here is he abandons the metaphor at the end.
	He perhaps shrimp would have worked, because these are all animals and he suddenly says midget.
	Yes, that's my only concern.
	Yes that's, that's fair.
	We have had an animal heavy segment this time around.
	Um, Cumberedian Kulak Trump is a lion Scar Uh, from Lion King, a weak lion who behaves like a fox, might as right.
	Um, you know, I don't, I don't know.
	I'm still comfortable with an early stage lion.
	TPPT says, Dan, that's all lovely, but let's judge Trump on being a lion.
	Greenland, you said the USA needs total sovereignty over Greenland, which he won't achieve.
	What I said was he needs to collapse the ambiguities is primarily what they're doing.
	And I think maybe they probably will get it in time.
	You know, I don't think the true test of lion-ness is whether you achieve all of the possible lion things that you can imagine a lion would do in a single term.
	otherwise you're not a lion, it's are you displaying lion behaviour even if you don't achieve...
	Because what I think people are doing is they're imagining a hypothetical lion in their head, which is the perfect lion, and then saying, well, he doesn't meet that standard and therefore he's not a lion.
	I think that's a little bit too hard.
	Potentially starting a war with Iran for no good reason for the US.
	Well, I agree with that one, actually.
	He's not dealing with the entire ICE situation like a lion whatsoever.
	Now, that one I strongly disagree on because the fact that he's doing the ICE stuff at all is 100% lion behavior.
	To give you an example of foxes trying to deal with immigration, just look at the Tory party for the last 20 years.
	It's like, oh, we're going to do this Rwanda, Rwanda thing.
	And every 18 months, if you go back, they had a new scheme.
	They're going to do this scheme and they're going to do that.
	That is how foxes deal with immigration.
	Yeah.
	Although one counter would be that Obama, you know, there's this list of previous leaders that actually deported more.
	Just no one cared because it was Obama.
	So has he actually done more lying stuff there?
	Well, that leans into my whole constrained argument.
	There was...
	It isn't just constraint.
	It's also the economic argument that lots of Republicans are giving.
	For instance, I think Marjorie Taylor Greene was saying on the one hand, zero illegal migration, but on the other, I think she started saying, well, we need some of them.
	Let's give them jobs.
	There can still be inconsistencies.
	The question is, though, the other bit, yeah, absolutely.
	The question is whether they whether he's a typical politician and that he made several promises and didn't keep them, which isn't exactly lion behavior.
	Presumably.
	That's more cunning.
	Yeah, I mean, foxes are typically.
	I don't think he's a people with his promises.
	Yeah, the undisputed lion master.
	No.
	So that's another angle to it.
	Sean Gaffney says, Dan's segment led to quite the discussion.
	Trump gets quite a few different framing devices, lion, hand grenade, wrecking ball.
	On the whole, Trump is an 8 out of 10 president.
	Not great on everything, but better than we've had in a while.
	And that's kind of my core point, that he is the best lion that you could reasonably get in this situation.
	He's the best you could reasonably get at this stage in the system, which is after a period of undeniable, complete and total Fox domination.
	Expecting much more than this at this stage, I think, is unrealistic.
	The question is, though, the other issue is, though, which I think I'm sure lots of people are going to think, is that if we're talking just about lions and foxes and talking about the characteristics of lions and foxes, we tend to become a bit leftist in one respect, in the respect that we view the situation way more abstractly than it is.
	And let me just give you an example.
	You mentioned before Bukele.
	I think he did good for El Salvador.
	The question is, though, whether the situation that called for a Bukele is the same situation in the US.
	And you will have people who will say yes, but you will have also lots of people who say no.
	So that's one of the constraints that a possible lion has is what does The public think, generally speaking.
	And in the in this framework, he has to think of the independents.
	Now a bit himself a bit less because he isn't going to run for elections again.
	But I'm sure he doesn't want to tank the Republican Party because that would harm his rule right now for the next three years.
	Better hand over to Nick for a couple of your comments.
