Disclaimer: It is moronic to buy FDs. That is not the way to consistently build wealth. The very reason FDs pay off such huge returns is because on average their probability of expiring worthless is 99%. If you’re moronic enough to buy FDs with me, only do it with money that you are willing to literally set on fire. Actual fire. There are plenty of safer puts on DASH that will pay obscene returns this year..
TLDR: I believe DoorDash (DASH) is the greatest short opportunity of the year, and what’s more, rather than just having a general feeling, there are specific timetables enabling us to profit bigly. The company even admits themselves that they have peaked as a company.

Analysis:

“Food delivery with third-party apps like Grubhub and Uber Eats is booming, but no one's making money.” – Business Insider.

DoorDash is wildly overvalued. This is true by any metric, were it in essentially any industry. Add to that its in food delivery, which is a horrific, no margin industry in what has become a commoditized business and offers essentially no differentiation with its competitors. There is near zero differentiation between Uber Eats, Postmates, Caviar, Grubhub, DASH, or any local provider. In Austin we have Favor, for example. And nobody cares which company delivers their food, they only care which one does it cheapest.
If you view stock (as you should) as buying the entire business as an owner, how much would you be willing to pay for an undifferentiated company in a no margin commoditized business that has peaked (see below for more on that)? Because it’s currently selling for an insane $56 billion. Outrageous.
So how can we get a banana for scale to understand what that $56 billion means in terms of valuation?
Well, all of DoorDash’s competitors have either sold at or are trading at, or raised money at, a capitalization of 3x to 6x sales. DASH is trading at an absolutely insane 20+ x sales.
Just six months ago Postmates was acquired for $2.65 billion which put it at 4x sales. At 4x sales, DASH would trade at $32.
DASH used to be the business leader in this industry, but over the past 2-3 years Grubhub has exploded in size to take on nearly the same 33% of market share, and after Uber Eats bought Postmates, it too now has about a third of market share. So you now have three giants of roughly equal size battling it out in a business in which customers don’t give a motherloving frick about branding.

But don’t take my word for it on valuation, take smart money’s word

DoorDash raised money just a couple months ago at a $16 billion valuation. That is truly a stunning fact. In just a few months the WSB type day trading call buyers have bid this company all the way up to $56 billion from $16 billion without any material change to the business and completely ignoring the coming vaccine-induced reopening of restaurants. Again, the stock trades for a 300% markup to its recent smart money capital raise based on nothing but unfounded hopium.
You don’t have to take my word for it, your beloved Jim Cramer has even said the same thing, in his own idiotic, covering my ass, round about say nothing way. “It’s true that people using market orders took DoorDash to levels that maybe ... were far higher than they thought they’d have paid.” - Jim Cramer
I don’t care about his commentary, but you people seem to love him, so there you go. 😘

The Company, according to The Company, has peaked. It’s over.

There are two extremely interesting things buried in the S-1 we’re going to get into in a moment. One of them is that you don’t have to take my word for it that this company’s business has peaked. The company says so itself in its own S-1.

The circumstances that have accelerated the increase in Total Orders stemming from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic may not continue in the future, and we expect the growth rate in Total Orders to decline in future periods.

To put it simply, COVID numbers are falling, vaccines are rolling out at an impressive 1-2 million per day which puts our stated goal of 100 million vaccinated in 100 days within attainable reach. The economy will be opening up, people will want to be getting out of the house, restaurants will be reopening, and there will be huge pent up demand by people who have had extraordinarily high savings rates over the last year. Big chains will no longer have the need to get help from third party delivery apps at a 15% markup. We all know this is the case, and DoorDash even stated as much in its own filing. This stock is toast.

”Delivery via smartphone is one of those venture-funded sectors where business executives appear to have taken seriously the old joke about “losing money on every transaction but making it up on volume.” – New York Magazine

“DoorDash and Grubhub and Uber Eats... it’s a tough business for them. It’s very competitive. I think the business model is hard.” - Panera Bread CEO.

And Now the Fun Part

There are some wild share lockup expirations coming up. For those that don’t know, when you get these massive IPOs, insiders aren’t actually able to sell their shares on IPO day. They are locked up and the insiders just have to hope for the best that the stock will not lose value over the coming months. If the stock skyrockets in value, but the insiders know the business is trash or has peaked, you get the perfect recipe for a rush for the exits.
I love playing share lockups. I make a lot of money on them by selling spreads. A common question I get when I post them here is “if you know a drop is coming, why doesn’t the market just price it in?” The answer is because it can’t. No matter what the share price does, the lockup expiration date is the lockup expiration date. Insiders have to wait until that date, and it doesn’t matter whether the stock falls 0%, 5%, or 50%, they will all have to wait until that day to sell.
DoorDash has two share lockup expirations coming.
The first lockup expiration is an early release (heh) and hits 90 days after the Dec. 9 IPO, or around March 9, as long as the stock trades 25% higher than the IPO price for five out of 10 consecutive days of trading. That is to say, so long as DASH trades above $127.50 right before March 9, the lockup is triggered. The good news for you with this insane run up in price is that if the lockup isn’t triggered, it means the stock has already fallen from $190 to $127. It’s important to know March 9 is not a hard date exactly...some insiders can be allowed to go a few days prior. Also if they release earnings early the lockup could potentially occur at the end of this month.
I was talking to some folks on WSB about the lockup last week, and someone mentioned they thought only 20% of insider shares will be eligible. DoorDash's management and board members can sell up to 20% of their shares in that first wave, but other insiders can sell up to 40%. This means 113 million shares are eligible for sale in early lockup expiration. DoorDash’s daily volume is only 3-4 million shares. The current public float is roughly 123 million shares. This means you’re about to suddenly double the number of shares on the market.
Door Dash’s second lock-up expiration hits either 180 days after its IPO, which means around June 9 (more or less), or after the release of its first-quarter earnings report (whichever is earlier), and will free up “all remaining shares” according to the S-1, which if my math is correct is roughly 50 million shares.
These two expirations could spark violent sell-offs throughout the year.

Positions

FDs

I never buy FDs. I’ve never once bought them in my entire life. But I’m putting 1% of my portfolio into them on DASH because I’m confident big drops are coming. Unfortunately for you guys, the stock has already started falling this past month from its 🤡-level highs in the $200s, and worse yet the pricing/IV of all options has gotten more expensive. This means, I’m sorry to say, that you’re not going to find any options trading for pennies, or even anything less than $2. For your FDs, I recommend you buy puts at whatever the lowest strikes are that actually have any volume. The strikes go as low as $75, but most days show 0 volume and of course the bid/ask spread is enormous. There has been some volume at $95 recently, and you can get the $75s if you’re patient enough and willing to pay up for them. Expiration dates would be any time in mid to late March (again, looking for whatever has volume) so that it occurs after lockup 1, and the August 20s, which unfortunately are the closest expiration to the lockup occurring around June 9. I wish there was a closer expiration, but hey, more time for the stock to collapse. Plus you could always sell your puts after the June 9 drop with lots of theta meat still left on the bone.

Puts

I own March 12 $160 puts. I think the stock will drop healthily below this, but IV is high. I’m normally taking big swings with spreads, so when I buy puts outright, which is rare, I want to play it a little safer.
I also own the August 20 $145 puts.
And finally, I have six figure credit call spreads open at the $175 level. For newbies, this simply means I: Bought (yes bought) the March 12 $175 calls, and Sold the $172.50 calls.
I went huge on these because all I need is for DoorDash to trade below $172.50 after the lockup expiration and I’ll be having a Merry Christmas. That’s as close to risk free gains as you’re ever going to see in your life.

Bull case

The only bull case is that we’re in a raging, record-setting bull market and all stonks go up. The economy is opening back up, vaccines are rolling out, and stonks go up. But I think if you look at the DASH chart you can see that that is already starting to not be the case.

What are the negatives?

I plagiarized liberally from an old Citron Research report, although it doesn’t even mention share lockups. Yes, that Citron. For those of you who are newer members, I will tell you this; the little smart money social circles in and around WSB do not hate CItron, Hindenburg, or any other short selling firms. We respect them and welcome bearish cases on high flying stocks. Any intelligent trader does. It’s only the pump and dumpers who have a hatred for short reports. You should welcome contrarian views.

Parting Words.

I would welcome anyone pointing out where they think I may be wrong. I don’t care about saving face, I care about not losing money. If I’m wrong, I want to know it. I welcome constructive criticism.

Give Me One More TLDR At The End

This stock is going to collapse because it’s wildly overvalued, employees got in super cheap with shares they are waiting to sell, know the business has peaked, and they want to cash the fahk out. So swallow the high IV and buy puts today as fast as you can.
Love you guys.

