 Good day, May 40 here. So I notice with the more higher IQ and of the news discussion section you get a lot of people talk about how depressed they are by the success of talentless hacks. Hear about Richard finding it's depressing that Nick Fuentes is so popular or that Tim Fu is so popular and I'm trying to understand that mindset. Like I've never gotten depressed by the success of talentless hacks. It's irrelevant to me. I don't believe that success is something that is puzzled out according to merit, according to intelligence, according to goodness, according to clarity, according to righteousness. It's just kind of amusing. Why would anyone get depressed by the success of talentless hacks unless you're so incredibly self-absorbed that you believe all success in the world simply belongs to you? Or the other alternative is you're just completely disconnected from reality. And so you don't realize that success is not apportioned precisely on the basis of merit. So here's Richard Spencer and company. He's like, what do you know about him? I met him in 2016. He interviewed me. I actually talked to someone who was like, it's this weird mirror image that you're watching. And I think someone who was a journalist actually told me this in terms of tempul and it was like a light going off because I was, I actually talked to this guy. So the success of pundits like Richard Spencer or Tim Poole or Nick Fuentes or Luke Ford is not according to merit, not according to clarity, not according to righteousness, not according to death or profundity. It's according to how well you meet the needs of your audience. Tim Poole meets the needs of his audience for excitement and drama. Richard Spencer meets the needs of his audience for excitement and drama. It's just Richard's audience is about 20 average IQ points higher than Tim Poole's. Richard's audience is about 20 IQ points higher than David Dugues or Nick Fuentes, but they're still meeting the needs of an audience. Has nothing to do with merit. I did this huge like take down to Tim Poole and for the New York Times actually. And he just, I think he called me like, he was like, what do you know about him? I was like, you know, I met him in 2016. He interviewed me a few times out. You know, I was like, I don't really have a thing, but we kind of talked it out. And I, I don't know, he was kind of like working on his nieces or something. I might have even helped him to agree. But he said something that the light went off in my head because I was like, it's so discouraging and just even depressing the fact that this guy who is just fucking a talentless and he has no get. So why does Richard find that so depressing? Like it's never occurred to me to feel depressed by the success of Tim Poole. He's not someone that I turned to on occasion. He's done some good work. Like I played a few minutes of one of his videos recently that was pretty good. But he's not a talentless hack. He's very talented, very hard working and meeting the needs of his audience. Now, when a hawker meets the needs of a client, all right, this is not necessarily something that's meritorious or righteous or holy or transcendent. Right? It's meeting the needs of an audience. So sometimes business meets the needs of an audience and doing something that's good and meritorious. But there's no inherent connection between meeting the needs of your audience or being a business that dishes out goods. And, you know, dishing out something that's righteous and good. Right? Plenty of businesses, you know, make money, they're selling toxic product. Yes. Like he's, he's like, like on the, on the intelligence scale, he's a five. On the looks scale, he's a five. On the charisma scale, he's made his zero. On the. Okay. Tim Poole is way above average in intelligence. He's got the ability to speak to the 100 IQ crowd, but he is not 100 IQ. It's probably in the 120s. Any scale, you, you, you, there's just nothing there. You know, Gwynthes has a lot of charisma and he's smart. On the kind of like ideology scale or whatever, I think he's low. Like he doesn't get it, but like, he has, you know, I understand why people want that. I can look at like a. Nick Fuentes doesn't get it. He gets what his audience wants to hear. He gets that very well. He gets it more effectively than any other pundit in his genre. And he gives it to them. He delivers. So no, he doesn't have the philosophical depth of a PhD in philosophy or of a great intellectual. He's no Eric Hoffer, a longshoreman philosopher, but he is an entertainer and pundit who gives his audience what they want to hear. And even if it disgusts me, I kind of understand why this guy, you know, gets people to donate 100 grand every Sunday. Tempul, I'm just mystified. I'm like, how could you possibly want to listen to this person? And he said, that's the secret to his success because all of the guys, and it's mostly guys who are listening to him, they're just like him. They're wearing a T-shirt and a beanie cap and they don't understand the world or the news. And they have bad opinions that are reinforced and affirmed by this idiot. On