 So I was just watching the doco last night, Australian story about Caden Bales. So do you know the story of Caden Bales? He was born with dwarfism. He's part Aboriginal. His father was a famous Indigenous, meaning Aboriginal, radio personality in Sydney, Australia, his grandfather. And so he's born with dwarfism and that poses a ton of medical issues. So his head is disproportionately big for his small body. So he has to have all sorts of medical procedures because the head places a lot of weight on the spine. So that's why it's important that your head is oriented in a nice upward balanced direction because if the head tips back on the spine, then it's going to put a lot of pressure on the spine. So this kid's got comparatively huge head, tiny torso, and there's a constant pain for surgeries, medical procedures to leave the pressure on his spine, etc. And I think around fib. So I think he's in something like, something like nine years of age and is in fourth grade. And his mother was concerned he was getting bullied. Now this wasn't really, this wasn't really harsh bullying apparently. It was just people noticing, hey, you're really short, or people trying to take pictures or video of him or just noting like he just came up to their, to their hips or to their knees. And so he's not taking it too well. So one day his mum, she's a single mum because the strain apparently looking after Caden had split her up with her then husband about two or three years before Caden Bales went viral. And so she's got something like three or four kids and only one of them is a dwarf Caden Bales. So the mum goes pick up Caden from school and Caden's hysterical because it seems like, I don't know the full story obviously, just from looking at the Australian story doco that he was getting some, you know, moderate teasing, wasn't, wasn't really bullying, seem much more like teasing. Anyway, Caden's hysterical. So the mum doesn't know what to do. I mean, what do you do when it's just when the kid, when your kid gets bullied? And good to see you this morning, Elliot. I've got a question for you for the audience in a minute. So she, she's kind of out of wit's end. So she decides to go live on Facebook and just tell people this is what bullying does. And you know, a little boy, nine-year-old boy throws, you know, throwing a fit. Like he has talked about suicide since he was about age five or six when his grandfather died. Now he wants to go be with grandad. So he keeps ranting that he wants someone to kill him, wants to be put out of his misery. And the mother captures this on Facebook live post and doesn't think more about it. Next day, she gets up and there are hundreds of notifications on her phone because this, this plea for help has gone viral. All these celebrities start pitching in with messages of support for Caden. And it's on TV news shows around the world. And it's like it's an easy thing to rally behind, right? Who's pro-bullying aside from Richard Spencer. And, and then this dwarf comedian, Mike Williams, I think in the United States, does a GoFundMe and eventually raises something like $467,000 for Caden to send him to Disneyland because supposedly Disneyland ride is the happiest place in the world. Right. So it's a feel good story for about three days. And then about day three, all these people start coming up with the, God, is that not beautiful? I mean, look at the sky. Look at the sky, my friends. Wow. So we're about 15 minutes away from sunset. My God, I love the light. I love the sky here. I also love our cops, our lower enforcement. Love our military too, because they're important. And we love our SEC and our regulators folks. We love our SEC and our stock regulators. All right. So feel good story for three days until the internet strikes back. And there's this bizarre conspiracy theory that Caden Bales is like an 18 year old actor. Now the kid was an actor. He has been interested in acting. But, and so he is an emotional personality. But this, this rant was not an act. And it's a completely bizarre theory to suggest that this 18 year old is a, is an actor. Yeah, we love our overlaws. We love short sellers guys. We love, we love our hedge funds. Don't we love our hedge funds guys? Come on. We love our hedge funds. We love our SEC. We love our short sellers because they keep capitalism honest. What a beautiful day in the neighborhood. A beautiful, beautiful day in the neighborhood. I'm so blessed that I get to share it with you. