think tech, this is keeping the world company. And we're going to do the decline of leadership in America and elsewhere. With my co-host, Tim Apichella, and our special esteemed guest who we'd love to have on the show, Gene Rosenfeld. So, Gene, let's start with you. What is going on here that we have leaders who lie and we buy it? What is going on here that we have leaders who are able to get the nomination for president and then very possibly able to win that, although they lie on a daily basis and they make statements that are outrageous and they disregard our system and our justice and they take us back to the stone ages in so many ways. Why is that? What is the problem in the human condition that allows this to happen? Well, I've been doing some study of what we've learned about human behavior in a social setting and social psychology. There was a very famous experiment conducted in 1963 by Stanley Milgram at Yale in which he measured to what extent ordinary individuals with administer harm and pain to another individual under the influence of an authority. And he called this experiment obedience to authority. It was actually a number of experiments, very, very thorough. He wrote a book on it in 1974 by the same name. What it does is illuminate what's happening today in the Trump-Biden face-off. One reason why Donald Trump has never conceded the 2020 election is because he would lose authority if he did not present himself as a legitimate president and Joe Biden as an illegitimate president, thus setting up the stage for two competing leaders or authorities in the experiments that Milgram conducted. When you had two authorities directing another person to administer harm to a third person, there was paralysis. The individual that was supposed to take the action could not take the action until he could determine who was the greater authority. So if you have symmetric authorities competing, you have paralysis. And what do we have in the Congress today? And what do we have in the government today? More paralysis. So this means that Trump, not conceding the 2020 election, was a stroke of malevolent genius seen in individuals who are authoritarian leaders such as Putin, Mussolini, Hitler, and it undergirds the accusation that he has a neo-fascist movement going here, and he's very clever in what he's doing. So what we need to do is determine who is the authority, and that's what this election will do. It may or may not. If Biden wins this election, I expect Trump to still contest the results. He cannot afford to lose authority because he loses power. That also jobs with another theory in social science called the theory of charisma. There are two types of leadership, charismatic and bureaucratic. Bureaucratic is legitimate leadership acquired through the institutions of a legitimate government. Charismatic leadership comes from outside and sways the emotions of people and undermines the institutions of a legitimate government. And we've seen this play out in the last six years with Donald Trump undermining the respect we have for institutions and damning them as elites and not meritocracy which we need to negotiate a very complicated world. You know, it's not new. Just one reaction. You know, before the 2016 election, he said pretty much the same thing as he said before the 2020 election. They asked him whether he would concede if he lost. This is 2016 and he refused to answer the question suggesting that he would not concede. I suggest to you that if he had lost in 2016, he would have tried to do the same thing then. But, you know, the other reaction I have, and I'd like to, you know, put this to Tim, we have seen this throughout human history in one way or another. How did monarchs, how did bad monarchs get in charge? Then, you know, you can say it's sociology, social science. You can say it's, you know, psychology on a grand scale. You can also say that we're like ants and we have a queen ant or bees. We have a queen bee and we need to have this kind of leadership. It's a human need. It's biochemical is what it is, biochemical. That's my theory. And after all these years, we can study it retrospectively, but we really don't have an answer on how to deal with it. Your thoughts, Tim? Heavy topic, and I love this topic. On a very generic basis, Jay, I just think the fail of leadership is attributed to the, a direct correlation to the failure of the people that should expect a good leader and vote in a good leader. The American public expectation of what constitutes a good leader is, I think, has fallen by the wayside. We used to expect decency in our leader, not just charismatic, but also decency. And I don't think that is a top criteria anymore. And my evidence is Donald Trump. My evidence is those deplorables that have been elected into Congress, the House of Representatives. Maybe that's due to gerrymandering. I don't know, but the bottom line is some moral character and upstanding moral characteristics doesn't seem to be on the list of criteria any longer. And I don't know why that is, but it seems to be a reality of our politics. You know, Jean, when I was a kid, I went to summer camp. There was a Jewish Federation camp in the Catskills. It was a wonderful camp. It was run by wonderful people, social workers. It was a social work camp. And everything was, you know, seen through the lens of social work. And the part of the mantra of the camp, part of its success, was to identify and encourage good leaders and bad leaders. And you could find them and you could deal with them. Mind you, they were campers. So it's not like they had a choice to listen or not listen. But it seems to me that that's what we're talking about. Is something in the human condition that makes for a pathological leader? Is something in the human condition that makes for a good leader? You agree? Yes, I think the question of character is front and center here, which is why I'm starting out by studying human psychology. Back again to the Milgram experiments, the supposition going into those experiments, and he pulled a bunch of psychiatrists, was the expectation that individuals would not administer harm to a third person just on the say so of a perceived authority. That was totally wrong. I mean, it was almost two-thirds of the people that went on to administer the highest level of electric shock presumed, although this was set up and nobody was harmed, nobody knew that at the time, to the third individual. And one of the reasons that people gave for doing this was that they weren't responsible, the authority was responsible. And even though these individuals said their moral sense would not cause them to do harm, every time they protested against increasing the shock to the individual, the authority would tell them, just ignore that.  Even though the third individual would protest and scream, they would go ahead and do it. So they were contradicting their own moral precepts.  They're holding on to them, but they're finding other reasons not to. And the major reason through all of these experiments was obedience to a perceived authority, that individuals, even when they deceive themselves and think they're acting out of moral grounds, they're not, that we deceive ourselves. You know, I think I've seen footage about the people who were involved in this experiment and that they were asked by the authority to administer a shock to some person in another room. And then when they did electric shock and when they did that, the person in the other room would cry out in pain, although that was fabricated. And then the question is, how did the individual who administered the shock react to that? And my sense of it at the time, and maybe I was not as sophisticated as the report you're talking about, was that this was a kind of shodden Freud, that they were just joyous and happy in their hearts to be able to administer pain to someone. And that made it attractive. You're saying that's not so. It was not shodden Freud. No, it was not any innate aggression within the individuals involved. They were common people. And of course, this grew out of the questions from the Holocaust. Why did common people in Germany, why did they go along with this utterly indecent, immoral, brutal, awful and humane stuff? And interestingly, the few people that were in the experiment, they didn't know about all the facts that nobody was going to be harmed, who refused to do this. There were a couple of people. One of them was from the Netherlands. The other one was from Germany who'd had the experience of the German occupation. And they caught on to it pretty damn quick. Well, what you're saying, I think, is that this may differ from country to country. In some countries, the experiment would work this way. And in some countries, people wouldn't buy into it. So it is a cultural overlay, doesn't it? No. Unfortunately, that's not true. It just so happens that these two people have this specific experience. And it just rang a bell with them. Yeah, but in Germany, we know that a middle class German in population bought into it on a large scale. And in the process, took instructions to kill millions of people, innocent people. That has not happened, at least in Europe, anywhere else, right? Well, it could happen here. Obviously, and they go through this, if you read the whole book. I mean, it's a universal human behavioral modality that they conducted many, many experiments and many permutations of those experiments. And at each level, it was verified that obedience to authority was built into the hierarchical evolutionary structure of human group behavior, which enhanced the survival value of the group. And that we as individuals don't really understand or are not aware always, that we're not acting out of our moral values. We're not giving them up. But in fact, we are giving lip service to them, but we're acting out of obedience to authority. Okay. Tim, is this happening here? Well, I have to jump on to exactly what Gene's talking about. And that is, I think, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it plays into this, that, you know, the need for security, the need to be safe, the need to feel secure within a group, or, you know, if you want to see tribe, but that plays very much into why there's so many people following Donald Trump. It also plays into fear, the fear that I might lose economic security if I'm not with the group, or if I'm an anti-Trump, particularly by working in organizations that pro-Trump.   