How to Survive Camping - old habits die hard

I run a private campground. One of the things I have to think about is fire management. Obviously, there’s a lot of wood around here. And obviously, if the campground goes up in flames, I lose my livelihood. I do some land management to protect against that by clearing out dry underbrush periodically and put in rules about fire pits and my staff make routine inspections to make sure they’re followed. Many of you have suggested using fire as a weapon against the inhuman things and each time I point out that this is a forest and while we don’t have a lot of dry wood, the odds of the entire thing going up are not zero.
And then I went and threw a molotov cocktail into a room entirely made of wood.
In my defense, it wasn’t technically in the campground. Only very technically.
If you’re new here, you should really start at the beginning and if you’re totally lost, this might help.
Beau’s assistance had cleared the thorns from my body. I spent a miserable few days coughing up plant matter. At least it’s winter so we don’t have much work to do and I could sit in my house and play video games as a distraction. I’m super obsessed with Octopath Traveler right now.
There were still the thorns planted throughout the campground to deal with, however. I wasn’t terribly worried. We had the stone, the one that contained the thorn’s death, and all I had to do was summon Beau and figure out what the next step was.
Of course, when I summoned him, he didn’t show. I had even made hot chocolate with a bit of Bailey’s. So I drank it all myself and then fueled by booze and a sugar high, I went tromping through the snow to find him.
The thought of him being in danger or otherwise unable to respond was only a vague worry. He’s been elusive ever since I refused to go to the harvesters. It’s hard to tell if he’s angry at me or just being moody. It certainly isn’t because I’m good enough with a knife that I don’t need his help anymore. I intended to ask him what the problem was, once I found him. I decided to walk along the road through the deep woods, as that was both the safest place and where he tended to be found.
It took a few days of hiking around the campsite, but I eventually found Beau. He was up ahead on the road, waiting for me. As I approached, he turned and began walking again, so that I could catch up and we walked along side-by-side.
“I haven’t seen you much,” I said tentatively.
“I’m avoiding you.”
“That’s obvious.”
I waited, but no explanation was forthcoming.
“Did I… upset you?”
He seemed genuinely confused as to why, so I explained how I saw the situation. How I’d ignored his suggestion and gone to the hall of the gummy bears instead. He gave a soft laugh at that and reminded me - once again - that he was not human.
“Why would I take offense?” he asked. “You made a choice that was yours to make.”
“Then why are you avoiding me?”
We walked along in silence for a bit more and the only sound was the packed snow crunching beneath our feet. I was careful to keep some distance between us, keenly aware that my mere presence was contrary to his nature. Like magnets, I thought, pushing each other away.
“You’re marked for death,” he finally sighed. “It hovers over your head like a halo. Here is my mark, wrought of blood.”
He stepped close and gestured, his hand passing through the space a few inches from my hair.
“There are more, now. All of these bargains and debts you’ve accumulated, twisting together into a cord that will someday settle tight around your neck and take away your life.”
“And you’re bound to me,” I whispered.
He took a single step backwards, dropping his hand by his side, his expression grim.
“I feel the fomorian’s mark upon me as well. I do not care to accumulate more.”
I asked him to describe them to me. He hesitated, and then very reluctantly, told me a few. One of shadow, trailing in the wind as if the slightest breeze would eradicate it. I suppose that’s what happens when the person who made that mark is trapped inside the thing in the dark. Good riddance to him. Another of iron, shattered now, and crumbling. The lady with extra eyes. One of thorns, marking the intent of the fomorian.
And of course, a crown of teeth. A very old crown, passed down along the family line. The claim of the beast.
There were more, he said, but he refused to elaborate. He seemed uneasy, as if merely describing them was more familiarity than he cared to have. I didn’t press. Honestly, I’m not sure I want to know exactly how many creatures have it out for me. I’d probably never sleep again out of paranoia.
He soon turned off the road and into the woods. I followed a bit more slowly, struggling through the deep snow. The temperature has been in the teens lately, with the windchill bringing it down to single digits. I envied Beau and his total indifference to the cold.
He led me to a patch of thorns. It was one I knew of already and had tried to uproot. The snow around it was mixed with loose soil from earlier attempts. Let me tell you - it is really tough to dig up bushes in the middle of the winter with the ground as frozen as it is.
Beau extended his cup and held it up over the thorns. He tilted it, slowly, until a thin stream of liquid poured forth. It steamed in the cold air and melted the snow where it struck the ground at the base of the thorns.
“Is that it?” I asked softly. “This will kill them?”
“Yes. My cup carries the stone’s essence and the roots of the thorns will drink deeply of their own death.”
“I’m surprised you’re helping me so directly.”
“It’s not just for you,” he replied, his eyes narrowed as he watched the contents of his skull steam in the snow. “This is my home and as you recall, I am unable to leave it. I have no desire to be ruled by a tyrant.”
A thought occurred to me.
“Do the other inhabitants feel the same?”
“Of course. Do you recall how the musician saved you from the horse?”
Ah. I’d not thought too much of it at the time. I was helping them out with the children, after all, so it stood to reason that they’d want to repay the favor by saving my life. We stood in silence for a bit longer, watching the thorns shrivel into withered, dry branches where the liquid from Beau’s cup had touched them. I could only imagine the roots were now doing the same. Tentatively, I reached out and tapped one of the afflicted branches. It broke off as if it were made of spun sugar and smashed into dust when it landed in the snow. As if it’d been dead for centuries.
“Could I get help from the other inhabitants of the campground?” I asked. “I know the fairy doesn’t want help, but we still have to deal with the formorian’s indirect effects on the land.”
“Don’t,” Beau replied sharply. “You would only endanger them. They won’t take such a risk.”
“You’re helping me,” I said pointedly.
He grunted and turned his back to me, walking back towards the road.
“I was already marked by my association with you,” he said.
When I was trapped in the dream that the master of the vanishing house had wove for me, I told it that I could not love it, for everything I love dies. It feels like another lifetime ago. I withdrew my hand from the bush and stuffed it in my pocket as I hastily followed Beau.
He went from bush to bush, repeating the process with each. After a few more I realized that my presence was entirely unnecessary and probably even annoying to him, so I awkwardly thanked him and excused myself.
I went back to the house and played more video games. I only felt a little guilty about it.
The next day I stumbled into the kitchen and brewed coffee. Then, mug in hand, I went to the kitchen table and pulled back the curtains to get some early morning sunlight.
Beau was standing directly outside.
I screamed in surprise and dropped my mug. It was my “Live, Laugh, Love” mug that I took from the camp lost and found so it wasn’t a huge loss. We wind up with quite a few mugs in lost and found and hardly any of them get claimed. After a year they become camp property. I can’t remember the last time I bought myself a mug.
I invited Beau in while I cleaned up the mess. He hovered uncomfortably in the archway between the kitchen and the living room, not saying anything. Only when I was done mopping up coffee did I turn and ask him what he wanted.
He presented his cup in mute explanation. Only a small drop of liquid remained inside.
“Where’s the pebble?” I asked, going to get my sharpest kitchen knife.
“I still have it, in case the fomorian plants more thorns.”
Blood from that which was already there. Blood freely given. I held out my palm and let my blood drop into the cup.
“Where do you plan on getting the blood forcibly taken?” I asked softly.
I wasn’t sure I wanted to know. The only staff on site during the winter were my most trusted people, like Ed and Bryan. I didn’t want any of them to be targets.
“I want to leave the campground.”
I sucked in an involuntary breath. He wanted to take blood from someone outside my land. One of the townspeople, perhaps. They’d thrown an uproar over him poisoning a few people on Halloween. I hated to think how they’d react to him stabbing someone.
“Do you have someone in mind?” I asked.
“I do.”“Will you kill them?”
“Will my answer change your decision?”
No. It would not. I needed Beau. And Perchta’s warning… well, it was not so black and white as I’d assumed. There was some flexibility here.
I wish I were surprised by how easily I slipped back into old habits. The same old rationalizations. Better someone else’s life than my own. Better a stranger’s life than someone I know. It feels inevitable that I would resort to this. It takes more than a threat to turn someone into a good person.
I won’t apologize. I won’t make excuses. You know what kind of person I am. I did the calculations, weighed my options, and this is what I chose.
I got my car keys and told Beau to come with me.
We went to someone that lived on the outskirts of town. It took a while to get there, as Beau couldn’t tell me what roads to turn on. He could only give directions in a vague sense, such as east or west. At least he was patient. He barely moved, sitting in the passenger seat, not wearing a seatbelt, with his cup cradled against his chest. Finally, he told me we’d arrived and I pulled into the driveway of a small house surrounded by a stretch of overgrown field that was subsequently swallowed up by forest. A black pickup truck was parked in the gravel driveway.
Beau got out. I stayed where I was for a moment, nervously holding onto the steering wheel, and then I reluctantly followed him. Better if I saw this through. I had to know what I’d done.
He knocked on the door. A man in his late forties, perhaps, answered. His hair was thinning. He squinted at Beau suspiciously.
And Beau… gestured with one hand. Just a simple half-twist of his wrist.
The man coughed. Blood spurted out of his mouth. It streamed from his nose. And my insides twisted with horror as his eyes began to leak blood, as it spilled out through his tear ducts. It beaded up on his forehead, forced out through every one of his pores. It streamed out of him through every available channel, soaking his clothing, dripping from his ears, and he twitched and shook and choked as his skin grew white and his heart raced and then finally collapsed on itself.
He landed face-first onto the pavement of his porch. The blood floated above him as a red mist and Beau made another subtle gesture, directing it to gracefully stream like a river through the air and into his cup. There was far more blood than the vessel could contain - an entire human body’s worth - but the cup never overflowed. It filled and filled, brilliant crimson like a ruby, until there was none left to take.
The bloodless corpse lay on the ground with not a mark on it to indicate what had happened.
I realized that my hands were trembling. I struggled to move, to find my voice. Beau turned around and faced me and there was a soft, satisfied smile on his face.
“Have you always been able to do that?” I demanded, my voice coming out higher than I’d prefer, betraying my panic.
“Yes.”
The expression on the man’s face was burned into my mind. His desperate agony, tears of blood streaming down his cheeks, his body rigid as his own blood clawed its way free of his veins. I tried to banish it with something else. Anything else.
“So the time I found a body like that and spent three weeks hanging garlic up everywhere thinking we had a vampire on the campground… that was you?”
“Yes.”
I took a breath, trying to calm my nerves.
“Do you have any idea how much I spent on garlic?!”
“Do I care?”
I whirled away from him and stalked back to the car, digging my hands into my hair. Okay, the garlic didn’t matter. I just… that was what came to my mind first. Trying to bury what I’d just seen in something more mundane, I suppose. Trying to distract myself from the fact that Beau could kill people in a far more horrifying way than simply slitting their throat or fatally poisoning them.
At least it was relatively fast. I took a deep breath and opened my car door. He’d threatened me with worse when I first met him.
It was a tense drive back to the campground. When we were back on familiar roads I thought to ask Beau why he’d chosen this person, specifically.
“He double-parks.”
“And?”
He glanced at me in mild surprise.
“What else do you need?”
“Are you kidding me? I just let you murder someone because they double-park?”
“Murder?” His tone was sharp. “You let me refill my cup. I drained it to save your land. You ensured my survival.”
Whatever it takes. The family tradition. My grandfather killed his share to protect our land. My parent’s hands certainly weren’t clean. And nor are mine.
I wish I could say that was the end of it. That I let Beau out once we were back at my house and he wandered off and nothing else happened. But what we’d done was not going to go unnoticed.
I stayed up late that night. I was awake because I was playing video games and making yet another attempt at killing that damn direwolf in Octopath Traveler, like seriously, why is that thing so hard to kill? I must be doing something wrong. So after watching my party get their faces ripped off for like the fifth time I finally turned the TV off and went to bed. It was midnight. The little girl was crying softly by the window.
I’d barely climbed into bed when she stopped. I froze. That was never a good sign.
“Oh no,” the little girl whispered. “No no no no.”
I acted on instinct. I threw myself out of bed and took cover behind it. The little girl screamed in fright and then my window shattered. The house shook with the impact. For a moment everything was still, save for the tinkling of some glass remnants striking the ground and the wild sobbing of the little girl.
Then…
“Campground manager!” the fomorian bellowed.
My blood ran cold. I felt frozen in place, cowering there next to the bed. The fomorian’s voice came at a distance. It wasn’t over the house’s property line, at least.
“I will find the one that killed my thorns at your behest!” it continued. “I will drag him here and I will tear him apart, little by little, and eat him alive. You will be helpless to watch and know what fate awaits you.”
Then I heard the cry of a horse and the sound of hoofbeats, receding into the distance. A warning. This was only a warning.
The fomorian intended to kill Beau.
Tentatively, I stood and turned on the bedside light. There was a body wedged through the broken window. It couldn’t fit through the frame, but it’d shattered the glass and now its head and part of its upper body was stuck. The hood of its garment mercifully covered its face, for I recognized it by its bulk.
One of the musicians. The fomorian had killed one of the dancer’s musicians. And, my heart sinking, I knew that it had to be the one that had rescued me from the dapple-gray stallion’s hooves.
I kill everything I love. Everything that gets close to me.
I’m a campground manager. I am also my mother’s daughter and the product of generations that believed life was expendable and we were but prey to these inhuman things. Herd animals, and sometimes one of our own had to be sacrificed to save the rest.
I’m certain that the new sheriff will find out about the body. She might not assume it was me, but I’ll be involved regardless. My family always is, when an odd death occurs. She’ll send the old sheriff because he’s better at dealing with me. And then what? Do I lie to him? I could. I think he’d believe me. I’ve gotten quite good at lying over the years doing this job.
It’s odd, how the thought of lying to him bothers me more than murdering that man did. I suppose that’s a consequence of sentimentality.
Sometimes I think I feel too little and sometimes I wish I didn’t feel so much. I’m starting to think… that maybe I’m a little more messed up inside than I thought.
Do I love Beau? I… would be sad if he were gone. Even after seeing what he did to that man. The need to refill his cup was real, but the criteria with which he chose his victim was… petty. That, I think, is cruelty. Beau is cruel. I can not defend him. Yet humans are stupid, emotional things and we form attachments without even realizing it until one day we realize how painful their absence will be. We bond with animals, with plants, and with people that don’t even exist - a character in a video game or a book.
I suppose I love Beau in the same way I love the barn cat with the kinked tail or the plant that my uncle gave me or Therion in Octopath Traveler.
I don’t want him to die. [x]
Read the full list of rules.
Visit the campground's website.

I believe I have found lotto FDs (and other puts) that will actually print. DoorDash is about to collapse, and this is your opportunity to bank.

Analysis:

“Food delivery with third-party apps like Grubhub and Uber Eats is booming, but no one's making money.” – Business Insider.

But don’t take my word for it on valuation, take smart money’s word

The Company, according to The Company, has peaked. It’s over.

The circumstances that have accelerated the increase in Total Orders stemming from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic may not continue in the future, and we expect the growth rate in Total Orders to decline in future periods.

”Delivery via smartphone is one of those venture-funded sectors where business executives appear to have taken seriously the old joke about “losing money on every transaction but making it up on volume.” – New York Magazine

“DoorDash and Grubhub and Uber Eats... it’s a tough business for them. It’s very competitive. I think the business model is hard.” - Panera Bread CEO.

And Now the Fun Part

Positions

FDs

Puts

Bull case

What are the negatives?

Parting Words.