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, in the neighborhood. Both are told. So internet strikes back and like internet comes out with this bizarre conspiracy theory that Caden Bales is an 18 year old actor. And he's not. He's nine. But all sorts of people start pushing this bizarre conspiracy theory for which there's no factual basis. And it was brought up on my show. And so when I do a show, I can't, I can't fact-check everything that anyone's going to say, right? So it's brought up on my show. I don't remember how I react, but I think it started to seem clear to me, like this is the first I heard of it was, it was brought up on my show and it was brought up that this was a conspiracy theory. And I think shortly thereafter, I did, I think I did a tiny little bit of research and realized this is not a conspiracy theory. This kid really is nine. This kid really was getting teased, perhaps even bullied. This kid does have a flair for the dramatic, but I don't think this was primarily a performance. And kind of an awful thing to do to suggest that a crying, bullied kid was just a fake. And now there were all these celebrities, right, rallying to his cause. So there's a certain type of personality that watches my show and watches dissident shows, whether on the right or the left, who thinks that celebrities are involved is probably bogus. This is a brown kid with brown parents. So there's a certain dissident personality that says, oh, this is going to be a hoax. And there's a dissident personality that watches, you know, my stream and other dissident streams that thinks, oh, if it's on, if it's on the news, if all these newspapers are rallying around this kid, if all these TV shows are celebrating this kid is probably fake and bogus. And there were some comment, oh my God, look at that. Wow, it's beautiful. And there were some, you know, comments or pictures that could be considered vulgar of the Caden flashing money and saying, show me the money. So the kid, he's a nine year old kid. Yeah. And he appreciated people giving him hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I think when I did a little bit of investigation, saw that this really was a nine year old kid, this kid had been teased or bullied. This apparently was a cry from the heart. This was not some fake news manipulation. I didn't feel good about hosting and airing the views that this was all a big fake. I mean, it's a really nasty cruel thing to do. I mean, how nihilistic do you have to be to promote something so bogus that this this was all just an acting performance and this kid's 18, right? I just, I didn't want to have that on my, on my show. So how do we deal with stuff that we don't want on our show or in our life? Right. So sometimes just taking a little step back is really helpful. So instead of another believer and cutting people out of your life, except in rare circumstances, sometimes you can just readjust, right? Someone who's unbearable on a daily basis now becomes quite entertaining. If you just talk to them say every other week or someone who's obnoxious on a weekly basis, they become just fine if you just interact with them once a month. So there are four ways that we can either get closer or further away from people. And that's the intensity of the interaction. We can have a more or less intense interaction with people, the frequency. If we want to make a little separation between ourselves and say someone pushing a phony conspiracy theory about Kate and Bales, we can just reduce the frequency of our interactions or we can reduce the proximity. So rather than meeting up in person, we can say just have a phone call once a month. So there's frequency, proximity, intensity, and then the fourth category that you can change is time. How much time do you want to spend with someone? So I just find a lot of people who are unbearable and there's a level of intimacy, proximity, frequency, and intensity. Become perfectly bearable. In fact, quite a positive addition to your life. If you just ratchet back their role in your life a little bit. That's an insight that I picked out from a book on how to be likeable, which really helped me. So at one point I had an unfortunate tendency early on in my conversion to Judaism to cut a lot of people out of my life because I thought, oh, we don't share common values. What's the frequency, Dan, rather? Okay, so here's a question for the chat. How often do you wish that people were dead? So I am not immune from this. Okay, I have had co-workers who I wish, I wish for their demise, but it's been fairly infrequent. But what the heck does this have to do with Caden Bales? I think there's a lot of free-floating rage around the borders. We're on the borders. This is not CBS News. We're on the borders. And what seems to animate people on the borders, on the periphery, on the margins, is a tremendous amount of free-floating rage. And to what extent? Yeah, hell equals other people. So to what extent do you wish for the demise of people that you have to interact with? And to what extent are you attracted to distant politics because you have so much rage, and this simply gives you the opportunity to vent it? So I notice there are certain similarities between the people, yeah, not often, not never. That's my experience too. So I notice that there are certain commonalities between people pushing the Caden Bales is a conspiracy, you know, he's an actor, 18-year-old actor, which is bogus, he's a nine-year-old kid. And people pushing QAnon, people pushing Stop the Steel, people pushing COVID is just the flu, and all sorts of other conspiracy theories. And they often tend to have distant right politics. So how much is one's politics simply an opportunity to vent, all right? You might have all this free-floating rage and anxiety discussed, and certain politics gives you much more room to vent your rage, to express your anger. Now, I don't view conspiracy theories as the most evil thing out there. I