And so, it's often that when people feel like they may be on the outside of the group, they'll work extra hard to be inside the group. They may go above and beyond, particularly in shock there, you know, this experiment that Gene has referred to, they may go above and beyond providing shock to prove that they're probably more loyal and obedient and part of the, part of the group than they normally would do otherwise. It's very scary. You know, one of the examples given in the hearing in the Court of Appeals just a couple of days ago was, you know, would you, would you expect that somebody in SEAL Team 5 would assassinate for you, remember that one? It's very interesting. And the question is, what does SEAL Team 5 think about that? I remember an interview we had with a fellow who was in the Navy. And this was right after Trump ordered that the name McCain be painted over on a ship in Yacuzka. And the crew did it. And I asked him, I said, you realize that, you know, he was painting over the name of a war hero, a very important person, in my opinion, in American history and in the history of Vietnam. Why did you do that? Did you say no? Did you say I refuse to do that? This is an outrage. I'm not going to do it. He said, no, I was ordered to do it. And then I think of the fact that we are now spending $800 billion on the military and the fact that Trump tried to control the military in his first term. And I wonder if the military plays into this because the military, Jean, it's all about authority, isn't it? The military is all about authority.  Well, the military is a model for these experiments that refer to military actions and behaviors throughout. And this was carried out right before and during and after the Vietnam War and the protests and the Milan massacre and all of that. It depends on who you perceive to be the authority. I mean, this experiments also showed what can cause rebellion against authority. And we can take some, I guess, comfort from that, that the group itself can stage a rebellion against authority because the pressure of conformity, which is the flip side of obedience in their experiments, although it doesn't sound like it, conformity to the group and obedience to the authority can be an un-conflict situation. Well, let me just go to Putin for a minute. He has people who protest against his war and his deprivation of civil rights, human rights in the war and in the country. Those people, he uses all the tools of an autocrat to suppress them. And so to the extent that he's the authority, certainly is, he causes them to abide by his and follow his wishes. But to the extent that he has these tools, he suppresses any protest. How can you do protest in that environment, Jean? It depends on who's doing the protesting. His followers are listening to the authority. In many of these experiments, they would switch the authorities and the authority would be the individual who was harmed, for example. Or there would be a second authority, as I alluded to before. And this would sometimes change the outcomes. But in terms of conformity and previous experiments on conformity, the peer group also exercises a control on the individual. So when we're in groups, we work for group survival and be known to ourselves. And our decisions are to some extent governed by the group. So when the authority in question like Trump and the group itself agree on the action to be taken, no matter what values they espouse, then you have a very strong propensity for authoritarian rule. And this is what happened in Germany and what happened in Italy. However, however, the counter protest to that is a group that espouses the opposite action. And then you have a conflict over who is the legitimate leadership. And if you have some two leaders like Biden and Trump, whoever is perceived to be legitimate, whether it's the institutional leader who's come up through the ranks, like Biden and supports the institutions of the government, or it's the revolutionary leader like Trump, the charismatic who undermines the institutions and attempts to, in essence, replace them with his own personnel and rule, whoever is perceived to be more legitimate, even if it's a smidgen more legitimate, will sway the outcome. In other words, Biden were to win this election, even if he had a minority vote, if he won the electoral votes, even if his minority vote was 1% over the other vote, it would not undermine his legitimacy to any extent. Whoever is perceived as legitimate is the guy who you are obedient to. Well, suppose some of them are perceived by one group to be legitimate, and some of them, one of them is perceived by one group to be legitimate, and the other is perceived by another group to be legitimate, such as what we have with Trump and Biden. There are people who will follow Trump no matter what he does, no matter what kind of stochastic remarks he makes. And there are people who understand Biden and follow Biden. So what you have is this conflict on a grand scale, and it's close in its own way. It's at a tipping point, and it will be at a tipping point in the election, I suggest. So I'll save the question. I want to go to Tim for one aspect of this. Tim, they say the way through peace is war. The way through protest is violence. How does violence play in all of this? If you want to have a person who acts as an authoritarian leader with certain others disagreeing and protesting, where does violence play in that? It plays in very importantly. If I conduct violent acts against a certain individual or groups, the thought processes in the public is, oh, that violence could potentially be turned against me if I act out of line. So it's a demonstration. It's to set an example. That's gone on through history way before Donald Trump is I'm going to set an example. Look at England when the prisoners or the captives, their heads were set on a pike right outside of London to set an example, a violent example. It works. If we've talked about anything in the past, it's that Donald Trump has given permission for people to say deplorable things and act in deplorable manner. And I'm reminded of the, I think he was a Navy SEAL or he was a Special Forces person in the Navy who was convicted of killing and executing a prisoner with a knife. And he was convicted. And Donald Trump gave him a pardon. And not only gave him a pardon, but elevated him to a status of patriot, a patriot warrior. And what that did by that act was to say he was deplorable, but as President of the United States, I don't think he's deplorable. So what message does that send to the ranks below, you know, from general on down is that deplorable acts are going to be deemed as acceptable. And if the President of the United States says it's okay, then I guess we could do the same thing without supervision in the field. These are the, you know, the beginnings of what happened to me lie or Abu Ghraib, the torturing of prisoners, is that there was some sense that permission was given to act against the Geneva Convention and do horrific things to prisoners and or prisoners of war. You know, this is the question I was holding back on. I think it's time for me to ask you this question, recognizing, you know, the sociology and the psychology, the experiment, the way people react as part of the human species biochemically. And, you know, in terms of the way our brains work on two authoritarian, perceived authoritarian figures, however moral or immoral they may be. With all the learning and observation and research that we've done, with all the writing on the subject, because it's, you know, it's part of our inquiry into the human condition to find out what this, what this is and how it works. Do we know how to stop it? Do we know how to undo the strange and negative connection that Trump has with his base with, you know, Putin and authoritarian figures around the world? Do we know how to break the spell? Well, one of the reasons why those who want to bring down a legitimate society and government is to induce chaos into the system is so that they destroy the hierarchy that is built up. If we assume that most of us act out of obedience to authority, then you need a hierarchy where each person perceives a level above him that has legitimacy and that level, it's like the military of ranks. Each rank has a higher level of authority and with that authority comes the power to induce action on the whole organization. That's how societies are in essence, that's their template. And if you destroy that, if you break that down, then you can rebuild it according to your own concepts of authority. Now, where does morality fit in this? Morality is what the authority espouses and the individuals act out of whether they ascribe to it or not, because the authority is telling them to do it. So in essence, the way you dismantle an authoritarian system is to not accept its authority. That's very difficult to do. Who then do you turn to? You have to create a hierarchy of your own, or you have to say there is an authority above human authority, and many people have used the word God in terms of rebelling against a system too. We have examples of this in literature in the play Antigone by the ancient Greeks. We have a young woman who defies the legitimate authority by describing her need to bury her brother who's fallen in battle outside to the gods. We have the example in World War II, the extraordinary example of Desmond Dofts, who was seven-day Adventist to refuse to carry a gun, served as a medic at Okinawa and did extraordinary actions to save others, even though he was initially persecuted for his refusal to carry a gun and that he was one man out of millions. So it's very difficult to do, but if you look at the Soviet Union, for example, why is it necessary to imprison Navalny? Because he's a danger in terms of his charismatic authority to an apparently tipping point number of individuals among the populace that he's perceived as a threat because he could create a counter authority, he could create a counter hierarchy. So there are ways to do this, but it's not easy. Well, just a comment on Navalny, I mean he'd be much more of a threat if he was out on the street. And if you move around Siberia and you have him appear and disappear and make him look weak and fragile and who isn't going to last very long in the circumstances, he's less of a threat. And so Putin knows this, Putin knows that if you have a threat of protest, there's ways, there's tools that he can use to put you down. So the other thing and I want to ask Tim about this is that going back to violence, if you want to protest, it's the who, Jane, the who. Who does it? What individuals, what group, what personality and leadership characteristics do we have to have to find a who? The who that will oppose the autocrat. And I suggest to you that that is, as in the case you mentioned with Dawes, Jane, that is pretty risky business or Navalny. His life is on the line every moment. And one of these days, like precocious, he's going to be killed. And so if you want to do that, if you want to be the who or organize the who, you'd better be willing to give up your life and not only in the sweetness of a middle class existence or better, but in the possibility you will be assassinated because the autocrat wants to do, you know, doesn't want to deal with you. Your thoughts? My thoughts are, you know, with the initial phase of an uprising. Unfortunately, those brave souls are the first to perish or imprisoned and never to be seen again. It's only after enough synergy has basically has persuaded other people in society to stand up and basically give up that which is dear and precious to them. I'm thinking of our own American Revolutionary War was that you had farmers who, by leaving the farmers, putting their family at risk of starvation or worse, and yet they joined the Continental Army. Why? Because they were so fed up with it, you know, they had reached a tipping point, a boiling point, and that's what they did.  