top of that, he's an aesthetic double tech bro. He does. Yeah. And kind of it's like a combination of a tech bro with a maybe kind of a working class, a little quality of that too. So because he surely reaches more people outside of tech rooms. But yeah, it's like some low level coder or some guy who runs websites or or probably a working class person, but he just he's a mirror reflection of who they are. Oh my God, working class. And so that's the secret. And that is the kind of like we've moved away from an authority figure and we've moved to a mirror reflection and how we consume news. Because, you know, he does meta analysis. So he'll read news columns or stories on the air. So Rich is disgusted that someone who's working class and not aristocratic is successful and has gained an enormous following, right? This is success, money and the following that really Richard Fields belongs to him. Then he'll comment on them. But it's not like the people watching him are actually like they've read The New York Times or The HuffPost and then they go to get his commentary on it. They're not getting the actual story. Like they're getting the commentary, which is liberals are crazy or whatever he's saying. And so you move from like Walter Cronkite or Tom Broke God is the voice of God or is the voice of your father? Or your college professor maybe or your high school principal? Is it some male, older, gray hair? Look, Walter Cronkite's show was aimed at an average audience with 100 IQ. Like network shows aimed at an audience with an average IQ of 100. A Tucker Carlson show has probably aimed at an audience with an average IQ of 100 to 105. So it's not like Walter Cronkite was aiming at an audience with an incredibly more elevated IQ than Tindall. You're a three figure and you move to a mirror reflection of yourself and you don't even bother with the action. Everyone's looking for a reflection of themselves. We're all looking to create a world around us as most conducive to our thriving. Right, we all see the world, not as it is, but as we are. To the news, you just go right in for the like dumb ass take. But that's a huge thing. The dumb take is what a lot of people want to hear, right? People just want to hear that their side is awesome, right? So that's meeting a need. He's meeting his audience's needs. And because more people visit a tempul than certainly watch the nightly news by a factor of a thousand. That's not true, right? Several million people watch, well, probably 10 million people watch the nightly news. That's a far bigger audience than what tempul gets. It's like a new concept from the internet. Yeah. That is a depressing statistic. I mean, it's just perfectly usually depressing. It's just a perfect example of being like, Why? Why is that depressing? Don't you know what 100 IQ people are like? What they want? You really expect 100 IQ people to seek out commentary that's aimed at a 125 IQ crowd? Like how to remove from reality? How delusional? How self-centered do you have to be to find any of this depressing? It's just reality. I mean, like how you could be a talentless hack and still like make a decent chunk of change, quite frankly. Like I'm sure he's probably monetized his channel quite extensively. So, oh yeah. He stays on YouTube. He does it every day. He does hours a day. He does live streaming. He, yeah. He works hard. He meets his audience's needs. He produces material that people want to hear. And he's successful. I mean, one thing, one problem that I have is I do get kind of, I won't say bored with things, but like, I need to be stimulated in some other way. You know, like I don't, Yeah. Smarter people, right? Demand. Smarter entertainment. Smarter commentary. Or they get bored. If I'm going to do a podcast, then I want to go and like do some editing or do some original writing. And then I want to go and like do something like this, which is preform and I get to think through things. And then I want to, you know, whatever. I mean, the idea of just doing the same crap, like five or seven days a week is just, yeesh. Well, Richard could be producing a formidable intellectual body of work. Like he could be producing books. He's the intellectual that he thinks he is and says he is. If he's a serious thinker that he just self-describes, then why isn't he producing books and essays instead of tweets and podcasts? Do you know who Dr. Lauren was, Richard? Dr. Lauren? Dr. Lauren, the radio woman from the 90s? Yes, I do know her. She's been doing the same exact, she's still on Serious XM every day, and she's been doing the exact same format for like 40 years. I cannot imagine how she's not bored of that. She's not bored of that. Yeah. Well, there's a certain type. Well, Dr. Laura deals with, you know, basic human problems, but haven't changed that much in 40 years. So I think she's very good at what she does. She has a knack for cutting to the moral core of an issue. So yeah, there's an evergreen demand for what Dr. Laura has to say. Similar with the Dennis Prager. Yeah, and you know, I'm not that type. Yeah. If I was in corporate America, I would