Give Me One More TLDR At The End

GME: Next Steps

I've gotten more than a few DMs so I just want to offer my thoughts in a larger setting. I apologize for wasting others time and space.
Background: MBA w/+20 years including stints in Investment Banking, Equity Research, VC and Corporate. ( = I know enough to be dangerous.)
Should I invest tomorrow?
I would invest with the understanding that you're playing a high risk/high reward game vs. the best on Wall Street (WS) who aren't accustomed to losing. (Hell, you put a 50% dent in one of the most high profile HFs on the Street.) Reddit/WSB (WSB) is beating WS at its own game and WS will not accept that. The reason that I would still buy shares is because I'm perfectly comfortable waiting out the shorts, who I believe didn't cover entirely based on some sketchy trading volumes and price action on Thursday known as ladder attacks, which is basically artificially lowering a security's price by selling it back and forth between two parties. (Note: the WSJ is reporting that Melvin closed their positions at a loss of 50% to the fund. Maybe they did, though I don’t trust Melvin or the WSJ. Regardless, I have no doubt that other HFs are salivating at the short opportunity given where GME shares are currently trading.)
The key is the somewhat unreliable short data which comes out next week. As I mentioned in a previous post, getting accurate short data is next to impossible. It makes polling data look flawless by way of comparison. It has gotten to the point that I don't believe anything I read because there is not only time lag but synthetic longs and ladder attacks all of which serve to obscure the data. No firm wants it positions known so there is a strong incentive to obscure/hide the data. Another reason why Melvin publicly releasing its positions is just highly unusual/odd.
I would also be aware that a lot of HFs are making bank off the GME volatility by selling options and taking long positions. Just look at thetagang. The group is making their entire investment decisions based solely on the option premium without any concern for the underlying narrative to the point where they're short GME puts at the 200 strike. (And they think WSB is full of retards!)
To use an analogy, I'm a lifelong Giants fan who put a $1,000 down on the Giants beating the Pats in the 2008 Superbowl. The Pats went undefeated all season and the Giants entered the playoffs as a wildcard. The bookie even told me when I placed the bet that I was just throwing away my money. I bet the money line, i.e., no points, and ending up winning $5,000. The bookie just smiled at me when I handed him my ticket. Sometimes you just gotta trust your gut and stay loyal to your instincts no matter what others think. It's what separates the men from the boys.
TLDR: It’s a cliché, but don’t invest in GME what you can’t afford to lose. At this point, you're going against some very powerful hedge funds, i.e., the Pats in 2008. That said, WSB already scored a very impressive victory and is retarded enough to not realize how good their competition really is (just like the Giants in the Super Bowl).
How will the media portray the narrative?
The media have already started spreading the narrative that WSB is going to cause a financial collapse rather than the true culprits, namely, the HFs which leveraged up 5x to short 120% of a company's shares outstanding setting the stage for an infinity squeeze, which is the financial equivalent of a nuclear chain reaction. I mention this because the greatest risk IMHO is government intervention to quell the markets when the HFs start unloading positions to meet margin calls and borrowing costs. Nobody will lose sleep over a few billionaires losing a few commas in their net worth but hitting 401Ks, pension funds, and endowments is a different story. The official narrative will involve large commercial banks which loaned Melvin and other HFs billions to leveraged up with. These banks are regulated by the SEC and FDIC because they hold commercial deposits. When the narrative shifts from Melvin and HFs to names you recognize, e.g., JPM, BofA, Citi, rest assured the game is almost up. My guess is we're in the seventh or eighth inning of this game before it's stopped.
When people ask me about WSB I first discuss the HFs who created the conditions and then secondly note that thankfully we're dealing with a relatively small company in GME with a market cap of $20bn (so far!) compared to a company in the S&P 500, which is the basis for index funds and portfolio construction. In short, WSB did everyone a favor by calling attention to such a disastrous scenario in as optimal circumstances as possible. We should be very thankful WSB alerted the public to a systematic flaw in the financial system before a much greater meltdown occurred.
TLDR: The media are the PR firms for Wall Street. They exist to promote a narrative and receive access and compensation in return. They have no interest in reporting how the retail investor is being swindled. In contrast WSB did everyone a favor by pointing out a very serious systematic flaw in as optimal fashion as possible. This is the truth and the message that needs to be heard.
What’s the next step?
FINRA releases short data next Tuesday, February 9th for the period ending this past Friday, January 29th. Roughly 700mn GME shares changed hands last week or 10x the total shares outstanding so I'm pretty sure the short interest (SI) has fallen below 100%. However, I expect it to still be well above 50% given the typical HF’s risk appetite by which I mean they expect the retail investors to run for the exits sending shares back to $20-ish levels. I would love to know the borrowing costs for these firms because it basically tells you how long they can wait before such costs negatively impact their returns. My guess is until March when they have to report 1Q results to investors.
TLDR: Short data will show a decrease in SI, which is not necessarily a bad thing but it’s important to note that the risk/reward profile of the trade has moved.
How much good did this GME trade really do besides transfer a lot of wealth?
A heck of alot. At a minimum, WSB drew well needed scrutiny to the role of option clearings firms such as Citadel* and Wolverine, i.e., the shadow economy, and their dual roles as market makers and hedge funds (players and referees). This screams conflict of interest. A revolution doesn’t happen overnight but this is another step forward in demonstrating how rigged the game is against the retail investor and guy in the (Main) street. Our regulatory agencies exist to enforce transparency and fairness. WSB has demonstrated that the derivatives market and particularly short selling lack both and have the capability to cause a financial panic. And of course, there is the unbelievable amount of charitable donations from WSB gains which prove who the real Robinhood is. (Sorry, couldn’t resist).

Citadel alone handles more than 25% of US equity flow. The company is a monster and barely anyone knows it exists, which is how they like it. They tell Wall Street what the regulation is and they pay Washington to enforce it. Former Fed heads Bernanke and Yellen have received almost a million in combined comp for speeches and advisory services from Citadel. In short, Citadel makes Goldman look like the United Way. And oh, yeah, 40% of Robinhood's revenue comes from Citadel in return for order flow. Assume what you will.

TLDR: Sunlight is the best disinfectant – Justice Brandeis
*********************
For the questions below and messages:
As I tried to communicate in the write-up, I would characterize the trade as more risky than a week ago when the SI was above 100%. I have no doubt many shorts have since closed. That said, I suspect the SI is still well above 50% given where the stock is and typical HF risk appetite. This is not a trade for your parents or grandparents.* There is serious risk here that the share price collapses based on who the counterparties are and the lower SI. That said, I still like it and I'm in it. IMHO, it comes down to a game of chicken in the sense of who is willing to hold longer. HFs have investors to report to in 1Q vs. WSB who have bills, rent, and life to deal with. As my old coach would say, who wants it more.

The market has returned ~11% per year for the past decade. A good HF aims for 2x that. You guys are banking +1,000% returns on a trade lasting approximately a month against the best HFs on the Street. These returns are not normal or even within several standard deviations. They are clearly not for the faint-of-heart. We are in unchartered waters here. No shame in heading back. The fact you've come this far is simply amazing. Even you wife's boyfriend would be proud of you.

OverSimplified's videos on the French Revolution are still completely wrong on everything