So it takes time for people to get fed up and I would say gain the courage through contact with other people who are also scared, but, you know, courage develops and increases in numbers, and that takes time to get those numbers. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, Jean. Time is a factor in all of this. If we're going to break the spell, we've got to be mad as hell like that movie.  So that there comes this tipping point where people are willing to take the risk of opposing the authority, where they are going to have a revolt, a revolution, an insurrection. The problem is that, you know, sometimes that doesn't work, and you lose your life over it. So, Queery, where do you think time plays in all of this? How long can an authoritarian hang on to it before people drag him down? Well, let's just back off for a minute and return to where we are today. The question before us today is, which individual, the candidate of the Republican Party, or the incumbent in office that is running on the Democratic ticket, is perceived by a critical mass of the American public to be the higher authority? And this would confer on this individual the complete amount of power needed to run the organization and to keep our institutions in line. That's the question. That's where we're at right now. We're not really at the point where we have to stage any kind of coup or counter coup against a malevolent authority. And by the way, in these structures of authority, it doesn't matter what your values or your morality is. It's what the leader tells you to do in terms of action. So, who you choose. You have to be a very good judge of that person's character if you're really concerned about values and morals. Individuals may not be as attuned to this because what they're really looking for is something else. Maybe someone that they think is going to keep them more secure who's going to protect them, who's going to advance their interests. So, morality is kind of the third wall here. And it does make a difference whom we choose. That character that individual does make a difference. In terms of rebellion, let's hope we don't have to go there. That you can see in terms of resistance movements during World War II and occupied territories, the extremes people went to. The rare example, for example, the Warsaw ghetto of Klaus von Staufenberg who staged a coup from within the army, the German army, and failed. All of these individuals had an impact and we talk about them today, but they didn't really overturn the system. But they didn't live either. They were fatalities, casualties of their attempts. Tim, you were thinking of something? You know, Gene sparked something within me about undermining the authority. That's why the Republicans have undermined Joe Biden by questioning his cognitive ability, reducing his authority as a leader, his credibility as a leader. And I hate to say it, but it's worked. Before you go, I want to ask you the question I always address to you, Tim. What about the media here? And we're talking about a human process, you know, where people for whatever biochemicals, social or psychological reason will follow in authority, but isn't that accelerated, enhanced by whatever the media does? Of course. You know, I read it, therefore it's true. I saw it on TV, therefore it's true. I think the media actually now has recognized some of their hand in the rise of Donald Trump. For example, I saw immediately after his interview, immediate fat checking on the spot, fat checking, which he never used to see before, or his statement as he came out of the courtroom this morning and basically repeated what he said in the courtroom. Fat checking was taking place right then and there. So I think the media has recognized that they are partly at fault for Donald Trump's ability to lie and get away with it. Well, I think they're trying to do something about that now, but they're about five years too late. Yeah, Gene, you know, you say the morality has nothing to do with it, but what about the media? Are they a significant feature in this human process, or does the authoritarian figure brush them off? Do they brush off the media? How much do they play in terms of the ultimate recipe on this? It kind of depends on whether and what part of the media is regarded by those who listen, see and read it as the authoritative voice, as the truth. There are individuals who consider the mainstream media part of the problem. And we saw at the beginning of the Trump administration back in 2017 or so, the media was attacked. And in the article I wrote on fascism at that time and published, I said that one of the steps you would expect in a fascist administration was to undermine and attack the media and seize control of it. Trump has tried to do a set up alternative voices in the media like Steve Bannon, Breitbart News, Fox News, and alternative media, alternative facts, for his followers to listen to and stop by that information. So it simply reinforces what he's telling them. His message is the key to his power. And the more that message can be echoed, reverberates, is accepted, becomes the dominant message, then the greater his ability to seize power becomes. And the media unfortunately, good and bad, or Pro-Encon has given him billions of dollars of free publicity and has really built this man in which we look back historically on his time. We're gonna see the media as a very big factor in his rise and maybe his fall, I would hope, in his rise. Well, the oblique on that is education in general.  You spend a career in the classroom talking to generations of students on subjects that were important to make them think critically. I suggest to you that the American education system hasn't done that well in terms of creating critical thought and those students become not only members of the community, become leaders of the community, sub the big authority. And I'm wondering whether we have critical thinkers by virtue of our, may I say, failure of education over the past few decades that can discern between truth and fiction. And if we don't, doesn't that fall in the hands of people like Trump? I'm a great supporter of education and a teacher. I've learned through it. It works slowly. It works generationally. And when we do not teach the lessons we need to continue for the next generation, we suffer the consequences. It's no coincidence, I think, that the people who experienced World War II and the fight against fascism globally are now at the end of their lives, approaching the end of their lives are gone. And this is the time when we've forgotten the lessons. And I don't think looking back, we really taught them enough. So we have to go back to that time. We have to restate what happened. We have to show people we have to educate people fast. But we have a greater means now to do that. We have the internet. We have this talk show. We have, we just have more devices to get the message out. And that's the message we need to get out, is that this has happened before, not exactly the same. But it's happened before. We can't fail to lose that lesson. We have to teach it again and again and again. And you can do that pretty fast under current circumstances. You can change perceptions. The media does it from week to week as to what is important, what should grab our attention. Well, Tim, I want to ask you about memory, something that Jean referred to, about recollections, about remembering what happened. I mean, there's a lot of people who don't see January 6th as all that bad. I can't remember exactly what happened. There's a lot of people who can't remember and don't see October 7th as all that bad. Because, you know, you get drowned out. The truth gets drowned out by the fickle finger of the media, of new information, new stories making you forget. A lot of people deny the Holocaust. They can't remember if they ever knew. And so, I'm wondering if people really remember what Trump did in his four years, what he said, what he threatened, how he hollowed out the government. I wonder if they remember, the press was full of it. It was not just us here on Think Tech talking about it. Everybody was talking about it. But now, if you go in the street, you're not sure they remember any of it. Your thoughts? Well, we are out of time. But human beings have a hard time remembering 10 items, not to mention 30,000 items. And that's how many lies that were attributed to Donald Trump during his four years with the United States. 30,000 bona fide lies. So, it's overload. And people can only handle so much. They become desensitized. And that's why Donald Trump says what he says repeatedly and often. And this never stops saying and doing deplorable acts because it's ongoing. And people can't track it all the time. They can't remember it. That's my take that as your final comment and offer Eugene the opportunity to make a final comment here. I think we need to examine our own actions and our own when we vote, for example, where we take a significant action or we're speaking to somebody else and say, who am I listening to? Who is influencing me? Is this in line with what I really believe? Okay. Critical thinking and separating, separating yourself from the cult. The, what was it? The Jonestown cult. Well, thank you very much. Gene Roosevelt, Tim Eppichel. I really appreciate this discussion. It's great to dig down on these issues. Talk to you again soon. Allah hafiz.