be. So yeah, people like Richard and people like myself, we're not content to hold the same row, right? We always have to be after new intellectual adventures. We're intellectual jigglers. We're falling in love with every beautiful idea that comes along, but ultimately stay loyal to none. You know, putting my job and starting companies and, you know, moving on and whatever. That's just kind of how I am. Be on Shark Tank. Yeah, I'd be on Shark Tank. Shark Tank. But I don't know. I don't know. Is there any more in this that we need to squeeze on? I have one disgusting comment, and that is in the same way that pornography has been re-monetized through Onlyfans. I think news has been as well, because I think what happens with Onlyfans is that it offers a lot of men, you know, this bullshit pair of social, like, connection between content producers and themselves. Why is it BS? Like, why is it any more BS than all sorts of other transactional relationships? Like, we all want to feel connected. We all want to feel alive. We all want to feel like we're living from the inside. We all want to feel strong and bonded. And for some people, they're so dysfunctional. Their life has turned in such a sad direction that they don't have access to normal human bonds. And so people turn for connection where they can get it. So some people turn to drugs and alcohol and, you know, all sorts of online entertainments. But there's no way of living without connection. We're wired to connect. If you don't connect in a healthy way, you'll connect in dysfunctional ways. But for some people, like, you know, live streams and podcasts, they're primary form of connection. It's better than no connection. You know, they're able to, like, direct message their virtual girlfriends. And now they have assholes like Nick Fuentes and Tim Pool to, like, hang out. They're way Nick and Tim assholes. Like, I was really lonely when I was going through chronic fatigue center at home. Like, I had, you know, a virtual friendship with Dennis Prager. I'd listen to him on the radio every weekend. I'd call his show about 30 times. And that was the lifeline that I absolutely needed during very dark, lonely, scary times when I was in the grip of something that nobody seemed to understand. When my life had collapsed around me, where I had no strength, where I was spending 20 hours a day in bed, where I could see no path forward. And through my virtual para social connection with Dennis Prager, I was able to keep going and find a meaningful, happy, fulfilling life in Judaism. Make a lot of friends in the Jewish community. Become intellectually, socially, culturally absorbed in the Jewish narrative. So often the para social relationship can lead to real relationships, real friendships, right? A lot of people have met from my live streams. They've employed each other. They've invested in each other. They've dated each other. Just because you have para social relationships doesn't mean that you don't have the real thing. Doesn't mean that the para social relationship never leads to the real thing. And I fail to see why listening to a podcast is somehow morally or intellectually inferior to, you know, watching TV. This can be a good path forward. This can be a positive addition. I mean, I think it's just no matter like monetizing para social relationships. Right. Because that is the thing. It's like, so why should para social relationships not be monetized? Like just monetizing something, defame it. Does it dirty it? Right. If you're meeting someone's needs for connection or guidance or wisdom or excitement or friendship or depth or wisdom or laughter or if you're meeting someone's needs, then what's wrong with monetizing it? So we're here in Rosecutters Bay, Sydney, eastern suburbs. I've got my cheap oppo phone. I'm playing some excerpts from Richard Spencer's recent show on influencers. Like, you know, 20 years ago, newspapers and magazines were flying high. They were making huge profits. And even magazines. Newspapers started going into decline in the 1950s and this decline accelerated dramatically in the 1990s, but really accelerated after about 2002. So newspapers as a business were only held together by the artificial mechanism of classified ads. Right. It was the classified ads that primarily paid for newspapers and journalism. Journalism has rarely paid for itself. It's like GQ or Vogue or whatever. Every summer they would put out a double issue. It was probably like 500 pages or something. And it was like two-thirds advertisements, full page advertisements. It remarkable. And they were making profit, you know, hand over fist. And so 20, you know. So what are the big news outlets in Australia? So Rupert Murdoch owns about two-thirds, about 70% of newspapers. And there are three major networks, Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10. And now they're increasing streaming services. So I'm able to get all my sporting needs met here by KO Sports. It's an online streaming service, $25 a month. I can watch the NFL, watch baseball, basketball, etc. So Rupert Murdoch influences disproportionate influence