see them as signs of an underachieving life, right? That people feel somewhat helpless about their life position. So they're very attracted to ways of thinking that essentially absolve them of responsibility for their troubles and say, oh, the world's manipulated, stock market's manipulated, media's manipulated, politics is manipulated, right? They've seen people who stopped counting the votes, stopped allowing trades on GameStop, right? And there is a little bit of truth to that, to some of that. The modern workplace allows incompetent people to siphon off the peace of mind of the competent. That's an interesting perspective, yeah. Now, most workplaces toxic don't be a substantial number R, but at least half of the bosses that I've had, half the bosses I've had have been great, right? So workplaces are not all misery. So I think I have a middle position on conspiracies. So that Marjorie Green Taylor, the Republican congresswoman who made a post on Facebook that California's wildfires were caused by what? A Jewish space laser, right? That's pretty out there. And then she also had some out there thinking on, I think, QAnon and I seem to stop the steal and a whole bunch of other conspiracies. However, I have a middle position. I don't view this conspiracy thinking as like the worst thing out there, right? I don't view it as heinous. Generally speaking, bosses are never the problem incompetent colleagues are. So generally speaking, I think conspiracy theories are a way for people to identify with a certain outlook on the world, to essentially identify with a particular tribe. And so whether or not they literally believe in what they're saying, it's a way of expressing themselves. So for example, there is no measurable difference between people who believe that Jesus is God and people who don't, right? There's no inherent politics, behavior, social standing, cultural standing that goes with belief in Jesus is God. So incompetence is aggression says Elliot. I don't agree. Okay, so incompetence is largely a result of IQ. Deliberate incompetence is a form of passive aggression. But I don't think we could say that most forms of incompetence are deliberate. Hey, thanks, tricky woo. I'm glad you enjoyed the walk and talks and big shout out to Josh Randall, who threw down $70 in the super chat last night. Thanks, Josh. And apologize, it took me about 10, 15 minutes to notice what he'd done. I was so involved in preaching the gospel. So people who believe in QAnon like Ashley Barber, right? She was running a small business. All right, so people are still perfectly capable of running a business and believing in QAnon. So I don't think we should take conspiracy theories literally. It's not really about satanic pedophiles running the world. It's more a sense that our elites are dangerous. So most people who watch dissident streams, no dissident politics, they believe that our elites are bad evil at best out of touch. And I think that is simply the result of the information revolution. That's why I'm so into Martin Goorie. As we get more information, we tend to become more mistrustful. We tend to have more doubt. Are you familiar with the Acton Institute of Libertarian Religious Think Tech? With a gay Catholic Bishop leader? No, not really. So as we get more information, then we start critiquing everything that our elites tell us. And so our elites are fallible, right? I don't think that Anthony Fauci is any more deliberately malevolent than you or I. He says things in part for their public effect, right? So he said we don't need to wear masks because he wanted to conserve personal protective equipment. He kept changing the benchmark for how much of the population do we need to get vaccinated to try to encourage more people to get vaccinated. And so people who push their pornography causes rape or murder, it's not so much they necessarily believe that, but they think that's an effective tool against pornography. So a lot of people on the right and the left feel it's okay to lie about public issues if it's for good ends. And there's even permission in Torah for rabbis and other Jews to mislead people about what Torah actually says, if it will accomplish a good end. So if it will encourage people to say observe more Torah. So frequently in Orthodox Judaism, truth has only an instrumental value. In politics, truth often only has an instrumental value. So I don't think QAnon people are primarily people who literally believe in the truth of the theory. It's more that they identify with an ethos, right? They may not agree with all the details of national socialism, but at least it's an ethos, said the dude in the Big Lebowski. So conspiracy theories, believing in them, it's not really about the literal conspiracy theory. It's about an ethos of distrust against elites. And this distrust has exploded from the information revolution, which really took off in the 1990s with cable TV and the internet. So we now have all this reason to be skeptical about government and our leading institutions. Every time the New York Times publishes newsworthy article gets attention, then immediately you've got a hundred different critics rising up online to question it. So New York Times does not have