This is part II ! Read part I first if you haven't done it already.
Next we get to Louis XVI's trial, and OS is already doing as if Robespierre was the ultimate dictator of France, with him playing chess against Austria and Prussia. Yet at this point he's a mere conventionnel. A popular one, sure, but he is in no way more powerful than any of his 748 co-workers at this point. And he was far from being the only one advocating for Louis' death; maybe he didn't even have the most influential speech in this direction, as that title could be attributed to Saint-Just. 29 errors. This emphasis on Robespierre is completely unjustified : again, he is a mere deputy at this point, and he's part of the opposition at that. What's next ? Ah, OS peddles the idea that Louis' fate was decided by one vote - it was not. There was an absolute majority of just one vote not in favor of death, but in favor of death without conditions - 70 other deputies voted for death with a conditional sentance, making a total majority of 431 for death against 290 for all other options. 30 errors.
Surprisingly, OS says nothing egregiously wrong after that - until he says "so as the Revolution turned increasingly violent and anti-christian" : again this is caricatural as it doesn't take the slightest nuance into account and hammers how horrifically violent the Revolution was - the reality is that it was not violence per se that apalled the conservative, but violence against refractory priests. But let's be lenient for once, because was indeed perceived rabidly anti-clerical, albeit things are always more complex. Still his introduction of the Chouannerie and the Vendée rebellion are approximately correct. But then he confuses the royalist insurrections with the federalist insurrections, the latter being actually republican. In Toulon, it was originally a federalist revolt that was later taken over by royalists; for the other cities and regions in revolts - Marseille, Lyon, Bordeaux and Normandie, all these regions saw federalist insurrections, but as OS doesn't introduce the federalist revolts (to sum it up briefly, a violent reaction of certain departements to the eviction of tne Girondins) them and just paint France in two colors, we're left misguided. 31 errors.
"The republic sent a relatively unknown young captain by the name of Napoléon Bonaparte (of course his face is comically ugly, why do you even ask, it's the French Revolution, all of its protagonists were ugly !) to help stage the siege of the city."
Not really. The Republic sent general Carteaux, and latter Dugommier; Bonaparte was only their subordinate and not the commander-in-chief. 32 errors.
"General Jean-Baptiste Carrier committed brutal atrocities. [...] [He] was later found guily of war crimes."
He was not a general, but a civilian; specifically, a Représentant en Mission, aka an envoy of the Convention whose task is to apply the Convention's laws in the regions. As for him being found guilty of war crimes, that's stricltly impossible since war crimes became a legal charge more than a century afterwards, as conferences, such as the Hague's and Geneva's set up rules for warfare. So this is an anachronism. 34 errors. Otherwise, yeah, the repression in Vendée was indeed gruesome.
Back to Paris, where OS butchers the complete story of the Girondin's expulsion from the Convention. His chain of events is :
the government is increasingly unpopular -> Marat calls for the elimination of the traitors in the Convention and his put on trial -> Robespierre calls to insurrection.
Both the timeline and the facts are thrown in the trash : Marat was indeed tried, but in april, and he was acquitted on the 24th of that month, more than a month before the eviction of the Girondins. Many other events made them unpopular : they had created a commission to investigate the Paris Commune, that they suspected of treason, which logically didn't please the sans-culottes who hold the Commune. They were also holding to their old motto that property and economic liberalism were both sacred, even though food was still very costly and many sans-culottes demanded price fixing. What really lit the fuses though is that on may 25th, feeling that there might be an insurrection, Isnard, the girondin president of the Convention, threatens to have the entire city razed to the ground - really, I'm not making that up. That's exactly like the Brunswick manifesto. That's why Robespierre indeed called for an insurrection a few days later : he feared that a violent purge coming from the right may happen soon, and while it is easy to dismiss it as sheer paranoia, remember that all these men had lived through the Champ-de-Mars massacre, during which two men who were considered as heroes, Lafayette and Bailly (the guy who prononced the Tennis Court Oath first and the National Assembly's first president, it's him you see standing above everyone else in David's painting of the event) odered the National Guard to fire on the crowd. When even supposedly dedicated revolutionaries betray you, it's easy to think that others might do the same. I also want to add that the Girondin were not instantly executed : they were merely placed under house arrest, allowing many to flee Paris for province, where they would spark the federalist revolts I mentioned earlier.
Anyway, one error for all this. 34 errors.
"Robespierre and his radicals would be in almost total control of the government."
Good thing you said almost, because it's not the case. Even in the most dire moments of the French Revolution, the government, or the Committee of Public Safety that more or less acts as a government needs the approval of the Convention to pass any decree. This is no governmental dictatorship. 35 errors.
"In death, he became an even more powerful inspiration for the extreme levels of violence that were about to rip throughout the new republic".
While this is true, OS' heavy insistance about how horrifically violent the Revolution was falls under the paragraphs I've written above about the violence of the Revolution. But indeed, Marat's assassination confirmed the suspicions many had about traitors within their ranks. I want though to heavily insist myself on one point, and OS is going to introduce it for me.
The Reign of Terror. I want to introduce to you a new theory that has emerged at least in french academic research : the idea that the Republic basically became a totally centralised and dictatorial regime officially promoting Terror at this point is... wrong. More on that later. But first let me dump the inaccuracies that OS put in his account : the Committee of Public Safety was established on april 6th 1793, and the Revolutionary Tribunal was established on march 10th 1793; both were established as the Girondins were still firmly sitting in the Convention and government. Now the factual inaccuracies : the CPS (if you allow the abbreviation) was not a dictatorship, and Robespierre was not at its head. It needed the approval of the Convention to pass anything, and it couldn't force his will on all the other committees. Because it was not alone. There was a committee of finances, a committee of public education, a committee of the navy and the colonies, etc. The CPS simply led and coordinated the whole thing.
Internally speaking, its 12 members were strictly equal. Robespierre was not at its head - there was no "head of the committtee" and decisions needed to be approved by the majority of its members. If Robespierre is in the minority, he is powerless. So he was not, I repeat he was NOT a dictator; he has never been more than one of the 12 members of one of the executive branch, albeit the main branch. And he needed, like all the members of the CPS, to be reelected each month to keep his seat. So OS' heavy insistance on what Robespierre wanted is completely off the mark since Robespierre's personal desire don't matter that much.
Now onto the Revolutionary tribunal. Contrary to what OS depicts, and to a popular conception of it, the Revolutionary Tribunal was a real tribunal, not a sham : there were procedures, attorneys, exhibits, and half, half of the people who passed before it were acquitted. In total, that already makes five more errors : we're already at 40.
But now we get onto the interesting part. OS claims that Terror was proclaimed to be the order of the day. What does that mean exactly ? It means that in early september, after hearing of the betrayal of the admirals who gave Toulon to the Coalition forces, a group of sans-culottes entered the Convention and demanded that Terror be the order of the day. And by that, I mean the order of the day of the Convention, the official topic of today's debate in the assembly. And yet... it never happened. Historians such as Jean-Clément Martin dug into the Convention's (rigorously organised) archives and found no trace of the word Terror in the Convention's order of the day on september 5th 1793, nor in any other day of the French Revolution. That's right : there has never been any official reign of Terror. When Terror was indeed applied, it was largely the result of local iniatives that the Convention couldn't control, such as some Representatives in mission's crimes (Fouché in Lyon, Carrier, in Nantes, Barras and Fréron in Toulon), or the results of political moves to eliminate rivals and please the radical part of the public opinion. The conclusion that Martin and others like Michel Biard draw is that far from being a hyper-centralised and bloodthirsty dictatorship, France during the "Terror" was actually in a state of anarchy, to put it bluntly; the decisions the Republic then took in terms of internal traitors hunt ought not to be compared with, say, the USSR, as it is commonly depicted, but to the decisions France took again during WW1, when deserters where being shot, the press' freedom was being suppressed and the opposition parties were forced into a Sacred Union for the sake of maintaining a unified and efficient war effort. This is, according to Martin, and I'm firmly inclined to believe him, a far better comparison than François Furet's old song about the Revolution being the mother of totalitarianism, a theory that is nowadays out of favor. So OS now has 41 errors. To be specific, when the sans-culottes asked for Terror to be the order of the day, Thuriot, President of the Convention, answered "you're right : justice is the order of the day"². The central government never claimed to rule with Terror during the actual "Reign of Terror"; even Robespierre's famous speech about Virtue and Terror is not enough to prove the contrary, as Robespierre here is simply defining the principles of the Revolutionary Government in times of crisis : remember that he and the rest of the Conventionnels were dedicated republicans who had advocated for more liberty and equality during the days of the Constitutional Monarchy; their hands were forced by a one of the most dire crisis of French history, with civil war and external war in which France was alone and on the verge of collapse, but they were all clearly saying that laws like the suspect laws were exception laws, and that they would be removed once the dust would have settled. Terror was rarely mentioned by those members of the Revolutionary Government, and when it was, it was either to condemn it or to call it a necessary evil. None of these men were "bloodthirsty" : we don't live in a fairy tale with bad guys rubbing their hands and preparing plans to dominate the world. It was after the Terror supposedly ended that the Thermidorians, men such as Fouché and Barras who had defintely ruled with Terror in their proconsulships, absolved themselves of all their crimes by creating this false narrative of an almighty and bloodthirsty Robespierre overseeing mass executions all across France. OS is blindly listening to these sympathetic men when he says :
"Fear had become an official government policy."
This is a myth. Don't get me wrong though : it is neither the actual violence, nor the death toll I'm questioning (though the death toll will always be a complex question), it's the way violence was implemented. 42 errors.
So what does OS have to say about what's coming ?
The usual story of Robespierre being a psychopath who personally oversaw the spying and executions, even though he was neither a dictator, nor even a member of the Committee that actually took charge of the spying : the Committee of General Security, whose president Vadier, hated Robespierre and played a key role in his elimination. 43 errors. Also, the 40 thousands execution OS quote still leaves me skeptical, but as I couldn't find a death toll that was both more precise and more convincing, I'll go with it. I'll be happy to hear a more recent calculation though.
OS then arrives to Marie-Antoinette, and that allows me to jump on another topic : remember that quote from Danton ? "We must be terribe so the people don't have to" ? Well that was the spirit behind the infamous "loi des suspects", the law of suspects, that allowed the government to imprison anyone deemed suspect; if we don't take such decisions, there will be new September massacres : that's the logic behind it. It's a way of institutionalising a practice that would otherwise happen illegally, thus more violently, at the expense of the government's image. It is also to please the sans-culottes that the revolutionary tribunal launched a wave of executions of celebrities now labelled as traitors in october and november 1793 : Marie-Antoinette of course, but also Bailly, the Girondins, former conservative member of the Constituant Assembly such as Barnave, royal princes such as Philippe Egalité, who happened to be the king's cousin and the father of a deserter, and even Louis XV's last mistress, madame du Barry !
The idea behind these trials (those one being indeed show trials, unlike the trials faced by non-celebrities) was to satisfy the radical's demands for harsh punitive measures while also eliminating old enemies, or simply people whose death doesn't cost much to the Convention. They were, to put it bluntly, feeding the popular movement with heads they could afford to chop.
"Robespierre had saved the Revolution through Terror."
Wrong on both accounts. The revolutionary government as a whole managed to save the French republic from collapsing, Robespierre again wasn't alone in the government, nor was he at its head. Just for the anecdote, Furet calculated that the members of the CPS worked between 16 and 18 hours a day. The guys spent gigantic quantities of energy on reorganising the nation's whole war effort for victory. At least, OS somewhat acknowledges that. Still, 45 errors. We arleady adressed the question of Terror.
"Even the french military has got to act together again and pummeled the Allies at the Battle of Fleurus. For Danton and his followers, the time was right to try to normalize the French Republic."
This is probably the most scandalous timeline inaccuracy of te whole videos, since OS presents Danton's demand for clemency as a consequence of the Battle of Fleurus. However, Danton was executed in early April, and Fleurus was won in late June. You see how distorted the chronology is here ? That's seriously an hallucinating inaccuracy, doing ten seconds of actual research would have prevented it. What's even more infuriating is that OS twists the timeline seemingly only because he wants to show Robespierre was a bloodthirsty monster. This passage is one of the worst of the entire videos, OS, tell me, how the hell did you arrived at such a catastrophically inaccurate result ? 46 errors.
So apparently Robespierre alone decided to sent the Dantonists to the guillotine because he wanted the war and the Terror to continue. Robespierre was advocating for a quick end to the war; that's even what led Carnot, fellow member of the CPS partially in charge of the military matters, to actively take part in Thermidor, because Carnot was all for a war of conquest - and plundering I should add. So the war point doesn't stand. I'll repeat it : at this point, peace was not an option, unless France was to surrender to the Coalition. 47 errors. And as we saw, Robespierre was not the almighty dictator OS' seems to think he is : 48 errors.
Now a complex question must be asked. Why were the Dantonists tried (in what was clearly a show trial) and executed ? The popular explanation is that Robespierre was a mad psycho and that he killed them all by sheer sadism or lust for power. An explanation more accurate is the one given by Martin. It is essential to know that before the Indulgents/Dantonists, another group had been elminated : the Exagérés/Hébertistes, who were actually further left than most of the CPS, including Robespierre. These two groups both criticized the government for opposite reasons : the Hébertistes wanted more heads and less churches, and the Dantonists advocated for the abolition of the "exception laws" and the release of all prisoners - while the situation was still dire, because France could not be considered safe from invasion until the victory at Fleurus in late June. Here, it is extremely important to remember that Robespierre was no dictator and that decisions didn't come from him alone. He was indeed in agreement with the rest of the CPS that both groups needed to be eliminated; the most right-wing members of the committee, like Carnot and Barère opposed Hébert's atheism and revolutionary zeal, while the most left-wing, Billaud-Varenne and Collot d'Herbois, opposed Danton's penchant for corruption and leniency. It also didn't helped that Danton refused to disscoiate from fis close friend Fabre d'Eglantine, whose reputation had just been badly marred by the East India Company scandal. Robespierre was not the driving force here, and McPhee even argues that he seems to have been "cajoled" into signing Danton and co's arrest wanrrants. So it was decided that both groups would be eliminated one after the other : first the Hébertistes, and then to reassure the sans-culottes who loved Hébert and might feel betrayed, the Dantonist soon followed. It's as simple as that : the CPS wanted to eliminate two potential rival (or even insurrection callers) from both sides of the political spectrum in order to maintain a central position and please everyone - because again, the government aimed at forming a "Sacred Union" avant la lettre. In this regard, the elimination of the Dantonists can be compared to the Bonnet Rouge trial : in 1918, Clémenceau had a bunch of journalist and politicians advocating for a compromise with Germany arrested, tried and condemned, for the sake of maintaining a "Sacred Union" that would be hell-bent on winning no matter what. The Great War with Indy Neidell had some episodes about that trial.
"Robespierre went "a bit mental"."
Classic old song about Robespierre being a bloodthirsty and almighty psychopath. It's still egregiously wrong, but OS' is still clinging to it, probably because it was more difficult to do actual research than to produce dumb memes. I have already said it, and anybody who has the patience and the willingness to read a good biography of Robespierre, such as Hervé Leuwers' or Peter McPhee's : Robespierre was neither a bloodthirsty psycho nor an almighty tyrant. 49 errors. But what about the Cult of the Suprem Being ? Clearly that was Robespierre creating a crazy cult because he was a megalomaniac madman ! Well, not really. First let's remember one thing : deism, Robespierre's spiritual belief, was vastly widespread in the 18th century. Several american Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson and Thomas Paine (and possibly Washington), as well as several philosophers of the Enlightenment era such as Voltaire and Diderot were deist. To sum it up very briefly, it means believing in a super-human entity from which the universe is originated, but all the dogma and rites of Christianity are swept aside (that's really an oversimplification though). There was no darwinist theory of Evolution, no Plate Tectonics theory, no Big Bang Theory (no, not the series !). So being deist made sense, and it was not Robespierre's personal sect. Now what about the festival ? First, Robespierre presided it... because he was President of the Convention at this moment. That doesn't give him any special powers, and besides the presidency of the Convention changed every three or two weeks. He sure pushed for the thing, but the initiative came from the Committe of public instruction, not from him, and it was NOT, as OS' ridiculously portrays, a cult to Robespierre. This passage is one of the most blatantly and wholly inaccuracte passage of the videos, and yet there is some serious competition, as I think now is pretty clear since we're already at 50 errors !
What exactly was this cult ? It was three things :
- a new civic form of spiritualism that didn't include any rite or clergy, so it was NOT a religion; its goal was to make principles of equality, liberty and fraternity truly sacred.
- an appeal to the still catholic peasantry who can see in this "catholicism with extra steps" and forgive the Republic about the harsh treatment of the refractory clergy.
- a pretext to organize great national festivities to unite the people of France as they had been united by the Fête de la Fédération organized by the Constitutional monarchy on July 14st 1790. What's that ? Ah, yes, OS didn't even mention it back then, even though it was a crucial moment in the history of the French Revolution. 51 Errors.
Then comes Thermidor. This post is getting too long by now, so let's make it quick (or as quick as possible) : as insanely frustrating as it is to admit it, OS' account of Thermidor isn't inaccurate. It's thoroughly lacking, but the channel is called Oversimplified after all. He however really misses what happens after Thermidor. Because Thermidor was not the revenge of the moderates against the extremists : it was mainly a new internal purge inside the Montagne, the left side of the Convention. Not like Danton's and Hébert's elimination, but similar to that of the Girondins : a vague group, the robespierrists, who is partially (only partially, through Robespierre and his allies) in charge of the government, and who is suddenly - and violently (in the 48 following Robespierre's death, more than a hundred people were sent to the guillotine, which is the deadliest moment of the whole period, and it happens AFTER Robespierre's death, so OS' grandiloquent sentence about Robespierre being "the last victim of the moustrous system of Terror he had created" is pure nonsense : 52 errors) by a loose coalition that will soon break away. Indeed, "a more moderate group called the Thermidorian took over the Convention", but it actually took them a few weeks; Billaud-Varenne and Collot d'Herbois, the most radical members of the CPS, will not be forced to resign before early September, a full month after Robespierre died. To sum it up very basically, Thermidor was an internal purge within the Montagne, which left it too weakened to face the increasingly powerful centre-right, especially as the danger of invasion seemed to fade away. Some montagnards will switch sides, such as Fouché and Barras, and other stayed true to their conviction : they were slowly but steadily eliminated between Thermidor and the creation of the Directory. That's why more than a year passes between Thermidor and the Directory. It was not a sudden turning point.
To add insult to injury, this period saw an gigantic black legend appear, as everyone now charged Robespierre (who couldn't defend hismelf anymore) with every crime he could think of to make evryone forget their own crimes. Vadier, president of the Committee of General Security, even had a false seal with a fleur-de-lys fabricated and hidden in Robespierre's room so that Robespierre could be accused of wanting to marry Louis XVI's daughter to become King, as ludicrous as it sounds. Sadly, this black legend is still the popular conception of Robespierre. I'm not saying he was a saint, but damn, posterity has really been unfair with him, more than with anyone else I can think of, and this kind of video is exactly what allows this black legend - this complete myth of a bloodthirsty pyscho dictator that doesn't hold any ground - to still thrive. 52 errors.
"[The Directory had] the purpose of preventing power from falling into the hands of a single individual - again."
For the last time, Robespierre has never been a dictator. I think I made it pretty clear. 55 errors. What actually prompted the thermidorian to adopt such a "careful" constitution was more the fear of seeing monarchy restored through legal means, as royalist were rapidly gaining ground via elections; they won the legislative elections of 1797 and almost restored monarchy. Having five Directors sharing the executive power meant that several sincerely republican directors could nip in the bud any such attempt to restore the monarchy. That's what happened in 1797, during the coup of Fructidor, which led to entire elections being cancelled because people had not voted correctly - which of course spurred a wave of disgust for the Republic in France, understandably so. Ironically, the thermidorian legend succeeded way beyond the thermidorians' expectations, as it ended up tainting the image of the Republic as a whole, which also resulted a decline in republicanism.
[Talking about the crushing of the royalist insurrection of Vendémiaire] "From this moment on, the people of Paris would never again be able to stage a popular uprising and lost their control over the Revolution."
OverSimplified...? Are you even conscious of what is written in your script ? *"*Never again be able to stage a popular uprising" ? Ever heard of the July 1830 and 1848 Revolutions, of the Paris Commune, and all ? Okay, okay, he's only talking of the French Revolution, and it is true that there was no longer any major insurrection in Paris after that, but then, choose the right words, because "never again" means "never again", not "for the next 35 years".
There is then a whole passage about custom relaxing, and it's true that old religiosity lost some of its grip on everyday life. Suicide and divorce for example became more and more common despite being of course completely condemned by the Church. I guess that "It was social anarchy" is some weird and exaggerated way of seeing things, but frankly, after all the avalanche of nonsense that was the previous part, I'm inclined to be lenient towards that.
Surprisingly enough, OS then goes on to describe pretty accurately the last years of the Directory, even though it is of course hugely simplified - at least it's not the sheer inaccuracy we saw earlier.
However, OverSimplified eventually claims to take stock of the French Revoluion as a whole, and boy, this is the grande finale :
"The French Revolution ! Born with great promises of liberty and equality. The commone people dared to challenge an oppressive system that had existed for centuries."
For now, all seems alright.
"Before they knew it, they found liberty sidelined by Terror, equality that possibly didn't hit the mark, and an absolute monarchy replaced with an absolute dictator."
It's tiring by now. We get it, it was violent. But I repeat it : it was NOT exceptionally violent. And what it achieves surpasses what it costed. For all the talks about the revolutionaries being sadistic and bloodthirsty monsters, the guys actually had sane and human programs : the revolutionary government, along with the representatives in mission, even some of the most criminal ones, redistributed the lands of the expelled and executed, sometimes even freely and to the poorest like with Saint-Just's decrees of Ventôse 13th, created taxes directed at the richest ones, rebuilt and reinvigorated the army, not only saving France from invasion but also laying the foundations of Napoléon's Grande Armée, they began implementing free public school as much as they could given the circumstances, before the Directory decided to focus on education for the wealthiest classes, they made the food crisis less severe, they abolished slavery and proclaimed full equality of rights for all citizens, no matter their skin color, on February 4th 1794; the Republic saw France's first elections being held with universal male suffrage, the constitutional monarchy having only accepted census suffrage. While on August 4th 1789 the Constituant assembly had agreed to authorize the peasantry to pay their nobles to get rid of the old feudal dues, in August 1793 the revolutionary government abolished feudalism altogether, without condition. Now of course, not all of this was implemented efficiently : the abolition of slavery for example was impossible to force upon french islands in the Indian ocean who were out of reach, and these measures were often accompanied by a brutal repression. I'm not denying the violence. I'm trying to explain it rather than just patronizingly judge it as the result of dirty savages being bloodthirsty. I'm sick of seeing videos like this that paint the Revolution as little more than a giant bloodbath. It's both egregiously simplistic and reductive, and an inuslt to the generations of historians who worked and are still working to truly understand this incredibly complex event. If you zoom back and include the "respectable" part of the Revolution, going from 1789 to 1792, it is also the final abolition of the three orders and their inequalities, the birth of nationalism, the creation of a modern administration, and in general the creation of a modern France. If the French Revolution is generally considered to be the starting point of a new era, it's not without reasons. 53 errors.
"He (Napoléon) restored the Catholic Church"
For the last time : no, the French Revolution has never abolished the Church. Napoléon didn't "restore" anything, he just gave a new regime for the Church, in the Concordat of 1801. 54 errors.
"and got rid of that crazy calendar."
Laugh all you want a this "crazy calendar"; for many people it had a true sense, and this patronizing attitude does you no credit at all, OS. 55 errors.
And then we have a cliffhanger.
In my final assessment about Oversimplified's videos about the French Revolution, I must conclude that they're neither funny, nor instructive. They manage to be completely wrong on almost every single thing or person they talk about, while indulging in a generally conter-productive, moralizing and patronizing narrative, that doesn't do anything else than strengthening an outdated, ridiculous and completely erroneous vision of the French Revolution. I don't know if it's laziness, ignorance, or even dishonesty, or the three combined that led OverSimplified to produce such bad videos, but what I'm sure of is that with them, he well earned the nickname of OverFalsified. And since, according to seemingly everyone on this sub, his other videos are good, I beg OverSimplified's team to do something, anything to repair the damages, even a simple tweet would be welcome : the first part has 19M views, the second one has 14M. Looking at the comments and like/dislike ratio, one has to admit that what is being told in this videos is blindly believed by a majority. Take a little walk at HistoryMemes and search "French Revolution", "Terror" or "Robespierre": you'll see that this insultingly simplistic take on the French Revolution, that of a mere bloodbath led by a megalomaniac psychopath, is broadly accepted. And this is discouraging to say the least. Thanks, OverSimplified.
And thank you for reading this huge wall of text, I didn't think it would be that long.
Sources :
Nouvelle Histoire de la Révolution Française, Jean-Clément Martin, 2019
La Terreur : Vérités et Légendes, Jean-Clément Martin, 2017
Le Dictionnaire des Révolutionnaires français, Pierre Brasme, 2014
Robespierre, Hervé Leuwers, 2014
Les Sans-Culottes parisiens en l'an II, Albert Soboul, 1958
¹: La Terreur : Vérités et Légendes, p. 23
²: La Terreur : Vérités et Légendes, p. 27