on the news media in particular over here. And then Channel 9 was long the major TV network until it got slashed at the beginning of the oar. So after about 2002, Channel 9 got slashed to the bone. Channel 10 was always the third place TV network. So Channel 9 was the TV network aimed at, you know, the power players. It was number one, it was, you know, secretaries had big tits and more high heels and its executives drove, you know, expensive cars and had luscious offices. And when there'd be an advertising break during a Sunday night movie of the week, like the sewage department would be able to tell that everyone was going to the bathroom and flushing. Right. So that's how dominant Channel 9 was. Well, Channel 7 was kind of aimed at a suburban audience. It was more, it was more bogan. It was more talking to each other with nicknames, you know, a bunch of blokes around a Barbie. And then Channel 10, what audience is Channel 10 aimed at? Is that aimed at the audience stuff? So 7 has become the number one network as far as I know in the past 15 years. So they've been very successful at the suburban audience. So Channel 7, like they all encouraged their guests to come on the morning show and call the host by their nicknames. Right. But what's the audience for the Channel 10? They used to run just a bunch of cheap reruns. Now in the early 1990s, all the three Australian networks were bought. So the Lowy family who owned shopping centers, what was the name of their shopping center? And also, I think Frank Lowy, the patriarch, he tried to secure the World's Cup for Australia. It spent $40 million, but they weren't able to secure it. Went to Qatar thinking about the major shopping centers that the Lowy family owned in, mainly in California and Australia. Anyway, the Lowy family bought Channel 10 and they spent big buying Westfield. Yeah, Lowy family owns Westfield. So in the early 90s, they bought I think Channel 10 and then there was a new owner for Channel 9. And then there was this scam artist who bought Channel 7 and they all went bankrupt within a year or two. They dramatically increased how much money they were paying for American TV programming because Australia is a nation of $25 million. They can't afford to fund all its own TV programming. So they have to buy most of their TV programming from America. And so when you got new owners, they went to America and they just paid exorbitant prices. And so they all went broke and busted and they had to sell out. Yeah, that was my Pat Dingo, man. That Dingo took my baby. So I like the ABC. So the ABC probably aims at an average IQ about 110. So it's a national broadcaster. It's like equivalent of PBS but more lavishly funded. So I've been watching the Australian TV comedy Fisk, which is about a woman in her 50s who gets hired at a probate law firm. SBS, yeah, a lot of good stuff on SBS. That's the multicultural broadcaster. So, but they have ads. So I really like ABC. There's no advertising. SBS is just a small amount of advertising. ABC is run by left as well. It's run by elite. Yeah, it does lean left, but it's much more intelligent than the commercial networks, which dole out the parole feed, right? The Australian commercial networks probably aim at an average IQ of about 95. Well, I feel like the average American TV network aims at an average IQ of 98 to 100. SBS used to have raunchy European movies at night. So even the public broadcasters, they still need to command an audience. But I think there's a lot of good stuff on the ABC. I'm trying to think of they did a good dramatic series on the fires in Victoria. And what was the... Well, they just did a series I watched about a girl gets out of prison after serving 10 years for manslaughter. Good-looking Sheila. That goes back to a hometown where she's not too welcome. So I check out what's on the ABC, and then I go to IMDb to see what its ratings are. They did a good series, News Reader, about the TV station, I think, in Sydney, and the various news readers at the station. 10 years for manslaughter in this country. Yeah, well, I told you it's a fictional show on the ABC. Right? So I think the average motor in the United States prior to the 1980s only served about six years. It's only once Republicans got into power, massively up incarceration, that we managed to get a handle on the crime rate. Okay, so why do people get so depressed about the success of talentless hacks? Right? It's a lot easier to gain a large audience if you're aiming for an average IQ of 95. Now, at the turn of the century, they were making huge profits during 9-11, everyone was reading all the stuff. Then the internet broke through, and all of these local papers went under. The big boys kind of had enough institutional weight. The newspapers went under because they had an artificial business model. Right? The business model wasn't journalism. It was that they had the monopoly on classified ads. As soon as they lost that monopoly, they could no longer fund journalism. All right? So journalism has rarely paid for itself. The internet introduced more reality into the journalism