the authority it once had. And so that's what spurs much of the criticism anyway. So I don't believe that believers in QAnon necessarily literally believe in it. It's an ethos. Like it's a way of identifying with a particular crowd on how they view the world. On the other hand, it is an ethos of underachievers, right? It's an ethos of people, generally speaking, who want to flee personal responsibility and embrace the sense of victim hood. So it is a warning sign that this is not likely to be the most productive and upstanding of citizens. Wow, good morning Beverly Hills. Where we go, where we go all. So on the one hand, I don't look at conspiracy theory believers, you know, primarily on the basis of what, you know, the conspiracy theory literally says. I look at it on the basis of an ethos, what it's trying to tell people. Do you see Xi on Facebook with Carl's livestream seven chat wasn't having none of it? No, I didn't see that. On the other hand, though it's not so horrible, and on the other hand, it's not so good. So it's definitely something that I want to separate myself from because we saw some of the toxic effects of conspiracy thinking is that it generally leads to an abdication of personal responsibility. There doesn't seem to be much public space in Beverly Hills. What do you mean? I can look half a mile in each direction. I only see one person. Look at these beautiful wide streets, lovely sidewalk. So it's interesting the correlation between believing that Caden Bales was a fraud, people believing that the voting process was a fraud, that Robin Hood was a fraud. Robin Hood, the app was constrained by reality, by the reality of the stock trading system that you have to have certain amount of reserves that were getting flooded. It wasn't that they got a call from the White House. They want you to restrict trading on GameStop. It wasn't the elites intervening to stop trading buying GameStop shares. It appears right now, according to the limited amount of information that I have. But on the distant right, there's just this overwhelming desire to believe, oh, this is the elites trying to warp the system once again. They're trying to rig the system, they're trying to rig the game against honest, hardworking Americans. So I was walking in a park earlier, bro. Lovely park in La Cienega Park. In early on in the stream, I was going for a walk in a beautiful park. Now the sad thing about this park is that they removed the basketball courts a few decades ago because they thought that the basketball courts attracted a bad element. Why on earth would people think that basketball courts, outdoor basketball courts in a public park would attract a bad element? That just doesn't make any sense. I mean, I think basketball Americans are our finest Americans. I think it's so sad that Beverly Hills restricted access to this park. Okay, we can walk. Man, press one to show your support for basketball Americans. So sad that Beverly Hills is so racist. They're pulling down those, they pulled down those public basketball courts. Hope to hear more info on how you got the YouTube human contact information. Okay, so I lost my main YouTube channel with like 6,000 videos on it. So to upload in a 6,000 videos would require a minimum of five minutes of video. So that'd be like a minimum of 500 hours to upload those videos to another site. So it was a devastating loss. And I just didn't say anything publicly about it at the time because the YouTube notification said you are forbidden from starting any other YouTube channels. So I still had Luke Ford Livestreams 18 and I started getting a fatalistic attitude, you might remember, after November 30th that this channel will be gone any day and I'll be switching to Dlive. Well, I got sick of YouTube continuing to bill me $75 a month for YouTube TV, which I could not access now that they had deleted my LucasVac YouTube channel. So I'm getting billed $75 a month and I also lost access to three movies, three documentaries that I bought for like $10 a talk each. So finally, I got sick of just charging back on my credit card, I found a way to contact YouTube TV and I said, hey, you deleted my YouTube channel, which means I can't use YouTube TV. And yet you continue to charge me $75 a month and you didn't refund the three movies that I bought. I didn't rent them for three or four dollars. I bought them for $10 or $12. And so what's up with that? So less than 24 hours later, I get emails from YouTube saying, hey, we deleted your channel by mistake, we are restoring it. And so that's what happens. So my approximately 6,000 videos on LucasVac channel is back up. Man, that was a loss. I felt that. I never buy movies, you can stream them for free online. Yeah, or not all of them. Let me assure you that all the movies I bought, you could not find them online. So some of the Lucas videos are lost. No, no, none of them. I had them all backed up. The point is that it would take 500 plus hours to upload 6,000 videos to a new channel. That's why the loss was so devastating. Yes, I had them all downloaded, right? I had them all backed up. I'm steadily uploading my archive to Rumble and to Bitshoot. I started an LBRY.tv account. So the point is I did not want