Welcome traders to another Tick-Mail Earnings Report preview with me, Patrick Munley. Before we jump into today's report, as always, I want to adhere to the risk disclaimer. Most pertinent to today's presentation is the fact that the views expressed by me are solely mine and they're not indicative or representative of those held by Tick-Mail UK or Tick-Mail Europe Limits. Okay, let's jump into today's report and we are looking at Meta, parents of Facebook, who are set to report earnings after the close of New York trading today. We're looking for an earnings per share of $2.51 on revenue of $28.92 billion. Meta is set to report quarterly results that should provide a clearer snapshot on advertising spending, a core source of revenue for all social media companies. The lack of clarity on that spending is a reason why Meta's stock and that of other social media companies have spiralled downward over the past year. Meta is undergoing a major and costly shift from social networking to the metaverse. It faces several other challenges of likely concern to analysts when the meta earnings report is placed. For example, Meta continues to see revenues decline due to Apple changing its iPhone operating system to reduce ad tracking. It also faces increased competition from TikTok and remains under pressure over allegations of antitrust from Congress. At the same time, decisions on spending remain in flux. Many small and mid-sized businesses are considering new channels away from Meta for the first time. Meta faces challenging economic environments and a daunting geopolitical landscape. Given the sensitivity of advertising campaigns to the vicissitudes of the economy, it's considered that digital ad spending could come under severe pressure. Analysts expect Facebook to report an adjusted income of $2.51 a share, which represents a drop of 30% from a year ago quarter. That is the fourth quarter in a row of decelerating earnings. The estimates of revenue at that $28.92 billion level are slightly down from the $29.1 billion a year ago. In order to shore up profit, Meta has been cutting back on operating expenses. In late June, various media outlets reported that Meta had warned employees to brace for a tough second half as it copes with pressures on its core ad business. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said he anticipates one of the worst downturns in recent economic history. In a separate memo leaked to the press, Chief Product Officer Chris Koch said that Meta would need to execute flawlessly in the environment of slower growth. Meta stock is down just over 22% since it reported its first quarter earnings. Bank of America analysts wrote to investors that potential positives on the second quarter conference call could include more stability than expected in the third quarter outlook. Optimism on reals, monetization ramp progress with ad targeting since Q1 and evidence of slowing Metaverse spending. Separately Goldman Sachs' note positioning is neutral at this stage in terms of their investor profile. Tactical bullish traders are hoping for a second half re-acceleration story which would encourage further investments and potentially that lower expense guide and some signs that IDFA and real headwinds are decreasing. I would note that there is a whisper on the street that we could see an EPS as high as $2.53. Let's take a look at some of the tactical strategies that tend to occur around earnings for Meta. Meta shares have moved lower than the immediate aftermath of earnings seven hours of 12 previous reports. On average, the stock moved down 0.9% on the first day after trading after the company reports. Based on the previous 12 earnings releases, Meta is more likely to trade lower one day after earnings for an average loss of 1.2%. On average, the stock has moved higher 1.4% one week after earnings. Let's take a look at what's expected from volatility perspective. The options market is pricing in about an 11% move on earnings and the stock has averaged 6.7% move in recent quarters. Now importantly, let's look at flow and sentiment. Now there's something I'd like to highlight here which I think is definitely noteworthy. There's been a surge in buying 16,013 contracts of the $200 call expiring this Friday. Obviously the options order flow in general has been bearish. Investor sentiment going into the earnings has 48% expecting the earnings beat. Meta's share price has drifted down 17.7% post earnings announcement. Using the last 12 quarters of data, the average drift between earnings is 2.9%. Let's pull up a chart now and see where we might be able to identify some tactical trading opportunities in the stock. So bearing in mind this is $200 call but with that decent chunk of buying, I'm looking at the potential here maybe for an earnings surprise. And if we do get that, if we look at the weekly chart here we can track a fairly decent five-wave sequence which should have been completing into this $155 to $160 level which we're just trading in and around close last night at $159. I would say in the pre-market today we're trading a little bit higher. So any breach to me of this descending wedge resistance which comes in at the $184 level, I want to engage on the long side certainly thinking about test up into that $200 zone and if we can extend through there then we'd be looking from a technical perspective to test the top of the wedge there which would give us a $235 test. Alternatively, if we see weakness and the report comes in weaker than expected on lower guidance then any move down into the trend line support, $144 area again I worked with bullish reversal patterns as an area where I potentially want to engage on the long side certainly thinking about a test of wedge resistance there at $177. At this stage it would take a break of the $114 level to suggest weaker and accelerating downside here to test back into the $138 to $137 support zone as the next downside of jet. As always, traders, plan the trade, trade the plan and most importantly, manage your risk. Until next time, thanks very much.