SCMP no longer a trustworthy source of news: observations from a long-time reader

Four years ago, I wrote a comment defending the SCMP as a reliable news source on China-related matters:

However, I won't deny that there are sometimes clear signs of editorial decisions being influenced by the establishment, like the lawyer's "confession", and that there might be a slow and insidious ideological creep towards the CCP party line, but because of the core audience of the paper, which consists of expats and relatively well-educated, mostly western-minded readers, they can't be quick or overt, or they risk losing their prestige and readership.
This is why I think the SCMP's in a sweet spot right now, where it offers coverage and opinions from both sides of the ideological divide, and from both halves of the geopolitical world. Whether the paper will continue to stay in this sweet spot is something I can only guess at, but it seems to me as though there are few incentives for it to move out of its current general position within the next few years.

I again defended the paper two years later, then quoted my initial comment in defense of the paper nine months ago, saying that the part about it being in a "sweet spot" still stood.

Today, I'm here to say that the SCMP has moved out of the "sweet spot" and will provide arguments and evidence supporting this claim. Some might say that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, or that I'm stating the obvious, but I feel it's important to update this piece of information to reflect reality, so on top of educating would-be readers of the paper, this is also a post for my conscience and integrity.

Some of you might be thinking, "Who is this person and why should we care?"

I made a ton of posts on /geopolitics from March to June of last year, along with high-effort submission statements, to spread awareness of China's role and behaviour in the ongoing pandemic--mostly to do my part in countering disinformation. The vast majority of these posts were based on SCMP reports, which I continued to feel at the time were reliable (and because negative news pieces on China are far more credible and convincing when they come from a reputable paper owned by a Chinese company than, say, Fox News). I might have posted more SCMP articles on the subreddit than all other users combined, possibly increasing its exposure and perception as being reliable and impartial.

I began observing anomalies around April. It is very likely during that this time that authorities had felt the paper crossed a line with its unfavorable articles regarding China's role in starting the pandemic, its subsequent behaviour, and its outlook, and began subtly clamping down. It was also around that time that I started reading RTHK (a public outlet also based in the city) and other sources to diversify my intake, but also to compare their coverages and find discrepancies.

What first caught my attention occured in a series that explored "the global backlash that China may face as a result of its actions and rhetoric during the coronavirus pandemic", which I posted to the /geopolitics (links in this comment). At the time, I wrote:

I noticed how this series started off as something that would be both highly prominent and regularly featured under the SCMP 'Spotlight' section, and this is evident in the articles--the blazing-hot topic, the feature length, the deeper research, the commissioned artwork, etc. As the series progressed, its later pieces were published with basically no fanfare--not only were latter pieces published in an extremely rushed manner (Dates of publication: April 24, 28, 28, 28 ,29), the third one --which is about China's role in the global economy yet only had CCP members and nationalists as its sources and interviewees-- was 'spotlighted' (and still visible on the scmp.com front page at the time of writing) while the second, fourth, and fifth --which were far less China-friendly-- were basically buried at birth or immediately overshadowed.

Though this was redacted due to various issues, further observation showed this to be true. I didn't bother redacting my redaction as the post was already old.

In July, the CCP imposed the National Security Legislation on the city where the paper is based. Though this alone doesn't make the paper unreliable, the legislation includes provisions on media outlets. The intent to rein in the media is clear--examples have been made, are still being made, and will in all likelihood continue to be made, so editorial independence is jepoardized through external and internal means (self-censorship). The government has also publicly confronted Jack Ma (founder of SCMP's parent company Alibaba) with Xi personally approving the move, which will likely translate into greater oversight over the paper. On top of all of this is increased pressure to push nationalism, which means this greater oversight will likely be exercised. In short: the bigger picture portrays a paper destined to push the party's narrative--though in a softer and more refined manner than outlets like Global Times.

There are other clear warning signs in the coverage. For instance:

A substantial and consequential contradiction between official police statements given at different dates regarding a key moment in the 2019 unrest was noted in an RTHK article but not in relevant articles by the SCMP.
RTHK: Police arrest producer of RTHK Yuen Long programmes
SCMP: Hong Kong protests: anger mounts as police are accused of trying to rewrite white-shirt mob attacks in Yuen Long with arrest of opposition lawmaker

A substantiated claim by government labour advisers that the government "intended to create false information" when they claimed that there was a consensus to wait until 2030 to give blue-collar workers the same number of public holidays as office staff was omitted from SCMP's reporting of the issue.
RTHK: 'Govt gave false information in holidays proposal'
SCMP: Raising statutory holidays from 12 to 17 by 2030 the ‘most acceptable’ deal for Hong Kong employees, employers: labour minister

Most recently, the paper omitted coverage of the first anniversary of Dr. Li Wenliang's death. On a slow news day, there wasn't a single article on this major event (at the time of writing). Instead, Dr. Li was briefly mentioned in a routine coronavirus update while an SCMP editorial published on that day stressed global failings and said that there shouldn't be politicization of the pandemic.
This is particularly troubling, because as late as December, the outlet still found it appropriate to publish articles like, 'Remembering Li Wenliang: the Wuhan doctor who warned the world about the coronavirus'. It should be remembered that the CCP had started to take action against Jack Ma (founder of parent company Alibaba) around this period. This change is a major indicator of the direction the SCMP is heading in.
RTHK: Covid whistle blower Dr Li Wenliang remembered
SCMP: Lessons of Covid-19 must be heard to stop the same mistakes

There are other examples of omission, massaging, and favoritism that becomes evident when reading SCMP alongside RTHK and other outlets, but an exhaustive list of them is not feasible for obvious reasons. Had any of these occured in the opinions section, I wouldn't have thought much, as the opinions section is by definition built on biases--however, the incidents occured in its reporting. Given the general trends and the bigger picture, it's highly unlikely that the paper can genuinely change its direction. This is not to say we should throw out the baby with the bathwater, as the paper does a lot of high-quality and accurate journalism and has stellar infographics, but it should be clear that the paper is no longer as trustworthy as it once was on matters related to China, and that this is virtually guaranteed to worsen over time (pardon the premature title).

This article is not an attack on the good folks who work at SCMP--they are victims of their circumstances and are no doubt under serious pressure. I reckon they'd done a good job of sticking to their principles; especially over the past two eventful years--if anything, they should be praised.