that extra 500 hours of work. Also, I've had that YouTube channel since 2007. I mean, it was a painful loss. So I didn't want to talk about it because it would just make the loss feel more intense. And yeah, I do back up all my videos. It's the, dude, it's the point that it would take over 500 hours to upload them to a new channel. That's an awful lot of work. I didn't have 500 hours just lying around to upload content. So it was a devastating loss. I didn't want to talk about it because it meant that my Luke Ford live streams 18 account was against YouTube services effectively because they had emailed and prohibited me from opening any other YouTube account. Like they turned down my appeal within about 20 minutes back on November 30th. So it was devastating to lose almost 14 years of work. Yeah. And I lost all my playlists. I can have a music playlist on Luke's back of about, you know, 200, 300 of my favorite songs. All sorts of playlists on there. I don't want to lose it. On the other hand, it wasn't the end of the world. Like I could go on and I prefer to keep my focus on the parts of my life that work on the parts of my life that I appreciate, you know, what I'm grateful for, what I'm happy about. And so I just didn't want to talk about the loss of my main channel. I could automate the backup. I Google allows you to automate the backup process. I have no problem backing up my videos. I back up my videos. I back up my website. I've always done this. I haven't lost any videos. Also, all my content is on SoundCloud. All my discussions with Kevin McDonald. All my discussions about Kevin McDonald. All my shows with Eric Stryker and Mike Enoch. They're all on SoundCloud. And I'm slowly in the process of uploading, you know, some of my Nortius Luke Ford's Nortius Time videos. So I'm uploading Luke Ford's Nortius Time videos too hot for YouTube to my Rumble, to my Bitshoot and to my LBRY.TV account. But it's time consuming. Very time consuming. So they're all there on SoundCloud. I've never taken down something because of what I say. Commentaries have given dust, boot. Commenters, when you leave a copy, it refreshes the video. YouTube would hold it. Yeah. So SoundCloud is base, man. I've got my content there. I've never removed anything that I have. I could automate the upload process. Oh, foolish me. I'm in error. But automating the upload process, I still have to put a title and a video description. So you can't, I don't know how you can automate that because every title, every video description is going to be different. So, oh, let me not appear ungrateful for your offer of help. I came off the wrong way. Thank you for your offer of help. And I'll keep it in mind. And I should take off my idea deflection shield and open up to the goodness in the universe and to the goodness of my friend, Elliot, who is so often being of service to me, plays such an integral role in my channel. So, okay, maybe my idea deflector shield came down there for a couple of minutes. But I have now pushed off my idea deflection shield. I'm now free and open to truth from any source. So I love Martin Gury's book, The Revolt of the Public. I love this concept of the center on the border. So the center refers to the big institutions like the banks, hedge funds, politics, the mainstream media. And these tend to be hierarchical and BitShoot uploaded does YouTube afterwards, I'm told. Yeah, it does, but it's crappy. It's really, really crappy. It's really hit and miss. So BitShoot is a frequently frustrating website. Isn't the fact that 99% don't revolt against 1% even though they outnumber them evidence that people are gullible? No, because the people in revolt, they don't actually want to rum things. The revolt is generally vague. You can unify people around common hatred, like we hate hedge funds. We hate short sellers. Okay, it's easy to unite people around that. Then what you should do about that is incredibly divisive. People on the margins, people on the borders just have this free floating rage. BitShoot is not what it used to be anymore. BitShoot was never that great, technically. It's always, in fact, feel like it's better now than it's ever been, but it's still very dicey tech platform. It just frequently doesn't work. So the 99% are the people who are in rage, like Occupy Wall Street. They didn't have any particular aims. They just simply wanted the government to remove unhappiness. The protest movement in Israel didn't really have any specific aims. They just wanted the government to remove unhappiness so that they wouldn't have to have a long commute. And so Donald Trump, he was a protest candidate, but he didn't have much that he was actually going to legislate about. He protested a lot about social media censorship, and he can't search for Hitler or Holocaust anymore on BitShoot. Okay, so that is a that is a big loss to our public discourse, and I don't want to understate that. But neither Barack Obama, certainly Barack Obama after the 2010 midterm election, and Donald Trump, neither of them were particularly interested in running the government, neither of them were particularly skilled at running anything. They were protest candidates, even when they were in office as president of