My name is Sambagnin and the author of Malignant Self-Lover, Narcissism Revisited. Even a complete battery of tests administered by experienced professionals sometimes fails to identify abusers and their personality disorders. Offenders are uncanny in their ability to deceive their evaluators. They often succeed in transforming therapists and diagnosticians into four types of collaborators. The adulators, the blissfully ignorant, the self-deceiving, and those deceived by the battery's conduct or statements. Abuses co-opt mental health and social welfare workers and they compromise them, even when the diagnosis is unequivocal. Abuses flatter professionals, emphasize common traits or a common background, form a joint front against the victim of abuse in a kind of shared psychosis or emotionally bright the professionals assigned to evaluate or oversee them. Abuses are master manipulators, they exploit the vulnerabilities, traumas, prejudices and fears of the practitioners to convert them into the offender's cause. As we said, there are four types of mental health and law enforcement professionals and practitioners. First one is the adulator. The adulators are fully aware of the nefarious and damaging aspects of the abuser's behavior. But they believe that these nefarious and damaging aspects are more than balanced by the positive traits of the abuser. In a curious inversion of judgment, they cast the perpetrator as the victim of a smear campaign orchestrated by the abused or they attribute the offender's predicament to mere bigotry. Such adulators mobilize to help the abuser, to promote his agenda, to shield him from harm, to connect him with like-minded people, to do his chores for him and in general create the conditions and the environment for his ultimate success.  As I said in another video, the guilt of the abused, it is telling that precious few psychology and psychopathology textbooks dedicate an entire chapter to abuse and violence. Even the most egregious manifestations, such as child sexual abuse, merit only a fleeting mention, usually as a sub-chapter in the largest section dedicated to paraphernalia, so personality disorders. Abusing behavior did not make it into the diagnostic criteria of mental health disorders. Nor are the psychodynamic, cultural and social roots of abusive behavior exploding in depth anywhere. As a result of this deficient education and lacking awareness, most law enforcement officers, judges, counselors, guardians and mediators are warringly ignorant about the phenomenon. Only 4% of hospital emergency room admissions of women in the United States are attributed by staff to domestic violence, but the true figure, according to the FBI, is closer to 50%, 10 times as much. One in three murdered women was done in by her spouse, current or former. The blissfully ignorant mental health professionals are simply unaware of the bed-size of the abuser, and they make sure that they remain oblivious to them. They look the other way. They turn a blind eye. They pretend that the abuser's behavior is normative. They ignore or overlook his egregious conduct. Even therapists sometimes deny a painful reality that contravenes their bias. Some of them maintain a generally rosy outlook premised on the alleged inbred benevolence of mankind. Others simply cannot tolerate dissonance and discord. They avoid conflict. They prefer to live in a fantastic world where everything is harmonious and smooth and evil is banished. Such mental health and law enforcement professionals react with discomfort or even rage to any information to the contrary, and they block it instantly. Once they form an opinion that the accusations against the abuser are overblown malicious and false, it becomes immutable. I have made up my mind they seem to be broadcasting. Now don't confuse me with the facts. Then we have the self-deceivers. These are fully aware of the abuser's transgressions and malice, its indifference, exploitativeness, lack of empathy, and rampant grandiosity. But they prefer to displace the causes or the effects of such misconduct. They attribute it to externalities. They say he's going through a rough patch or they judge it to be temporary. They even go as far as accusing the victim for the offender's lapses or for defending herself. They say she provoked him with her behavior. In a feat of cognitive dissonance, such self-deceivers deny any connection between the acts of the abuser and their consequences. They would say for instance, his wife abandoned him because she was promiscuous, not because of anything he did to her. They are swayed by the batter's undeniable charm, intelligence, or attractiveness. But the abuser needs not invest resources in converting them to his cause. He does not deceive them. They are self-propelled. And then we have those who are actively deceived. They deceived are deliberately taken from premeditated right by the abuser. He feeds them with false information. He manipulates their judgment. He prefers plausible scenarios to account for his indiscretions. He soils the opposition. He charms them. He appeals to their reason or to their emotions. And he promises them the moon. Again, the abuser's incontrovertible powers of persuasion and his impressive personality play a part in this predatory ritual. The deceived are especially hard to deprogram. They often themselves encumber with the abuser's traits. They find it impossible to admit a mistake or to atone. Again, from the other video, the guilt of the abused. Therapists, marriage counselors, mediators, court-appointed guardians, police officers and judges are human. Some of them are social reactionaries. Others are abusers themselves. And a few are condone abuse on social or cultural background. Many things work against the victim facing the justice system and the psychological profession. Start with denial. Abuse is such a horrid phenomenon that society and its delegates often choose to ignore it or to convert it into a more benign manifestation. Typically, by pathologizing the situation or the victim rather than the perpetrator. Blame the prey, not the predator. A man's home is still his castle and the authorities are loathe to intrude. Most abusers are men and most victims are women. Even the most advanced communities in the world are largely patriarchal and men controlled by men. Misorganistic gender stereotypes, superstitions and prejudices are still very strong. Therapists are not immune to these ubiquitous and age-old influences and biases. They are amenable to the considerable charm persuasiveness and manipulativeness of the abuser and to his impressive thespian acting skills. The abuser offers a plausible rendition of the events and interprets them to his favor. The therapist rarely has a chance to witness an abusive exchange for his hand and at close quarters. In contrast, the abuser are often on the verge of a nervous breakdown. They are harassed, unkempt, irritable, impatient, abrasive and sometimes hysterical. Confronted with this contrast, between a polished, self-controlled, suave abuser and his harried casualties, it is easy to reach a conclusion that the real victim is the abuser or that both parties abuse each other equally. The praise acts of self-defense, assertiveness or insistence on her rights are interpreted as aggression, liability or a mental health problem. The profession's propensity to pathologize extends to the wrongdoers as well. Alas, few therapies are equipped to do proper clinical work including diagnosis. Abuses are thought by practitioners of psychology to be emotionally disturbed. The twisted outcomes of a history of familial violence and childhood traumas are typically diagnosed as suffering from one sort of another, a personality disorder and in ordinarily low self-esteem or co-dependence coupled with an old devouring fear of abandonment. Consimate abusers use the right vocabulary and feign the appropriate emotions in effect and thus sway the evaluator's judgment in according to what he had been taught and to his prejudices. But while the victim's pathology works against her, especially in custody battles the culprit's illness works for him as a mitigating circumstance, especially in criminal proceedings. In his seminal essay, understanding the better in visitation and custody disputes Lundy Bancroft sums up the asymmetry in favor of the offender. He says, batterers adopt the role of a hurt, sensitive man who doesn't understand how things got so bad and just wants to work it all out for the good of a children. He may cry and use language that demonstrates considerable insight into his own feelings. He is likely to be skilled at explaining how other people have turned the victim against him and how she is denying him access to the children as a form of revenge. He commonly accuses her of having mental health problems and may state that her family and her friends agree with him, that she is hysterical and that she is promiscuous. The abuser tends to be comfortable lying, having years of practice and so can sound believable when making absolutely baseless statements. The abuser benefits when professionals believe that they can just tell who is lying and who is telling the truth and so fail to adequately investigate. Because of the effects of trauma, the victim of battering will often seem hostile, disjointed and agitated while the abuser appears friendly, articulate and calm. Evaluators are thus tempted to conclude that the victim is the source of the problems in their relationship. There is little the victim can do to educate the therapist or to prove to him who is the guilty party. Mental health professionals are as ego-centered as the next person. They are emotionally invested in opinions they form or in their interpretation of the abusive relationship. They perceive every disagreement with them as a challenge to their authority and they are likely to pathologize such behavior, labeling it resistance or even worse. In the process of mediation, marital therapy or evaluation, counselors frequently propose various techniques to ameliorate the abuse or bring it under control, orbitize the party that dares object or turn these recommendations down. Thus, an abuse victim who declines to have any further contact with her batterer is bound to be chastised by her therapist for obstinately refusing to constructively communicate with her violent spouse.  Sadly, sometimes the only way to convince your therapist that it is not all in your head and that you are the victim is by being insincere, by staging a well-calibrated performance replete with the correct vocabulary. Therapists have Pavlovian reactions to certain phrases and theories and to certain presenting signs and symptoms, to certain behaviors during the first sessions. Learn these and use them to your advantage. It is your only chance with the system.