business. We need to continue. But, you know, they have found a way to monitor. Underbelly was a great TV series. I watched the first season twice. I watched every episode of Underbelly. Sappos is short for septic tank, which is short for American. Oh yeah, another big difference between British, Australian, and American TV. So in American TV, when someone does something bad, like do drugs or have irresponsible sex, they always get punished usually in the same episode. But in British and Australian TV, they may not get punished at all, or it may not even happen that same season. So American TV is much more moralistic. Now, if someone does something bad, they have to get punished right away in that episode. So American TV and movies much more optimistic. Many more happy endings. So British and Australian shows have more of a fatalistic understanding of life. Monetize their subscriptions and things like that. But like, whenever I go to a local news article, and they're like, you know, do you want to read this article for $7.99 or do you want to sign up for like $1.99 per month to read this paper? I'm just like, no. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, I'll fuck you up. Yeah, that's okay. Yeah. And so they're able, like how is that going to get monetized? Porn is another thing. Like through, not even before Pornhub, like you could just kind of find free porn through various means. And so it was like, who's paying for this? Well, people want connection. Like people want connection with their favorite actresses, with their favorite pundits, with their favorite journalists, with their favorite rabbis. All right. So just getting free stuff on the internet doesn't always cut it. And yeah. But then like only fans was able to re-monetize it. And in the same way, like people talking about the news to you, if that is also a way to monetize it, yeah, it's remarkable. The way of monetizing trust, essentially. And trust is a huge amount of money. Yes. I mean, look, it's kind of what we're doing here. Let's also be brutally honest. But I'm just going to tell you, I'm not going to like, you guys can tell me to go in some direction. You're going to have to make a compelling argument. Like I am who I am. And yeah, I'm not going to play to you guys or whatever. And I'm, you know, you can like it or dislike it, except to you. I like to think more like a school. Go ahead. Oh, I was saying, I like to think this is more like a school. But on the topic of people like Tim Pool, you know, a lot of distant material has long been called intellectual pornography, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. A lot of the so-called intellectual porn is actually factual and, you know, kept out of the mainstream. But I think that episode really applies to people like Fuentes, but also people, especially people who are allowed in the mainstream, like Tim Pool, like, I don't know, Stephen Crowder, Joe Rogan, etc. Because all they do is provide a certain emotion, which is kind of free-floating ressentiment where you're never challenged. Right. So it's low-brow hard-on fuel. So like pornography delivers an immediate hit. And so when you call this stuff political pornography, right, you're just saying that it's feeding into these resentments to these easily accessed emotions that people don't have to work for it. So with pornography, people don't have to work for, you know, understanding the narrative arc. Never have to assimilate new information. I mean, what this gives us is the hilarious irony that the Trump cult hates Trump's greatest achievement, which is the vaccine from Operation Warp Speed. Yes. So like if you watch Tim Pool, and it will never be consistent because he doesn't have a whirlpool. So John Smith, you live in Australia. You thought you were blocked? No, I can see all your comments. So how do you like living in Australia? Like have you lived overseas? Do you value living in a high-trust, highly cohesive society where most people feel like the government for all its flaws is on their side? Look, you watched him pool just to say, no, that's bullshit, man, for like every single thing that happens. Yes. I see that actually even further than that. I mean, I've noticed that with like the crystal ball and in Jetty. Like I don't watch them a lot. I remember watching them quite a bit during 2020. Hold on one moment here. Come on, Richard, I'm trying to do a show. You sort of present them as an expert, like Joe Rogan. It's sort of weird though, because he'll have on Tulsi Gabbard. They don't have on like Peter, you know, by my gold shekel shift. It's like, dude, what's that? Like what direction are you going in, man? Like also to go back to this, the idea of free-floating is that so much of it is like meta criticism. So what I was talking about with Crystal and Sagar and Jetty, look, are they the worst? No, they're not the worst. And sometimes they'll have some pretty good takes and whatever. I don't want to really totally throw them under the bus, but it just seems like the entirety of like, what are they actually saying? What is your actual take? It is that cable