the United States. Like, they used their bully pulpit to talk about how corrupt the system was, like the people the most powerful man in the world. You know, President Obama and President Trump, using the bully pulpit of their presidential office not so much to get things done. They didn't know how to get things done. They didn't know how to craft workable legislative majorities. What they could do was protest Donald Trump made it safe to search for Merry Christmas on BitShoot. So Obama and Trump were both protest candidates. They both acted as angry prophets from the borders rather than as presidents of the United States. That's what Ann Coulter was so furious about. Trump was always complaining about a rigged system, an unfair system, and Trump took on the fight against war on Christmas, bro. Yeah, so Trump often just sounded like an outsider. He's never shown any particular gift for running things, and he certainly wasn't gifted as running things as a president. Now, I still think he was the greatest president we've had since Eisenhower, but he was not particularly good at running things. So both he and Obama were angry prophets from the wilderness, even while presidents of the United States. It's absurd. We've never had anything like that. And that's one advantage to Joe Biden, is that he's not operating like an angry prophet from the margins. And it may very well turn out to be a far more effective leader than Donald Trump, now effective in bad directions, perhaps. But Joe Biden has passed far more executive orders in his first two weeks, 10 days in office than Donald Trump did. So Joe Biden has hit the ground running far more effectively than than Donald Trump did. So protests occupy Wall Street. There weren't any significant specific demands. It was just a bunch of feelings that, you know, life is unfair and we want the government to make us happy. And black lives matter. Again, you don't have a specific agenda beyond, you know, ridiculous desires to defund the police. And Antifa, again, that's not really a specific legislative agenda that they have. It's just a way to get angry and to fight people and to protest. So Obama was loved by the media establishment. Well, there's a lot of criticism of Obama by the media establishment, his lack of interest in governing. So Obama got a fair amount of criticism from people like Dana Milbank from the New Yorker about how evident his lack of interest in governance was. Like Obama stuck to his community organizer, you know, angry profit from the wilderness thing. Did people expect Biden to do something? He's an empty suit, empty head, his brain, his dementia. Well, he's done a lot as far as executive orders. So it appears that he's done a lot more than Donald Trump did. Now, much or most of what he's done, I think most of us on this stream would disagree with, but he is getting things done and he's not operating like an angry profit from the margins. Right? So we had 12, eight years of Obama, four years of Trump. The president of the United States essentially said it's not interested in governing. Well, Biden's not in charge, his handlers are. But yeah, guess who chooses his handlers? Probably Joe Biden. Right? The personal is the political, who you choose to staff up with or reflects you. And so the people that Joe Biden has chosen to put around him, you know, reflect who he is. So I don't think I'm not necessarily convinced that Joe Biden's just this empty suit. He won president of the United States. Now, there's no groundswell of love for him. Like there was by segments of the population for Trump and for Obama, but he may indeed be competent, may be competent in a bad direction. He's not doing things that his voters once is a neoliberal shell. Well, his voters wanted not Trump. Right? That's the overwhelming reason that people voted for Joe Biden. Very few people voted for Joe Biden because they loved Joe Biden. They voted for Joe Biden because he was not Donald Trump. And so he is doing exactly what he ran on. He's not Donald Trump. So I don't agree. So Joe Biden was always the most moderate and the most neoliberal of all the major candidates for the Democratic Party for president of the United States. So the distant sphere on the right and left, it seems to be driven primarily by the energy of negation. Right? And same with Obama and Trump. They're very easy to negate, but weren't very good at building things up. And so distant sphere attracts people are filled with rage, often like nihilistic rage. Right? Where they just want to hurt people, bomb people, kill people. It's very much like that movie V for Vendetta. Right? Where they thought just blowing buildings up, that would usher in a new age. So we have effectively a standoff. You've got the center, which is not moving, not moving characterized by inertia, the powerful institutions. And then you've got the enraged dissidents, the enraged people on the border who don't have a specific agenda, generally speaking. They just have rage. Like the distant sphere of politics is filled with nihilistic rage. Now, not saying that everybody in the distance sphere is full of nihilistic rage. I don't think it's Steve Saylor or Jared Taylor or Peter Brimlow are filled with