Remember a hallmark card when you carry enough to send the very best. It brings you Hollywood's greatest stars in outstanding stories chosen by one of the world's best known authors. The distinguished novelist, Mr. James Hilton. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is James Hilton. Tonight on our hallmark playhouse, we give you a dramatization of a book which has endeared itself to a great many readers. The Horse and Buggy Doctor by Dr. Arthur E. Herzler. I suppose there's no one who comes into our lives more impressively and memorably than the doctor. And those early doctors who did their wonderful work against all the hardships of life in the country 40 years ago have won and deserve a special place in our hearts. The Horse and Buggy Doctor of our story was of this type. Old fashioned by modern standards, but good and true by any standards. To play the part of this fine old character we are honored indeed to have with us tonight one of the most distinguished actors of our time, Lionel Barrymore. And now here is Frank Goss from the makers of hallmark cards. When you want to remember your friends, there's one way to be sure the card you send receives an extra welcome. Look for that identifying hallmark on the back when you select it. For words to express your feelings and designs to express your good taste, that hallmark on the back is your guide. Like the sterling on silver it's a mark of distinction that all quickly recognize and it tells your friends you cared enough to send the very best. Our star Lionel Barrymore is appearing tonight by arrangement with Metro-Goldwyn Mayor, producers of Westward the Women starring Robert Taylor, Denise Darcell and Hope Emerson. And now hallmark playhouse presenting Dr. Arthur E. Herzler's The Horse and Buggy Doctor starring Lionel Barrymore. Town 40 years ago a sort of mutual gathering together of a few hundred souls against the loneliness of the Midwestern prairie. Buggies and buckboards splashed along Main Street through the deep mud of a January thaw. Once a horse and buggy turned off Main Street and off First Avenue and came to a stop outside a large framed house. A young man was waiting by the front gate and to him the buggy appeared to be without occupant until he noticed a pair of trousered legs dangling over the side of the seat. The young man stepped closer. Yes, the owner of the legs was fast asleep. Good morning, sir. You pardon, sir. Are you the doctor? Hmm? Oh, must be. I haven't heard you then. Grant, sir. Professor Newhouse wrote you about me. Uh-huh. Yeah, he did. Mind helping me carry my instruments in the house? Sadly, sir. You said instruments. You surely don't mean things. I certainly did. There is handy as my scalpel any day. Oh, don't look so horrified, son. I carry a regular medical kit, too. When you've had a bit of country practice, you'll understand what it's all about. Yes, sir. Professor Newhouse said it would be excellent training for me. I always said. Ah-ha-ha.  And my best friend, Mrs. Penis. Yes, doctor. I'm fixing your breakfast right now. Fine, fine. Don't forget to set an extra plate. I've already fed him. Oh, your liver complained us. What's the matter with the way I look, sir?  But, doctor, what's the matter with my look? Ah, nothing, son. Nothing at all. You're too dignified. Too much like a doctor. A quotation on an interesting case. Yes, sir. Emily, this is Dr. David Grant. Miss C. Do you do, Mrs. Inslow? Hello. You mustn't take Dr. Fred seriously. I'm not an interesting case. I'm perfectly well. Ah-ha-ha. That's just where the complication comes in, my dear. Your symptoms are the very sort every young doctor wants to treat. Use complicated by beauty. Doctor, there's a Luther Whitcombe waiting outside. He says it's quite urgent. Oh, well, then I'll be going. Goodbye, doctor. I'm happy to have met you, Mr. Grant. Goodbye, Emily. Goodbye, goodbye. What's the matter, Dave? She called me Mr. Grant. Everybody calls me Mr. instead of doctor. I've been here almost a week, and no one acts as if I knew how to read a thermometer. Ah-ha-ha. It takes time, son. But how many years, doctor? You have had a steady stream of patience, sir, but as far as I'm concerned... I want to talk to you about that, Dave. I wish you'd go down and stand on the corner of Main and First Street so I can get some rest. Stand on the corner? Yeah, and let the curious see what you look like. That's why I've had so many office calls this week. What? You mean that's why Emily... Miss... uh, Denzlo? Sure, a prescription for a father. Oh, I suppose you tell Luther we'd come and I'll see him. Doctor, is Miss Denzlo going with anyone? No one in particular. Luther! Do people around here dance much, doctor? Yeah, every Saturday night. Luther! She's getting worse, doctor. What's the matter with her? I can't tell. She's got an awful pain in the stomach. All right, Luther. I'll start right away. You get on back to her. Yeah, I sure will. This might be a good experience for you. When I was a little girl in the river, folks were convinced that all lawyers went to the eternal tropics and all doctors were there to meet them. You see, man... Doctor, some of them just bought a textbook and read it and then set up in business. I decided I was going to be better than that so I worked as a farmhand until I could afford one suit of city clothes and could pay $100 to hand the medical school. Yeah? How much farther is it? Oh, about three hours more. That is by taking the shortcut. Oh! What for? So we can get through that fence. That's our shortcut. We're lost, doctor. You can't see any landmarks at night. You don't need them. I steer by the stars. I guess they didn't teach you celestial navigation in medical school. I'm getting to see they didn't teach us a lot of things, doctor. Whoa! It's no use. We're stuck in a mud hole. Yeah. Gotta fill it up with gravel. Get out the shovel, son. There's no good doers.  Well, that's what doctors are for, and I gotta get back to bed. I'm to charge that fellow $50 for this call, doctor. And charging my penny, son, didn't do anything. Even if I did, I'd be sending Lutham or Bilger said that's what a doctor... That's why you're sleeping a buggy. Not the only chance you get. Well, doctor, Dr. Fred. Morning, Emily. But, doctor, could you come in the house and see dad? He isn't very well. Miss Denslow, the doctor's had a hard night, but I'd be glad to do what I can. Oh, right. Thank you, Mr. Grant, but dad would prefer the doctor. All right. Let's go, Emily. You want to come in? Emily might fix breakfast. No, thanks. Mr. Grant isn't hungry. A Grant has seen all he wants of country doctoring. Mr. Grant's going back to being plain Mr. Grant. Caused all that. Maybe what we went through last night, but more likely just the sound of one little word. He's a proud boy, Emily. Well, he'll never be our doctor. I don't like him. You know, I'm glad to hear you say that, Emily, because those are the classic symptoms with women and the common cold thumbs before the fever. We'll return to the second act of the horse and buggy doctor starring Lionel Barrymore, Greek poet Homer, who first used the expression winged words. In fact, the idea must have really caught his fancy because he repeated the phrase no less than 46 times in the Iliad and 58 times in the Odyssey. Well, unfortunately, most of us are not poets. We feel but we find it difficult to put our feelings in words. Yet we are quick to recognize words that do express our meaning and on seeing them usually say to ourselves, why, that's it. That's it exactly. And this is exactly the remark you hear most often around the hallmark display counters at stores everywhere. For the makers of hallmark cards know that a greeting card must be of good design, must be in good taste, but above all, must say what you want to say, just the way you want to say it. And hallmark cards do just that. They give wings to your thoughts. That's why every day more and more folks when selecting a greeting card look for the hallmark on the back. Next time, why don't you? It's certainly a comfortable feeling to know you can find a greeting card that truly expresses your thoughts while it reflects your good taste and to know at the same time that when you send a card with hallmark on the back, your friends will know immediately you cared enough to send the very best. Now back to James Hilton and the second act of the horse and buggy doctor starring Lionel Barrymore. The months and young David Grant was still a doctor without a patient. There was nothing to be done except to stand by, to wait and to listen impatiently to an elderly gentleman who seemed so hopelessly out of date. This is the country, son. We don't have big city hospitals and dignified surgeons parading around in starch, white coats and smart looking rubber gloves. We operate in our shirt sleeves on kitchen tables with a lighter kerosene lamp by the bedside, my boy.  