Also note that this report is not an endorsement of RTHK as a replacement for the SCMP as a source of relatively-neutral news, as the scope of news of the smaller and diversified institution is different from the city's historical 'paper of record', that's backed by a technology giant. More importantly, on top of the imposement of the National Security Legislation, the public station has been under siege by the pro-government camp since the unrest in the city two years ago. Given the power disparity, it, too, will eventually be brought to heel.

To borrow a saying from talk-show hosts: "There's a saying in American politics: 'There is nothing in the middle of the road except yellow lines and dead armadillos.'" It seems that news readers are being increasingly forced to choose between extremes, since the middle ground is being increasingly hollowed out. If forced to choose, readers who read to gain knowledge would go with what they see as the lesser of two evils: the one less likely to contain falsehoods. This does not work in China's favor.

This article is dedicated to Dr. Li Wenliang. May he rest in peace.

Post AEW Dynamite 1/13/2021: New Years Smash Night 2 Discussion

It's Wednesday Night. You Know What That Means. 🖐👁💜

Match	Winner	Post Match Brawl?
PAC Vs. Eddie Kingston	PAC	Interrupted by Lance Archer
Chuck Taylor Vs. Miro (If Miro Wins, Taylor is Miro's butler until Kip/Penelopes Wedding)	Miro	No
~~The Elite~~ Kenny & The Good Brothers Vs Varsity Blondes & Danny Limelight	""The Elite""	Yes
FTR Vs. Jurassic Express (Marko & Jungle Boy)	FTR	No
NWA Women's World Championship Match Serena Deeb Vs. Tay Conti (W/ Dark Order)	Serena Deeb	No
TNT Championship Match: Allin Vs. Taz's Forgotten Son Cage	Darby	No

Future Announced Matches
1/20:

Inner Circle Tag Team Challenge
Matt Sydal / Top Flight Vs Hardy Party
-1's Birthday Celebration: Adam Page & Dark Order Vs. TH2 & Chaos Project 👉🤪
Nyla Rose Vs. Leyla Hirsch
Moxley in action

Beach Break (Feb. 3rd)

Beach Break: Britt Baker Vs. Thunder Rosa (This match got COVID'd off tonights card)

Outside of Dynamite

On Dark
- Not a lot going on on Dark this week. The Varsity Blondes (Griff/Pillman) dyed their hair blonde. Bear Country got a win, so that's a good omen towards them being signed sooner rather than later. If you've never seen them on the indies, or on Dark, you should take a look.
- In the main event, Top Flight cheated in their match with future AEW Tag Team Champions Chaos Project by using snakeman against Japanese Deathmatch Legend and The Original Death Dealer Doctor Luther instead of Japanese Deathmatch Legend and The Original Death Dealer Doctor Luther using snakeman against them, so it's bullshit and doesn't count THROW EM UP. 👉🤪👉🤪👉🤪👉🤪👉🤪👉🤪👉🤪
On IMPACT this Tuesday:
- Welcome back to the Impact Zone.
- The boys are in the RV, talking about Hard to Kill. Don says they don't need distractions, they need a victory going into AEW tomorrow and HTK this weekend. Anderson is facing Swann tonight and they're hyping him up.
- Here's the Tonys. TK walks Impact through all the best things that happened to them in 2020, which, coincidentally all seem to involve he and his money. Khan buries the Good Brothers, says they're not that good, or even brothers, but he's happy to continue allowing them on his show out of the goodness of his heart. Each week they go a little harder burying this show lmao. Just shitting all over AXS
- Rich Swann cuts a promo on Karl/hypes up the Hard to Kill match with Kenny.
- Rich Swann beats Anderson With the most devastating move in ALL of sports entertainment, the surprise roll-up. Afterwards Kenny, Gallows, MCMG, Swann and Anderson have a brawl in MCMG's dressing room as the show goes off the air.
- Hard to Kill can be purchased here for $39.99 if you're interested in the Omega/Good Brothers Vs. Swann/MCMG headliner.

At Dynamite

Lance Archer comes out on PAC's behalf to run off Eddies family after the match and prevent a Post-Match Brawl. Jake gets between PAC and Lance for about 4 seconds before getting his ass out of there. Lance tells him to get on the same page with him. Their relationship seems tenuous.
Dasha is with Hardy Party.. She's asking them what their relationship with Matt is like now that he's their manager. They say signing with AEW pales in comparison to signing with Matt. But then Quen says he can't pretend anymore, he's mad Matt is taking more than 30% because he lied in the contract. They call Matt a money-grabbing carny. Matt says no one cares about them at AEW but him, he learned that at All Out. Matt makes them leave the interview.
It's time for the Inner Circles' New Years Resolutions . Hey, while I wait for this entrance to finally end, let me remind you to take the post-show poll! Jericho says it's gonna be a huge year for Inner Circle. The best year yet.
- Hager says "CHAMPIONSHIPS, YEAH!"
- MJF says he wants to strengthen the bonds in the group, but also we have to get rid of the fats.
- Ortiz wants to cook better.
- Jericho says in 2021 he and MJF are gonna win the tag team belts. Santana says Jericho handpicked he and Ortiz to be THE tag team. Sammy interrupts and says Jericho is a TAG TEAM SLUT. He's teaming with everyone! What happened to Le Sex Gods? Are you gonna team with Snoop next? MJF tries to get things back on track but he and Sammy get heated. Jericho says they're sexy hooligans and top level athletes, they can all team, they could all win the belts. Jericho proposes they have a three-way match to decide who is gonna be the official Inner Circle tag team. "CHAMPIONSHIPS, YEAH!" Hager says, teaming with Sammy. Wardlow, I assume, will not be participating. They throw their fingers in and the segment ends.
Marvez is with Dark Order in their lair, bit lit properly for the first time ever. He's asking Uno whats next for Dark Order after their tribute to Brodie. Evil Uno says they have to be better people, and that'll start next week when Adam Page teams with them again. They pull him into frame. Alex asks him when he's gonna join. Silver says, let us know after the match next week. Adam Page agrees. Dark Order celebrates.
Before the Bucks come out for their match with Kennt, Callis takes the mic. He says the band is back together, courtesy of Don Callis and Kenny. He introduces the world tag team champions, and Kenny's BEST FRIENDS, THE GOOD BROTHERS. The Bucks are backstage and look pissed. They walk off.
Mox comes out after ""The Elite"" win. He charges at Kenny, but he can't overcome their numbers... until The Lucha Bros arrive. They peel off the Good Brothers so Mox can get some shots in on Omega. The locker room empties, but nothing can stop Mox from his assault. The Bucks show up and try to hold him back, it looks like they're trying to tell him they might be on his side, but before they make any headway the Lucha Bros drop them. More people flood out of the back as Kenny and Callis retreat. The Good Brothers make their way out and Moxley looks madder than ever.
The Waiting Room debuts on Dynamite. For those of you who haven't seen this before... lol. I hope you like Reba's laugh. Britt says she's thrilled to be here. Her guest tonight is Cody "Cody" Rhodes for more Go Big Show promos. Britt pleads with Cody to make a single good choice in his life. He comes out in a green blazer so he isn't taking it to heart. Britt says Cody's kid will probably have an action figure before she does. Britt says she has another huge surprise guest before Cody can speak, it's /squaredcircle's nomination for worst female wrestler despite having zero matches, Jade. Jade takes Cody's mic. Jade says no one gives a damn if /squaredcircles other nomination for worst female wrestler, Brandi, is pregnant. Cody did her a favor knocking her up. Jade says if Brandi ever comes back she's gonna beat her ass. Red Velvet shows up and slaps the shit out of Jade, who gets one in return, then a brawl breaks out. The women's locker room empties. Holy FUCK Jade is tall. We then ...smash cut to Britt watching herself assault Thunder Rosa(What the fuck happened here?), and then Thunder Rosa cuts a promo she's recording off of a late 1990's webcam about her match with Britt. February 3rd is the new date of their match. Britt is pissed because she thought the match was canceled, and the segment ends. This shit was a wild fucking ride dudes.

Trivial Bullshit That Doesn't Matter

The YouTube channel "I Hate Wrestling" (Name's kinda misleading), Did a breakdown of an Evolve match between Darby Allin and Chris Hero, about how to get a wrestler over with a crowd even if they have zero chance of winning the match through storytelling and character work. This match is almost the exact template for the title defense tonight I think it and the previous video about Jack Evans, both of which deal with storytelling in wrestling matches, are worth a watch. Here's the Darby one and here's Jack Evans.
Jurassic Express has only been in a single Championship match. They fought for the belt on 8/12/20 against Omega/Page in what ended up being their last successful defense of the title.
- If you started watching Dynamite during the pandemic era, or kind of near the end of 2019/early 2020, you maybe never got to experience a couple of things. One of them specifically is how much Dark Order used to suck (even if you don't like them now, they were largely considered irredeemable then), and two, how incredibly, stupid popular Luchasaurus was with live crowds. He was injured early in Dynamites run, and got a big return here beating up a ton of Dark Orders' Creepers (now an extinct race) and reuniting with the group.
This is the first time Jurassic Express has wrestled with the combo of Marko/Jungle Boy since a Dark episode back in February of 2020, when Dark Order beat them again.
Serena Deeb was part of the ill-fated promotion Wrestlicious back in 2008, under the name of Paige Webb. If you're unfamiliar with Wrestilicious, it was an all womens wrestling promotion that was money-ed into existence by a 19 year old who won a 35 million dollar powerball lottery. It was kind of sort of like GLOW, but with less of the campy fun and more of a mild softcore porn vibe. Wrestling With Wregret covered it here, but you can watch Serena's only singles match from that organization here, where she loses to Jennifer Blake, known largely for her AAA run, who I believe retired from wrestling around ~2017. Serena is almost unrecognizable here and the match is pretty forgettable. She's grown as a wrestler tremendously, and is luckily not working under these conditions anymore.
- This promotion also had Leva Bates (As "Emo Leigh"), Daffney, Neveah, and Mercedes Martinez amongst others.
- Jonathan Vargas went broke due to this and other bad investments before a second season of this show could be made and the promotion died as it lived, in obscurity.
This is Chuck Taylors 4th singles match with AEW, and his first since losing to Kip Sabian on the 4/15/20 show when they were filming those 4-5 weeks of matches all at once in Atlanta.
- This was also the night of the Moxley/Hager championship match in the completely, totally empty Daily's Place with only JR on commentary. The card for this show is abysmal and looked like a modern Dark episode (Oh boy, Shawn Spears versus... Justin Law!). The entire feud and blowoff for this match was filmed in about 45 minutes and consisted mostly of Jake Hager looking at a TV in an undisclosed location. This match is currently the lowest audience rated men's championship match in all of AEW

Hacksaw Jim Duggan Buries All Elite Wrestling
With a wrestling career that's lasted more than 40 years, Jim Duggan's power level is beyond comprehension. If he hasn't beaten an AEW wrestler directly, he's beaten them through a few degrees of separation.
This week on Being The Elite, Evil Uno said his new years resolution was to have a match with Hacksaw Jim Duggan. Uno challenged Hacksaw Jim Duggan. I'm going to embarrass you. I am going to embarrass you, Evil Uno.
Could Hacksaw Jim Duggan defeat Evil Uno?

4-2-1988: Hacksaw Jim Duggan knocked Andre the Giant out in one blow, something no other wrestler ever even came close to doing. FUCK your body slam.
11-12-1983: Andre the Giant defeated Baron von Raschke, Billy Robinson, Buck Zumhofe, David Schultz, Hulk Hogan, Jerry Blackwell, Jim Brunzell, Ken Patera, Otto Wanz, Rick Martel, Sheik Adnan Al-Kassie, Steve Olsonoski, Superstar Billy Graham and Tom Stone.

You've met with a terrible fate haven't you

4-21-2002: Hulk Hogan Defeats HHH
10-16-2018: HHH Defeats The Undertaker
3-25-20: The Undertaker Canonically Fucking Murdered Gallows and Anderson

IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?