nihilistic rage. But the people who watch live streams and listen to podcasts, it seems to be from the distant sphere, they're overwhelmingly wanting shows of nihilistic rage. Like Tucker Carlson, much of his shows become just nihilistic rage. And so I talk a lot about that Amazon documentary, The Rise of the Warrior Apes. And it talked about how male apes are in a very strict hierarchy. It's pretty clear who's number one, who's number two, number three, you know, all the way to like number 27. And the higher you are in the hierarchy, the more access you have to females, the more access you have to food. And human beings are very similar. You can look at all the relationships in your life. You can have a pretty clear idea of who's dominant and who's subordinate. And with the warrior apes, they were always trying to move up in the dominant's hierarchy, or they were trying to protect their space in the dominant's hierarchy. So it's very much like the blogosphere, and the podcast sphere, and the live streaming sphere, and the vlogosphere, blogosphere and vlogosphere, where the easiest way to move up dramatically is by attacking people on top. So people on the distant right, the easiest way to gain prominence by attacking people like Richard Spencer, because he's pretty close to the top of the alt-right. And so if you want to move up in that world, you go to war with Richard Spencer. You make videos or podcasts to the effect that, you know, Richard Spencer unmasked. And it's also the same in Orthodox Jewish life, like Rabbi Yaron Rubin. Okay, so he's this modest IQ, Sephardic rabbi, a baltruva, used to be a trader or a businessman. And he releases these videos attacking people like Ben Shapiro, attacking all the established powers that be in Jewish life, and in Orthodox Jewish life. As he knocks them down, he seemingly moves higher in status. So Yaron Rubin and Yosef Mizrahi, two modest IQ, Sephardic rabbis, they've got this enormous rabble-rousing fan base, like enormous. So Rabbi Yaron Rubin released a video about a week or so ago, Dennis Prager unmasked. I think the video's got like 12, 10,000 views already. Had like 4,000 views overnight. Now, Mark Shapiro, by contrast, is a real scholar. You know, he knows 10 times as much about Torah and Judaism as Yaron Rubin and Yosef Mizrahi put together. Yet, his videos will get about 1% of that viewership. So why, and it's not that he is not fluent in the way he presents his ideas, it's just that he doesn't tap in to, you know, rage, the nihilistic rage of the rabble that support Yaron Rubin and Yosef Mizrahi. So the figure's like Gypsy Crusader, right? He's a new bloke on the distant right sphere, you know, enormous audience. Eric Stryker and Mike Enoch, enormous audience. So what they promote is nihilistic rage. And so they tap into that kind of low IQ, rabble-rousing mentality. And again, there's an enormous audience for that. But think about a higher IQ version of what Mike Enoch does. And that's like young Kenneth Brown. And his views only get 1% or less of what Mike Enoch or Eric Stryker gets. So Kenneth Brown is much more intelligent, much more thoughtful. And that just isn't the same, isn't just the same sort of audience for thoughtful, nuanced content. People want like angry content. That's what seems to drive people. They want like angry, nihilistic, you know, rabble-rousing content where you're taking down other people, right? So this one guy made a video about Caden Bales saying that he was a fraud. And then a day or two later, he corrected himself and he admitted that he was factually wrong. So what do you think was the ratio of views from the video promoting a conspiracy theory, a false conspiracy theory regarding Caden Bales compared to the video where he retracted his false conspiracy theory? So the video promoting the false conspiracy theory got, you know, over 100 times the number of views that his retraction did. So there's an enormous, enormous viewership out there that essentially wants to believe conspiracy theories, not for the conspiracy theories in and of themselves, but for the ethos that essentially that they're not responsible for their own troubles, that the world is rigged and there's no real point in taking action. So much of the Wall Street bets, you know, GameStop trading is nihilistic. It's like we can stay, what's the slogan? We can stay retarded longer than you can stay solvent. So on the one hand, that's hilarious. On the other hand, there's a tremendous amount of nihilism there. And the rabble rousing appeal of, oh, we're going to unmask these certain leaders in our domain. It's just like the rise of the warrior apes, where you move up the hierarchy by beating up the people who are above you. Problem is, and you see in the rise of the warrior apes, this young, strong ape, you beat up everyone above him in the dominance hierarchy. So he got to number one, but he was not able to play nicely with others. So the warrior apes who were number two and number three, they teamed up. They teamed up with other apes. And then together as a team, they took down the number one dude who was not able to work with the team. So the distant right, the alt-right, disintegrated because of the antisocial