news just isn't doing their job or like people don't trust the mainstream media. They're not telling, you know, and it's like that's such a, it's like a neutral, like just kind of meaningless thesis, you know, like it's like, I don't know, it's like individualism or democracy. It's like an empty ideal. You know, like the question isn't democracy, but like what are you voting for? Or are you an individual? Okay, like what does that mean? You're a pedophile or you are a poet. You know, there's a big difference. Both of those are individualists, you know, at some level. So, you know, it's just this kind of like, again, free-floating resentment is probably the best way to describe it. It's just, we hate the institutions. They're all, they're not getting it right. What are you actually saying? I mean, the irony of like Sagar and Jetty and Crystal Ball is that like the value that I get from them is when they're kind of like giving me a pretty like mainstream accurate assessment of a world, you know, you know, it's like when they act like the news, but it's just a little more friendly and accessible, that's like when I gain value from them. And when they kind of go deep into what they're all about, I'm just like, pass. Provide any concrete solutions to anything. It's just, it's like, it's like resentment for, is what it is. Yeah, you know. If you listen to Stephen, if you listen to these and the LOL fall because we're going to go back to a small government and a gold standard, and that's the way we're going to do it the way it's like, that means basically he's in amongst the comedy room. Yeah, those guys boil it down to hormone economics. Look, we can only handle so much dissonance in our life, right? We all need comfort. And if your life is chaotic, then you're going to have a much more of a need for you know, pre, pre-masticated punditry, right? If you're having a hard time with life, right? You're going to need comfort wherever you can get it. And so I think that's what's going on with many people when it comes to their entertainment choices. Look sunglasses, we are not allowed to look in his eyes. I think like the more at ease you are with yourself, like the more bonded you are to other people, because you're at ease with yourself, other people sense your ease, therefore they feel relaxed with you, therefore they can open up to you, you open up to other people, right? If you're functional, if you're navigating your way through life effectively, you have less need for external comfort, such as punditry that only fits with your prejudices, right? You're more prepared to struggle in your choices of movies, TV shows, podcasts, books, right? But if your life is a mess, if you're filled with fear, anxiety, rage, depression, sadness, then you're going to have much more of a need for comfort from your pundits and from your books and from your magazines and from your podcasts, right? If you haven't achieved the inner peace, then you'll try to mainline it artificially and you won't be able to handle a contrary perspective. Everything boils down to economics on the micro level, even in some capacity. It's sort of astounding, quite frankly. What's going on? We would get rid of... Yeah, it is pretty meaningless at the end of the day. Is that power of that personality? I don't understand how he's not repulsed by Candace Bowen's personality. Politics aside, just listening to her talk, she is so unlikeable to me, but no one else seems to be that. Well, I think everyone sees that. I mean, it's just a power... For a certain segment of the audience, a black woman reiterating their talking points is just... You might as well be showing them porn, right? It's actually just a huge part of it. Okay, so there's something for what you're having there that we didn't want to take your life on. Yeah, everything. I don't know of a braver pundit in America today than Candace Owens. I mean, I think she's incredibly brave. Luke leaves the US before the big vote. Australians is bug out, bug loose spot. So there was a big COVID outbreak in Los Angeles right after I left. But a lot of people trash Candace Owens. I think she's incredibly brave. She provides a lot of value as a pundit. I put her in my top five pundits along with Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson, Mickey Carlson. Also, it's interesting. She... I noticed this whenever I'll see her. She's straightened her hair, and she kind of is giving off a very strong white vibe. And I doubt she was doing that like five years ago. No, I think that the way she talks, like, this is what I hear every time she talks. Standard, trach, cliches of conservatism, and it's in this voice. The left can't stop losing. Yeah, exactly. It is really annoying. But also, I saw this on... Again, I do kind of cursory research, but I think I don't want to spend too much time on conservatives. But I remember when I was looking into John Doyle, and I actually did listen to his entire thing on Russia, which he said three things for an hour and a half over and over again. But he was interviewed by Candace Owens. Like, he was on. And all they