10-2-2017: Gallows & Anderson defeat Matt Hardy & Jason Jordan
12-16-20: Hardy Party Defeats Hangman Adam Page & Silver & Reynolds
9-23-20: Hangman Adam Page Defeats Evil Uno

You fool. You blithering, masked up maroon. You called for this match yourself and you've been defeated by nearly every single person on the Mount Rushmore of wrestling. The Literal Valhalla of Professional Wrestling looked upon you and said "1, 2, 3." RING THE FUCKING BELL.
YES, Hacksaw Jim Duggan could EASILY Defeat Evil Uno, AND Adam Page, AND Private Party AND Alex Reynolds, AND Matt Hardy, AND the Good Brothers.
Hacksaw has previously defeated:
Kenny Omega, Colt Cabana, Hikaru Shida, Kris Statlander, Eddie Kingston, Chris Jericho, Darby Allin, & John Silver
And has lost to only one man:
The Exalted One, Mr. Brodie Lee
Outside Links
Being The Elite on Youtube
AEW Dark & More on Youtube
Visit /AEWOfficial - The Most "Official" Unofficial Subreddit for All Elite Wrestling fans.
Visit AllEliteWrestling.com for news, tickets, merch, and other info.
Watch Impact Wrestling On Twitch

[Jacobin] Everyone Hates the Democrats

Everyone Hates the Democrats By Dustin Guastella
Progressives and moderates accuse each other of being unable to appeal to working-class voters — and maybe they’re both right.
The Democratic Party may have recaptured the White House, but its crisis remains as deep as ever. Though Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by 7 million popular votes, his Electoral College victory came down to 42,000 ballots in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Democrats barely won the Senate, lost seats in the House, and were stonewalled at the state level — of the twelve legislative chambers Democrats had targeted there, they won zero.
Far from celebrating a landslide victory, with hopes of a national realignment on the way, Democrats found themselves once more engaged in a tense debate about the future of a party that seems incapable of decisively winning control of all branches of government.
On this question, the progressive and centrist wings of the party are more divided than ever. Conservative Blue Dog Democrats like Abigail Spanberger blame radical rhetoric for the party’s poor results in Congress: “we need to not ever use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. Because while people think it doesn’t matter, it does matter. And we lost good members because of it.” In response, our left-wing leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez contend that the Democrats will fail to mobilize their most enthusiastic voters if big-ticket progressive ideas get dropped from the agenda. They argue that the party’s biggest liability was its unimaginative, uninspiring, and thoroughly orthodox economic conservatism. Joe Biden’s promise that “nothing will fundamentally change” might have won over some moderates disgusted with Trump, but it failed to inspire voters to elect a Democratic majority.
Meanwhile, despite losing a presidential reelection bid, many Republican leaders seem unconcerned with the results. After all, Trump managed to improve on his 2016 performance in nearly every demographic group, save college-educated voters and white men. Biden, however, failed to reverse the Democrats’ slow bleeding of working-class voters of all races, so much so that Republican senator Marco Rubio boasts that the GOP is now the party of the “multiracial working class.”
Democrats know they are in trouble, and most of them recognize the problem: their base is too narrow. It is too geographically metropolitan, too educated, and, increasingly, too wealthy. What Democrats most need, then, is a way to build a larger working-class coalition. And this, too, is the crux of the debate between progressive insurgents and establishment politicians: each wing of the party accuses the other of being unable to win working-class voters.
Maybe they’re both right.
The Progressive Archipelago
“Left but not woke” was how commentator David Frum once described Bernie Sanders. In his 2016 bid for the Democratic nomination, Sanders’s economic platform was decidedly ambitious and his rhetoric indisputably populist. In an era of small-government austerity and technocratic solutionism, Bernie often sounded like a New Deal dinosaur, blissfully unaware that history had ended in the 1990s, or that Democrats had become a party of right-thinking college graduates rather than blue-collar workers. He offered a worker-centered economic agenda, without the alienating cultural aesthetic that dominates liberal media and the universities.
No one can deny Sanders’s influence on the future of the US left. His platform has upended the policy consensus on Capitol Hill, and his talking points are now regularly imitated by down-ballot candidates across the country.
Yet many of his most outspoken disciples fail to embody his unique appeal. Instead of the single-minded focus on working-class issues, they often embrace the liberal culture war while peppering in some of Bernie’s popular programs. So, if Bernie is the progressive exception, then what is the rule?
Consider Elizabeth Warren’s campaign, which even the ultraliberal magazine the Atlantic chided for its “Excessive Wokeness.” Warren combined a popular economic agenda with an often awkward attempt at courting Teen Vogue–reading radicals. This approach was admired among activists, media commentators, and some professional-class voters, but almost no one else — especially not the oppressed groups she aimed to attract. Warren came in fourth among black voters in her home state.
Warren is far from unique, though, and the brand of politics she championed is certainly not dead — in deep blue districts, it might even be the norm. The members of the Squad — long thought to be the successors to the Sanders mantle — have welded Bernie’s economic agenda to activist demands like “defund the police” and political appeals that, whatever their merits, seem best at attracting the hyperliberal and highly literate.
Progressives and socialists are now pairing ambitious and urgently necessary proposals like Medicare for All with wildly unpopular and sometimes counterproductive policy positions. Further, progressives have embraced a racialized worldview that reduces whole populations to their skin color. “Woke” ideology has prevented many on the Left from grasping the possibility that a Mexican American may care more about health care than immigration, that a woman might be more motivated by economic promises than electing a first female president, or that Trump might be able to improve his vote share among working-class black voters.
Even the political style of the Left seems designed to turn away potential new recruits. Far from signaling a commitment to vital social causes, being “woke” has become synonymous with an embrace of niche cultural attitudes found only in highly educated urban districts and among Twitter users — 80 percent of whom are affluent millennials. The Sanders campaign attempted a break with the new online consensus when it rejected the fringe term “Latinx” in its historically successful efforts to court Latino voters. And while Sanders failed to win over infrequent, rural, and small-town voters, he recognized how important it was to craft a majoritarian message that could appeal to them.
It’s unlikely that younger progressive leaders will do the same. Standout representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib sit in districts teeming with young, liberal voters (each seat boasts a Democratic advantage of at least 29 percentage points). For urban progressive insurgents — who are cash poor and enthusiasm rich — the incentives are clear: “woke” messaging helps mobilize an activist volunteer base that allows these candidates to overcome their financial weaknesses vis-à-vis established incumbents, and since these districts are so uniformly Democratic, they need not worry about appealing to a broader group in a general election. But even as these progressives have marooned themselves on isolated blue urban islands, they insist more than ever on defining the terms of national debate. And thanks to their unusually strong access to media, they’ve been quite successful at this.
The political problem here is not the moral motivation behind the “Great Awokening” — there is no doubt that progressive Democrats have the best of intentions. The problem is the way in which that moral conviction is expressed, and by whom. Party insurgents today reflect the sensibilities and interests of a constituency that looks and sounds nothing like the kinds of voters the Left desperately needs to win.
After all, professional-class progressives only make up about 13 percent of the electorate, and they almost never vote for anyone other than Democrats. Alternatively, as Peter Hall and Georgina Evans show, about 22 percent of voters dislike cosmopolitan and increasingly out-of-touch liberal cultural appeals but believe in a progressive economic agenda — and these voters are largely working class. Winning the loyalty of the majority of working people in this country will require breaking out of the existing liberal fortresses and appealing to workers across our massive continental democracy. But pairing a popular economic program with alienating rhetoric, chic activist demands, and identity-based group appeals only weakens the possibility of doing so.
Blue Dog Blues
If progressives are trapped by an unpopular political style, many Democratic leaders have carefully distanced themselves from it. You didn’t catch Amy Klobuchar gushing about new activist campaigns. And Biden didn’t bother to even flirt with woke posturing and academic invocations of “intersectionality” the way that Hillary Clinton did in 2016.
Biden presented himself as a reliable and likable moderate — someone to steady the ship after Trump’s rocky tenure and the insurgent challenge of the Sanders campaign. And, since the election, establishment figures have seized on every opportunity to tie Bernie’s popular economic agenda to the more controversial ideas championed by some of his supporters. Spanberger chided the Left to “never say defund the police again,” but the congresswoman was careful to tie the slogan to “socialism” and other more popular economic policies. (Bernie himself never embraced “defunding the police,” and instead argued consistently for better training and more accountability.) Similarly, Representative James Clyburn insisted that the “defund” slogan was as much a liability for Democrats as Medicare for All. Progressives, therefore, have made it easy for moderates to attack an appealing left-wing economic program by simply associating it with the most unpopular pillars of the progressive agenda. In contrast, centrist Democrats and conservative “Blue Dogs” have combined moderate rhetoric with a mostly orthodox economic program. Their charge to the Left is to “grow up.” To win seats, they argue, drop the socialism. But while Spanberger squeaked out a victory in Virginia’s rural heartland, dropping socialism — or even attacking it at every turn — hasn’t prevented her fellow Blue Dogs from becoming a nearly extinct political breed. The conservative Democratic caucus has only twenty-six members in the House, down from fifty-six under Barack Obama. As alienating as woke rhetoric is, a politics that does nothing to address wage stagnation and general economic and social decline isn’t winning many over either.
It’s undeniable that Democrats in rural areas face steeper challenges than their urban and suburban counterparts, but curiously, two outstanding victories for swing-district small-town Democrats were Matt Cartwright in perennially purple Pennsylvania and Peter DeFazio in Oregon. Both are Medicare for All cosponsors; both held on to their seats even as at least seven more Blue Dogs went down to defeat. It should be plain that Spanberger’s rage at progressives is at least as much an expression of frustration that the Blue Dog formula also seems to be failing.
The establishment may credibly argue that hyperliberalism is an electoral liability for the whole Democratic brand, undermining House members who have never claimed any activist bona fides. But what do these Democrats make of the equally credible argument that policies like government health insurance and a $15 minimum wage are widely supported even in districts that make Spanberger’s look liberal?
Mainstream Democrats are fundamentally unwilling to renew their commitment to the New Deal ethos of social programs and union rights. Consequently, they are unwilling to rebuild the kind of electoral coalition that brought them a half-century of political supremacy.
Worse, the Clintonite commitment to economic “modernization” has led the party to a political disaster. The promise was that manufacturing job losses would be offset by widespread economic prosperity, built on Silicon Valley magic and the financial sector’s charge-card plastic. The reality was that the elite economic consensus — tax cuts and balanced budgets — resulted in unparalleled economic decline in midwestern “blue wall” states. Disastrous trade agreements only helped accelerate the depression of wages and the inflation of despair in hollowed-out old factory towns and cities. History will judge the Democrats’ passage of NAFTA as nothing less than the first signature on their own death certificate.
For the Democrats to win back their New Deal (or even Obama-era) constituency, they need to credibly appeal to the economic interests of working people. Unfortunately, moderates in the party are unwilling to offer workers much more than a wry smile and a charming affect. Progressives, meanwhile, do promise real solutions — but only after they drench those appeals in a cultural style born in universities that most people will never attend. The effect in both cases is the same: Workers stay home. And the Democrats lose more and more of the country.
Listen to Workers
One way of looking at the past twelve years of American politics is to say that, in both 2008 and 2016, workers voted for the “change” candidate. They voted for perceived outsiders, and they voted against Washington. Both Barack Obama and Donald Trump argued that, through their personal charisma and skill, they could save workers. In both campaigns, workers voted for a candidate who promised to take on elites, renegotiate NAFTA, rebuild our education system, and stem the poverty, disease, and violence that plague so many American neighborhoods.
For over a decade now, the electorate has been screaming at the political class that something must be done and that the government must change course. But the government, under both Obama and Trump, largely ignored them. Nothing significant has changed in these last twelve years. Congress remains in a permanent state of dysfunction.
Meanwhile, the issues workers most prioritize are an afterthought in the media and among the political class. The domination of American politics by the affluent and the educated has led to a dramatic rift in the public sphere and a deep cleavage between rural and urban workers and those with and without a college degree. Within the Democratic coalition, in particular, the gap between workers and professionals has grown wide. In fact, the difference in priorities seems at least as significant as the self-identified ideological divide between the establishment and progressives.
According to a report from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, Democratic-leaning working-class voters ranked their top five issues as follows: health care, social security, Medicare, the economy, and jobs. But liberal professionals listed theirs as: environment, climate change, health care, education, and racial equality. By comparing rankings, we can see great chasms between groups: While crime was listed sixth for workers, professionals’ concerns about crime placed way down in position seventeen. And while workers listed the economy as their number-four concern, professionals saw it as twelfth in line. For professionals, climate change was a top issue in this election — for workers, it didn’t even break the top ten.
Across the board, professionals insist on issues far from the kitchen table, while workers vote almost entirely on direct economic concerns. The Democratic strategy of consolidating their urban and suburban electorate has only resulted in a deepening embrace of issues that narrowly reflect the interests of that constituency. After all, if your party is courting wealthy, mostly white, professional-class voters, you will pitch campaigns designed to attract those voters.
What’s more striking is that — though progressives insist on going much further than centrists on any given policy — the white-collar priorities of both wings of the party were represented in Biden’s campaign. In his victory speech, Biden reiterated his ultimate intentions:

To marshal the forces of science and the forces of hope in the great battles of our time. The battle to control the virus. The battle to build prosperity. The battle to secure your family’s health care. The battle to achieve racial justice and root out systemic racism in this country. The battle to save the climate. The battle to restore decency, defend democracy, and give everybody in this country a fair shot.