nature of most of its adherents. They were simply incapable of getting along with each other. They could unite around Heading Hillary Clinton. They could unite around Heading the Left, Heading the mainstream media, Heading our elites, Heading our big institutions, but they couldn't build anything together because they could not unite on common platform. And a platform of nihilistic rage and hatred and conspiracy thinking that that attracts people who are not not so sociable. So let me see if I can have a look at the chart here. Wall Street Beds exemplifies the importance of a life skill acquisition. How to escape nihilism? That's a real question of our age. Who is Kenneth Brown? So he's now known as Deep Left Jokul. So Keith Woods is a hierarchy version of Striker. Yeah, don't hide behind. I'm just an anti-murder activist. Sailor just wants to vent about blacks. That's why I got banned. Say what you want about Trump, at least he had authenticity. Okay, so how to get away from nihilism? So probably the quickest and easiest way for adults is to have children. Most people cease to be nihilists once they have kids. Now, other ways of escaping nihilism is come to believe in something. Like begin to have spheres in your life that you regard as sacred or precious that you don't want to trash. J.A.F. had a bit on GameGate how it helped Sargon but failed. One of the video games must pass through a political correctness group, it seems, the left one. I'm not so sure. I know virtually nothing about video games, but maybe video games put out by the major retailers. But is that really true? It's like I don't think the censorious forces are gonna win. Like I think, for example, with live streaming, there are just so many outlets to live stream now. It's more challenging to monetize but you can definitely still get out your views. And there's still a ton of this material on YouTube that may not last a long time and it does not get recommended by search algorithms but it's still there. So I think with the rise of blockchain technology, I'm not so sure that the forces of censorship can win. So the status quo elites seem to have taken control of Google, Facebook, Twitter in a censorious fashion. And the chat notes that J.A.F. got a piece of viewership has dropped like crazy. Yeah, he no longer has guests. So it was just J.A.F. giving his views on the news and J.A.F.s like me, neither of us have any particular gifted insights into the news. So J.A.F. was so good and I was good when I was in dialogue with people like Luke on his own and just orating to the camera like this. This is not Luke at his best. Luke is better as a team player. Yeah, he feared election year pruning from YouTube. So he huddled and restarted J.A.F. started a new channel and it's just him and J.A.F. just him commenting on the news is it's just not compelling and Luke, just him not compelling. So I had Adam Green on the show last week and I had 10 times my normal number of viewers because I am much more compelling when I'm in dialogue or debate with other people. Same with Godwood podcast. Now, Godwood podcast has a modest following but if he introduced debate to his show he'd have 10 times, 20 times, 50 times, 100 times the viewership. Thank you. Luke on his own is good too. So I think I definitely have my moments but it is let's just say it's 10 times easier to produce compelling content when you're in debate. There's a saying that all the world loves a lover. It doesn't. But all the world loves is a fight. You give people a good fight and they'll tune in. So Godwood podcast is releasing all this, you know, high IQ content. He seems to be pretty much spending 30 hours a week plus on his show and on tweeting and he's built up a modest following. But both Godwood podcast and I would have 10 times the viewership if we simply did our shows together or did some shows together. On our own, Luke and Godwood, we get a much smaller audience than what we'd get together. But unfortunately, the distance for you is incredibly fractious. So I wish I could stream with Godwood podcast and Dennis Dale and Kevin Michael Gray. So I've invited Kevin probably five different times to come back on the show for some one off shows. And I think Kevin would be much more interesting in dialogue and debate with other people. But instead we've all splintered into our little corners and most of our audiences disappeared because it's incredibly, it's emotionally taxing to try to set up shows with other people like setting up a show with a woman last week. She flaked on me three times. So when you set up shows with people they flake on you, they come back with all sorts of questions, requirements, demands, they don't show up on time, they don't have their technology working. So many journalists believe that the least favorite part of their job is asking for interviews. And so that's what makes the most compelling content is that multiple people carrying on a discussion and a debate. But it can be quite tiring and exhausting to to arrange. Yeah, I should try to get Paul Gottfried on my show. I spent a lot of time trying to recruit people onto my show. And it's just gets really tiring. And I definitely want to do more of it. But it takes us tall.