Beyond medicine and beyond surgery, there is still something you can offer. Just be in there with last comfort in the final look and stuff. So why don't you take the evening off? It's Saturday night and there's a dance down at community hall. Forget about medicine for a while and start remembering you're young. I was wondering if you ever got out socially. Well, I'd like to make a beginning. If you're free for this dance. I'd love to. You've been keeping very much to yourself, haven't you? You're not angry with the whole town, are you? No. Just the other way around, I'm afraid. How are people going to find out if I'm a good doctor when they won't try me out? I can't wait forever, Emily. For calling me, Emily. Oh, Mr. Grant. Hey, Mr. Grant. Yes. Remember me, Luther Wickham? Yes, I do. My wife's sick again and I can't find the doc. You know something about medicine, don't you? Mr. Wickham, if you're asking me to leave this dance and lose a night's sleep just to treat your wife's stomach apiensis, no. Oh, but you got to. He's awful sick. Come on, Emily. Let's dance. I'm sorry. You'll have to find yourself another partner. What? Dr. Fred told me once that you had the makings of a fine doctor. Well, it's too bad that he's wrong. You're not a big enough man, Mr. Grant. You haven't a big enough heart. First? Luther Wickham found you last night, didn't he? Yeah, wife's fine now. It wasn't just another stomach ache. It was a ruptured spleen. Who gets around fast, don't it? All over town that you went out on a call that I refused. So now you're quitting? As I am. Doctor, you better come downstairs quick. What's wrong, Mrs. Peters? Yes, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Crocker.  Oh, wow. Epidemic gets started. Mrs.  Mrs. Peters... And nothing more wonderful than when it opens its eyes and asks for its doll if it ever does. Mrs. Peters, would you unpack my bag for me? I won't have time. But I thought you were... The doctor's going to need help. Bring that number down. Can't keep on day and night. Day and night. Yes, we can, Mrs. Peters. Yes, we can. Because we're winning the battle. We're winning, you hear? I'm seriously unconscious. Finally, the doctor went out on a case. I don't know where he is. But I'll come if you want me. I guess there's no choice, is there? Or we could only find the doctors. Emily, do I have your permission? But are you sure it is? I know what I'm doing. One of the best surgeons and one of the wisest men was my teacher. Fifty-nine. The pulse? Fifty-one. Speed, but not haste. Function like a beautiful piece of me. My hips are the base. Stoke up the kitchen. See you, Dr. Grant. Thank you, Mrs. Butler. Good morning, Dr. Fred. Morning, Dr. Grant. We're about three months. I'll do my best. Get right down here. No, thanks, Dr. I. I think we'll walk. Oh, yes, we'd like to walk. Oh, I'm hitching best when we... Oh, oh, sure, sure. Oh, one thing more, Dave. A bit of professional advice, you may... Really lessen your rigidity. When a patient tells you something in confidence, how many people know it? Well, let's see. Well, Dr. Grant's about to undergo the correct treatment. On a classical plane tonight, first Homer, and now that renowned English man of letters, Samuel Johnson. It was Johnson, you know, who said, we must keep our friendships in constant repair. And at the time he said it, that wasn't easy. A visit to a friend 40 miles away was a day's trip. One letter met hours with a sheet of paper and a feather quill, and often took weeks to reach its destination. How much easier it is nowadays, especially with all the help we get from the folks who sell hallmark cards. For instance, right now there is a gift for you from these fine stores that is just about the best help to friendship I know. It's the hallmark date book, a small, conveniently arranged day-by-day calendar of every month and the year. There's space beside each day for names of friends you want to remember on that day. There are separate pages for names and addresses of all your friends. A good way to keep your Christmas card list. Yes, the hallmark date book and the fine stores that sell hallmark cards certainly help us all to keep our friendships in constant repair. Ask for your free hallmark date book tomorrow. Here again is James Hilton. You were wonderful as a doctor tonight, Lionel.  Wouldn't they amount to something? I don't think of any person I'd rather portray than a doctor, Jimmy. Besides being a wonderful profession, I'm sure it must be very gratifying to realize that your work brings happiness to your fellow man. I feel that way about acting, too. And I should think all of you hallmark folks feel it, too. Your cards certainly do their part. Now you take that little friendship book called the hallmark date book. Frank Gossage is telling us about. It's only a little thing. That's true, but it does its part in making the world a kinder place to live in. And the older you get, Jimmy, the more you realize that happiness... I believe you're absolutely right. Well, you know, I didn't intend to get up on a soapbox. Don't you tell us about next week's story on Hallmark Player. Next week, our play will be Madame Claire, a warm and delightful story by Susan Erick about a fascinating family and their problems. And as our star, we are happy to have that notable actress Agnes Moorhead. Our hallmark playhouse is every Thursday. Our producer-director is Bill Gay. Our music is composed and conducted by David Rose. And our script tonight was adapted by Leonard St. Clair. Until next Thursday, then, this is James Hilton saying, Good night. Those that are sold only in stores that have been carefully selected to give you expert and friendly service, remember a hallmark card when you carry it out to send the very best. The role of Dr. Grant tonight was played by Lamont Johnson and Sammy Hill was Emily. Others in our cast included Margaret Brayton as Mrs. Peters, Joseph Kearns as Luther, and Charlie Lung. This is Frank Goss saying, Good night to you all until next week at this same time. When Hallmark Playhouse returns to present Agnes Moorhead in Susan Erick says, Madame Wing, Donald Kulross P.T. is singing in the wilderness starring Jean-Pierre Omont. And the week after that, Charles Kingsley's Westward Ho on the Hallmark Playhouse. This is the PBS Great Elections. This is KMBC, Kansas City, Missouri.


Welcome to today's edition of Frightfully Forgotten, but before we get started, what are we drinking today, Justin? We're drinking Colonel Ives Wendigo weed. Today, we are talking about a movie that we've been pressured to cover by one of our dearest friends. So this one is for you, Chad. Here's to ya. Today, we're finally gonna do 1999's Ravness. Directed by Antonia Bird and she's a director who's done mostly a lot of British TV. It has quite the cast in it. It's very heavy in 90s stars. Yeah. It has Robert Carlyle in it. Guy Pierce is in this. Jeffrey Jones is in this and David Arquette. So the movie starts off, we get introduced to the main character Boyd. It's during the Spanish-American war. During an attack, Boyd kind of lays down and plays dead.  Gets out from underneath all those bodies and he captures the high command of the of the Mexicans. The commanding officer promotes him for capturing the high command but punishes him as well by sending him to a remote fort in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Boyd meets Jeffrey Jones's character, Colonel Hart. And he likes his walnuts too.  Tideas, I know. Colonel Hart proceeds to tell him about the colorful cast of characters that are in Fort Spencer. We have Private Toffler, our personal emissary from the Lord. Major Knox. Never met a bodily he didn't like. Private Reich, our soldier. Martha and George, locals. This sort of came with the place. Private Cleaves, the overmedicated Private Cleaves. Knox plays Doctor. My advice to you, don't get sick. Colonel Hart, he goes up to Boyd and he's like, uh, Major Knox just passed out. Oh, about a minute ago. He's got some fine bourbon. I mean, it's really excellent stuff. So while they're sipping on their bourbon kind of talking, they see a shadow figure in the window.   I suppose I owe you a story. Him and a group of people guided by this Colonel Ives, they have to go through the Sierra Nevada mountains. It starts snowing, so they need to find shelter. They find a cave.  