	Yeah, so Scotty of Swindon, can you explain why my timeline has been...
	This is, he's quoting you.
	Can you explain why my timeline has been filled with penguins?
	I don't get it.
	Five minutes later, of course the penguin is happy.
	Dan gets it.
	Welcome to the flock down.
	Yes.
	Omar, if you can't answer the breakfast question, you have no brain.
	If you can't answer the penguin question, you have no soul.
	I think that's absolutely right.
	George, the penguin memes are the best thing to come out of the Greenland situation.
	Dan can confirm it's good for the meme economy.
	Beggar hero, I don't trust penguins.
	They smoke tons of pot, according to Gua.
	Fairly obscure.
	Dan Taylor, it's a Moses penguin looking for the burning iceberg.
	Sneeder Chuck, the penguin had the Victorian spirit of exploration.
	And Polski Sklep, can I read this one?
	I feel like I can just about.
	But it's saying the existence of the penguin Jesus implies the existence of penguin Jewish people.
	I mean, that's completely true, technically.
	So, yeah.
	I mean, if Werner Hawk sort goes back in like a few months and there's like a little penguin crucifix, I guess so.
	Yeah.
	That'd be terribly sad.
	That'd be sad if anything happened to the penguin Jesus.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Almost certainly would because that's how it always tends to go.
	Pharisee penguins.
	Someone's asking, I don't know if I'm going to do the honourable mentions.
	I've just kind of gone into it.
	Why not?
	Why not?
	And can you do a brokenomics on the disappearance of the dividend?
	Yeah, fair point.
	Well, I mean, they're still there, but it's just the smaller companies that pay them now, not the growth companies.
	And we're in a growth company era.
	So I suppose I could do.
	Please mention it.
	Yeah.
	Don't understand economics at all.
	Right.
	So we still have two minutes.
	I think the audience wants us to chat for two minutes more.
Baron June's Lionheart 00:01:33
	Very well.
	What are we going to chat about?
	Right, about lands and foxes.
	Who's your favorite lion from history?
	We've got one minute now.
	I've got to get my chain.
	So one minute for your favourite lion from.
	I mean, literally, Richard the Lionheart.
	I mean, he was a total bloody champion.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, if you read some of the exploits, what about Arthur or Alfred?
	And I'm just naming people beginning with A.
	I don't know which one I mean.
	But Richard the Lionheart was a proper warrior.
	There's one bit where he's got like a big army of Muslims lined up in front of him.
	And they've got like 5,000 dudes.
	And he's only got like 200 nights.
	And he was just absolutely, absolutely destroying them.
	And it gets to the point where the Muslims are all lined up and he's just pacing up and down in front of them, mogging them off, saying, come on, then, come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.
	And none of them wanted to fight him.
	That Baron from June was quite a good lion.
	Baron from June.
	Harr Connan.
	Oh, yes, him.
	You're just like, if you can't get this done, you're in big trouble, even though that's like his son or whatever.
	And what about the dude from Avatar?
	The one who's supposed to think is a villain, but he's actually the hero.
	No, I've never even watched it.
	No, you know.
	What?
	Whoever the military guy was, an Avatar.
	I liked him.
	He was the proper hero of the movie.
	Right.
	And on that note, bye, Islander 5.
	And also come for the Zoom call at 3 p.m.
	Have a lovely weekend.
	Thank you, Brother Nick.
	Thank you, Brother Dan.

Chapters

00:00:00 Join Us: Oil Under Five
00:01:52 Shrinking Demographics Impact
00:17:09 Tax Pressure Globalizes
00:20:40 Behaving Like a Lion
00:35:44 Critiquing Trump's Strategic Ambiguity
00:50:39 Lion Or Fox?
00:54:51 Nietzsche's Nihilist Penguin
01:10:25 Penguin Rebellion Against Nihilism
01:14:30 Penguin Comments Explained
01:17:01 Counter Segment
01:27:25 Baron June's Lionheart