were doing was reacting to libs of TikTok videos. So they just had them on, and they were showing these crazy kindergarten teachers talking about. Okay, so they're appealing to a 100 IQ audience. What do I think about Colin Liddell's insinuation that Richard Spencer is the Fed? I don't agree with it. But it is interesting that Michael Edison, Hayden, the gay Southern Poverty Law Center journalist, and the TAC dog researcher, how protective he is of Richard Spencer. That's kind of weird. And implying that he knows things that other people don't know and that everyone should just lay off Richard Spencer. It's kind of weird that an Antifa lefty journalist like Michael Edison, Hayden of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is so protective of Richard Spencer. He's on gender and stuff like that. And he's like, I just can't believe it. It's like, wow, get help, please. It's like, okay. That's a huge part of it now. He's Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro. They're doing reaction videos like they... Matt Walsh is really funny. He's really smart, really talented, man. He's very clever. Very funny. Yes. And these are exactly what you just said, Richard. And but yeah, all these retards are just letting it out. Yeah. Well, why are these pundits like doing these like cringy things? Because they're trying to make a living. It's not easy making a living from punditry. Like journalism is rarely paid for itself. Punditry is rarely paid for itself. National review, New Republic, never been financially sustainable, financially independent. They've always required subsidies. So people who want to make a living have to give an audience what it wants to hear. Right? Those are just part of the challenges of being in business. And it's very similar because I imagined that. That was, at least in my experience, that was coming from people doing entertainment journalism. You know, like this huge genre is reacting to trailers. And you know, like... Look, if journalism is never paid for itself, then you have to move outside of journalism if you want to get the funding to do journalism. Right? If you want to get the funding to do journalism, you have to break the mold of journalism, step outside of journalism, and try to do things that are popular that will get funding, that will then enable you to do the things you really want to do. Well, like the new rise of Skywalker trailer just drops. Like, let me show you the Easter eggs or whatever. And then certainly like reviewing movies in this kind of reaction way. And it's kind of funny how that whole genre has kind of like moved into politics, where, yeah, Matt Walsh, like that's what he does. He has a... Matt Walsh probably does have a basic worldview that's kind of Protestant, very Goldwater Protestantism. But you know, there's not a whole lot there. But it's basically just like... I think Matt Walsh is highly intelligent, very skilled, very funny. Like, I think he's at absolute top of his game. The thumbs up to Matt Walsh. This young man, his name is Barry Nelson. He is a man, born one, and he is now pretending to be a woman. And he is doing makeup tutorials on YouTube. And this is what he has to say, and he apparently thinks chromosomes don't exist. Well, that's new to us. Do you think you could find what a woman is? I'm not sure. You know, they just, you know... I can do this. I can do this, honestly. Look, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Nick Fuentes, and Tim Pool, they all have to make their living. They all try to make their living from their online efforts. Therefore, they have to pander to a lower IQ audience the Richard Spencer does, who's independently wealthy. Right? When you're independently wealthy, when you have independent financial support, when you don't depend upon maximizing your audience size, then you can afford to be more high-brow, to be more intellectually responsible. Right? It's a lot easier to do the right thing when you've got money in the bank. Right? When you're responsible for, say, the employment of dozens of people, which is the case with Ben Shapiro and other people at the Daily Wire, then you have to take that into consideration and do things that attract a large audience to keep that money flowing in. So you can't judge them by the same standards that you apply to yourself. But then it's Richard doing something that I have longed on, is I always try to look at people through varying perspectives and try to think, oh, through this angle, I'm superior to this person. Through this angle, I'm braver than this person. From this angle, I'm deeper than this person. From this angle, I have more clarity than this person. From this angle, I'm telling tougher truths than this person's willing to say. Right? I think this is a universal human compulsion to favorably compare ourselves to others. And I think that I probably had it, you know, much more intensely than the average person. Howard Stern in the 2010s went full-on to professional interviews. Yeah, I haven't heard much positive about Howard Stern in about 20 years. Seems to have lost his edge. Bye-bye.