People start to die. So they start eating. Colonel Ives starts actually killing the people to eat them. Calhoun takes off out of the cave and he leaves one of the women behind. Right after hearing the tale, the local native George pulls out this old parchment and shows a picture and he starts telling heart about the story of the Windigo, which eats a person and kind of consumes their essence in their soul and becomes stronger. Heart puts together a little party to go save the woman that Calhoun left behind. During the expedition, Toffler takes a pretty nasty tumble and gashes his side all up. That night when they're camped out and sleeping, he starts screaming in the middle of the night and he was licking me. What? He was licking me! Calhoun was licking the wound. So now they restrain him. They finally make it to the cave. Private Reich and Boyd go in, find all the dead bodies. They discover that Calhoun was actually lying because they find the body of Colonel Ives. In the meantime, outside, Calhoun starts freaking out. He saw a spook. And he starts killing off all the people who were outside the cave. Calhoun ends up killing Reich and then he corners Boyd on this kind of cliff and Boyd's got nothing else to do. So he just takes a leap of faith and just jumps. Jumps. He falls into this kind of like pit. The body of Reich follows him in and it's hung there upside down just staring at him. In the tumble, Boyd has broken his leg. He resets the bone himself and lays there for days starving, staring at the body of Reich and eventually decides to start eating the body. After he gets his energy back, he's got a full belly. He climbs out of the hole. He gets back to Fort Spencer and they have sent a temporary commanding officer to fill in the shoes for heart. Who shows up as the temporary commanding officer? It is Calhoun disguised and posing as Colonel Ives. That's where we're going to leave the story off. Keep watching if you want to see what happens with Boyd and Colonel Ives slash Calhoun, whoever he really is. Yeah, it had 12 million dollars as the budget and sadly, though, it only made 2 million back at the box office.  Yeah, and maybe that's why it's a very forgotten movie. I remember renting it as soon as it came out, because I remember wanting to see it. I remember the trailers. I remember the, he's looking. Being in the trailer and thinking, this movie looks cool. I really want to see it. And as soon as it came out, I rented it. Remember we watched it together. Yeah. And movie that kind of no one really talks about as being just a good all around movie that contains horror, comedy, action. It has it all. It has it all. Yeah. It almost didn't even get made. Milchow Manchevsky was the one who started the movie and he got fired what two weeks or something into production. Robert Carlisle himself almost quit the movie. Jeffrey Jones kind of talked him back into, you know, finishing the movie. Problematic part of the shooting was, of course, the movie's supposed to take place during winter. And they did shoot it in the winter in the Slovakian mountains, but it was the warmest winter ever. And there was no snow. So they actually had to during winter bring fake snow and fluff and make it look like winter. Yeah. During the winter, which is kind of neat. And you actually can't really tell the difference. They did a good job. One of the best hallmarks of this movie is the music. It's haunting, but it's catchy. Yeah. I love how they use the instruments of the period. Right. And they kind of sound like they would. They're probably not in tune. Like it's kind of like everything's kind of a little out of tune. It underlines every scene perfectly. The music starts off fun and happy as the journey is fun and happy. And as it starts to take a nosedive, so does the music. Yeah.  The music is by Damon Albarn and Michael Nimmin. And Damon Albarn is actually a rock star. He's in blur. I'm sure you all have heard that song. Not just the music, but the sound design. All the other sounds that happen through the movie, like the ambient sounds are very unsettling and really help you get into it. Like, yeah, there's scenes where the people are just talking, but he can hear like flies buzzing around because it's dirty. It's, you know, there's rotting things around. And the wind is always blowing gives you that sense of the cold and claustrophobia when the natives of the area are doing these kind of these singing and these calls and stuff. It makes you like eerie and unsettling. All the sounds really help build the atmosphere and the tension. Then you add the music on top of that.  Exactly. The characters, which we had mentioned earlier, another hallmark of this movie, they stand out so much. They're so well defined. There's not one person who's like the other. They're all completely different. It certainly helps because it makes the movie colorful and a lot more enjoyable. And it adds to the humor too a lot of times, right? The least memorable character in the movie is the main character. It's Boyd, played by Guy Pierce, kind of lame and has like barely any lines. I think a brilliant script. I agree. Every piece of dialogue is almost has a double meaning. Like every sentence that is spoken, it means almost two things. What's being said and then there's the underlying thing, which after watching the movie, maybe a second time you'll, okay, I get that now. I love movies like that where you have to think about it and you get it later. Yeah. A lot of good lines in this movie too. It's lonely being a cannibal. Tough making friends. Yeah. That's been great lines. It's true. Stoo, a la Major Knox. And when he's all making it, Major Knox, can I help Colonel? Not now. Perhaps later you may contribute. And he does. And that Stoo looks awesome too. I want to eat it.  And in reality, it was a lamb stew, but Guy Pierce being a vegetarian was forced to not ingest it, but he had to have it in his mouth. And as soon as the director yelled, cut it, spit it out. Which is interesting, actually, because you're suffering for your art a little bit there. Another good thing about this movie is the way it looks. People don't look all clean and pristine, you know, their teeth look rotten and they're dirty. And yeah, they're not wearing makeup. Yeah, it looks like it takes place when it's supposed to take place. It's not Hollywood eyes. Exactly. Yeah. It really does a good job of drawing you in and making you feel like you're part of this cast or crew, right? To delve a little deeper into it might possibly be tackling the morality of addiction, right? Yeah. As they get into this Windigo and how it takes these people over. And there's no way to get rid of this Windigo. Yeah. It's part of you. You're living with it forever. The only way to get rid of it is to die. Yeah. Right? And that's what addiction is.  We're struggling to think of any movies that are sort of similar to this and Terror at the Red Wolf Inn kind of comes to mind. Which we just covered. Yeah. And if you happen to have watched it and liked it, you're probably like this movie because it deals with cannibalism. There's humor. That black comedy type of humor, you know, but it really is a movie that stands on its own and there's not really anything like it as far as subject matter, the style of it. Yeah. The humor, the music, the characters. It's all so original. There's nothing like this movie out there. So if you like period pieces, smart script, funny script, and a black comedy, check out Ravinous. And then make a stew after. Yeah. Or maybe watch it while you're eating stew. Yeah.  Walnut Boyd.


What's going on guys? It's your boy DPJ and today hopefully we have the first of a new series which I'd love to do on my channel. Top 5 Overwatch plays. Now with the support of you guys this could be great. So if a top 5 Overwatch series is something you'd enjoy make it clear by leaving a like. Now to submit your clips there are a few rules. First up clips must be recorded in HD so no recordings via potatoes please. Clips must also be uploaded to YouTube and the URL sent via email. Clips sent direct as a file through email will be ignored. Xbox One users can always find clips recorded under DVR on websites such as XboxClips.com. There you can search your gamertag, find your clip, copy and paste the URL to an email to me. It's as simple as that. Multiple clips must be sent via the same email as I hate spam. Leave a brief description of the clip as well. This really does help me out and strictly no added music.  So no added music please. And that's basically it. If you have any decent clips submit it to top5overwatchplaysatoutlook.com. Email address is linked at the top of that video description.  The clips in today's top 5 were ones I searched out for demonstration purposes just to get the ball rolling so let's get straight into it. Okay so at number 5 we have a clip from Mitz who is using Tracer to his advantage and gets behind an enemy team and landing a nice triple kill. Number 4 we have a clip sent by Muddy1711 who gets played a game with Hanzo watching Wreck all in his path. Number 3 we have a clip from Falcon Eyes using D.Va and punishes four dudes sitting on their roof with her mechs self-destruct also taking out toots while he was there. At 2 we have a clip by Ezenel1337 using Reaper and basically single-handedly saves the game, landing a nasty five-man spree and getting play of the game as well. At number 1 we have a clip by Mavaru using soldier76 and he's just tearing the enemy team apart also using his tactical visor and landing four kills absolutely epic. But guys that is it that's the end of this top 5 and if top 5 overwatches a series you'd like to see do smash that like button. Submit all your epic plays to the email just linked in the top of the video description and if the support is strong I'll see you on that next one.