Notice that, of the top-priority issues for Democratic working-class voters, only health care was explicitly referred to — coincidentally, it is also a top issue for professionals. If you understand nothing else about American politics, understanding that professional-class issues dominate Democratic appeals will help you make a great deal more sense of the world than incessantly scratching your head during every election cycle about just why it is that workers keep “voting against their interests.”
The fact is, neither workers nor their interests are even on the menu.
A Progressive or Blue-Collar Congress?
The consequences of neglecting workers’ interests are clear: Washington will remain dysfunctional. On the one hand, in order to reverse the bleeding of working class voters — especially in rural areas and small-towns — the federal government must act decisively to reverse the economic decline wrought by decades of reckless shortsighted policy making. On the other hand, until and unless progressive forces figure out how to win outside of large urban areas, the Left will remain legislatively impotent. Centrism is a dead end that promises nothing but razor-thin victories, divided government, and an ever-shrinking share of working-class votes. But getting “woke” also means alienating most voters — of all colors — and handing the Republicans easy layup victories at the polls. Still, it will probably take more than a rhetorical adjustment to regain the confidence of working people. Struggling Americans want jobs, health care, decent schools, safe neighborhoods, and somebody — anybody — in Washington to listen. But why would they listen? Democrats today represent the richest House districts in the country, and Republicans consistently send the wealthiest individuals to Washington. The median income in Congress is 500 percent greater than that of the nation at large — half of our federal legislators are millionaires.
Congress is richer than ever, yet both parties have gloated about their success in “diversifying” the chambers: today, 24 percent of lawmakers are women, 22 percent are racial or ethnic minorities, and more than 5 percent are of foreign birth.
Only 2 percent come from a working-class background.
The case for increasing the representation of minorities and women in Congress has rightly been accepted as both morally correct and politically effective. Yet, in recent memory, there has never been a forceful case for improving the representation of workers. But this is exactly what must happen if we are to avoid the two dead ends of centrism and hyper-liberalism examined above.
Depending on your definition, “the working class” makes up between 55 and 70 percent of the country. The vast majority of this group shares a great deal in common politically, but in our broader political culture, working people are more often expected to sort themselves into groups euphemistically called “communities” than they are encouraged to think of themselves as part of a class. What’s more, workers almost never get to vote for other workers on the basis of their shared experiences, aspirations, and interests as workers.
On almost all major economic questions, lawmakers from blue-collar backgrounds are reliably more progressive than their white-collar counterparts. Working-class legislators are also more likely to come from the districts they are seeking to represent, more likely to come from oppressed groups, and more likely to sound like and speak to the discrete interests of their potential voters. In other words, there is no good reason not to run working people for Congress. There is only one very bad reason, and that is the fact that many progressives, moderates, and conservatives alike plainly think working people are stupid and culturally backward. As a result, no one asks them, or creates the material conditions that allows them, to run.
Political scientist and author of The Cash Ceiling Nicholas Carnes credits this fact as one major reason working people do not run for office. Democratic socialists have a special responsibility to change this — what does workers’ government mean if not workers in government? Doing so would also help us avoid many of the problems outlined here and potentially allow progressives to break out of their blue bubbles.
The good news is that representatives Mark Pocan, a longtime member of the painters’ union, and Donald Norcross, the House’s only electrician, have recently announced a new labor caucus in Congress that could provide a means for doing just that. The caucus seeks to advance the interests of organized and unorganized workers alike. Presumably, it will also endeavor to increase the representation of workers in Congress. If these labor legislators can develop a serious program for the recruitment of workers to run for office, financed by local union PAC contributions and buttressed by big volunteer get-out-the-vote campaigns — especially in the small-town and rural districts where liberals struggle — they could provide a path out of the morass. In Norcross’s home state, the New Jersey AFL-CIO’s Labor Candidates Program has to date secured more than a thousand election victories for unionists and could serve as a model for candidate training and campaign development. In close connection with the congressional Labor Caucus, such local efforts could help develop the political arm of the labor movement while also exciting rank-and-file members who are more likely to mobilize and support their union sisters and brothers than they are any Johnny-come-lately Democrat who only shows up at election time.
For the Left, pivoting toward recruiting worker candidates and retooling a campaign message to speak primarily to the economic interests of wage workers — in rural and urban districts alike — is a function of will. Progressive leaders in Congress are not tied down by corporate donations or deals with party elites that would prevent such a change in direction. And left-leaning Democratic and independent voters are overwhelmingly in favor of the kinds of pro-worker legislation that trade-union candidates might put forward.
Of course, there is no guarantee that working-class candidates armed with a bold economic agenda will break the powerful geographic bias against the Left. At best, the strategy offers only a slow and uneven advance. But it is also true that we have no chance to deliver the reforms we hope to see with a constituency made up of high-earning and highly educated liberals.
Until then, the Democrats will remain the party everyone loves to hate.

"I think I've lived long enough to see competitive Counter-Strike as we know it, kill itself." Summary of Richard Lewis' stream (Long)

I want to preface that the contents of this post is for informational purposes. I do not condone or approve of any harassments or witch-hunting or the attacking of anybody.

Richard Lewis recently did a stream talking about the terrible state of CS esports and I thought it was an important stream anyone who cares about the CS community should listen to.
Vod Link here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/830415547
I realize it is 3 hours long so I took it upon myself to create a list of interesting points from the stream so you don't have to listen to the whole thing, although I still encourage you to do so if you can.
I know this post is still long but probably easier to digest, especially in parts.
Here is a link to my raw notes if you for some reason want to read through this which includes some omitted stuff. It's in chronological order of things said in the stream and has some time stamps. https://pastebin.com/6QWTLr8T

Intro

"The last month has convinced me, that we are going to be heading into a dark place for Counter-Strike esports in 2021."
- "I think I've seen the scene essentially kill itself."
"For the past 5 to 6 years, we've basically been in a holding pattern of people coming into our game wanting to run it, wanting to run all of the esports and wanting to profiteer and its been sort of a concerted effort to drive them off and push them away."
- "We're spread way too thin."
"If Riot don't get involved and stop the scumbags that have moved over to Valorant from getting their feet under the table, Valorant is going to have real problems."
RL thinks too much has happened all at once for us to do anything except watch it play out, like:
- Recent CSPPA strike against BLAST
- ESIC failures and them not being supported enough
- Teams cheating i.e. coaches/bugs
- Widespread match fixing
- The Pandemic
  - "People who try to hold bubble events are so incompetent and fuck up and people get the 'rona and its their fault."
  - "People who say Flashpoint is a bubble is full of shit and is a lie and people are now suffering for that lie."
    - "To save money they let people go home and break the bubble for a week."
    - "Not just Flashpoint peoples decision, they have a partner that handles the production." (hinting FACEIT)
    - "People are trapped in hotels essentially under house arrest because of COVID restrictions and has fucked peoples lives up."
"It's all too much, all of this incompetence, all of this greed, maybe we ride it out."
- RL says he has talked to the Riot devs (the ones working on Valorant) and says, "They are so cognizant of all the fuck ups and all the problems we have in Counter-Strike."
  - He continues to say that this is factored into their business plan and that we never had a competitor, but just so happens to have one coincide, when we are at our worst.

CSPPA - Counter-Strike Professional Players' Association

"Who does this union really fucking serve?"

RL believes that the CSPPA is a mockery.
- He points out the hypocrisy that they wouldn't strike for the pros who were kicked out of ESL Pro League, or for Jamppi or dream3r.
  - He also says ESL paid CSPPA and are racketeering and many other TOs have to pay them to get their "seal of approval"
    - He says they would strong-arm TOs saying "well if you don't give us the money, these guys are so we'll just have to commit to playing their event."
  - Also points out that they will strike against a competitor they are not in agreement with (Flashpoint)
  - RL: "It's what it says about every other time you haven't done it and it's about every time you don't do it now moving forward." "The issues they've chosen to ignore this year alone are embarrassing."
  - Then he points out that there was no strike for Valve qualifiers even if we have no major but Jamppi and dream3r can't play in them.
    - "and Valve have said 'Oh yeah we know actually their stories are accurate, Jamppi didn't cheat, now in a legally binding document. Yep dream3r did have his account hacked in a LAN café', but they still can't play. Where is the fucking solidarity? Gone. Doesn't exist. It's not important [because] it doesn't affect you." "That's what the union does right now, it looks after all the tier 1 people."
He says the CSPPA doesn't represent all players all the time and has driven a divide where you have the haves and have-nots
- "We have a tier of players that operate with impunity and do not help their tier 2 or tier 3 players out at all." "If you are not a tier 1 player you do not matter, they don't event ask your opinion."
- He tells chrisJ to admit and own the fact that the reason he didn't speak up during the ESL Pro League debacle is because it didn't affect him
- "They are looking after some players at the expense of other players. How the fuck is that a union?"
He says the BLAST situation is a reasonable dispute and supports the players but is not the right time for a strike and have not even identified the correct enemy
- He thinks players are lashing out now due to previous incidents and are upset that BLAST are working with ESIC
  - He stated that CSPPA shouldn't beefing with ESIC and they should be working in harmony
- He says what they need to do is talk with the teams/organizations that have sold that right to BLAST
  - RL: "Your employers, the people who pay you that massive exorbitant salaries, when you don't stream and you don't do interviews and you offer no value beyond your ability to click heads and you get 25k dollars a month." "Why don't you talk to them about it? Oh right. You're happy to take away BLAST's paper, but you don't want to risk your own."
- "I am seeing such unbelievable cowardice from the players here with the battles you choose."
- "Where was the strike action when in the qualifiers for the world championship, there were teams and players engaged in huge conflicts of interest?" "Where was the strike action when your image rights were taken and sold to every league you've ever been in every union type organization you've ever been associated with like, WESA, to your org every time you sign a contract, to the leagues you play in."
  - "Your image rights are essentially worthless now, there's about 10 fucking separate parties that have them, and how many of them are giving you anything for it? Not much pretty much your org by the way."
  - "That's a big issue. Your image is you, your image is your brand. What are you doing about that? Nothing."
He is also angry at SirScoots who is "popping off" at people on Twitter who all want the same thing, which is 'A unified Counter-Strike scene for everybody, that works for everybody, that has a sustained ecosystem that nourishes everybody.' "We don't have that now."
He also says their rankings are a joke
- "Just so happened, oh look TACO, that very important prominent member of the board, we pushed his team artificially up when they weren't even in the fucking top 20, not by a long shot."
He also says the ineptitude of the CSPPA cost Flashpoint a monitor sponsor
"Is it really a player association or is it like a fucking agency at this point"

ESIC - Esports Integrity Commission

"They have been put in an impossible position."

RL says that Ian Smith, the founder of ESIC and who was done work in mainstream sports, is a good and honorable man who has dedicated his life to integrity and sports. He takes on both sides, ensuring match fixers are punished, but also doing appeals and ensuring those punishments were fair.
"ESIC is a tiny organization" and are in need of money, "They didn't run a grift like the CSPPA did."
- "Saying 'you want our support and you want the players to turn up you better pay us.' They don't do that."
- "Had startup seed money from MTG and since then they've been pecking shit with the hens."
  - Ian Smith made sure that the money given by MTG (Modern Times Group, parent company of ESL, ESEA, DreamHack) was nothing more than startup money and wouldn't be in debt to them
    - Ian Smith sat down with other TO's not part of MTG and wanted to partner with them. They declined and called ESIC "ESL spies and we will never align ourselves with you"
- "They only were just able to afford, hiring a PR guy on a full time salary to deal with the press and send out those releases you've seen, this year."
  - "They have a tiny group of staff investigating these things and they have taken on the biggest problems in our scene: the cheating, the match fixing."
ESIC have had "unprecedented levels of cheating to deal with, because there's something wrong with our scene ever since we went online. There's something wrong with it, everyone's lost their fucking pride and self-respect and they got no passion for it anymore, so they think fuck it, what's in it for me?"
- He calls out coaches who are talking about players rights when they would rob and steal from them.
  - Also says more coaches being banned are coming
  - He also points out flaws in community's reaction to the punishments to coaches bans: "Half of the cunts still have jobs and some of the cunts got new jobs. We didn't even shun the cheating coaches."
ESIC have "found I think another 2 or 3 exploits like that one and they are investigating them all right now, it's going on right now."
- "I know that there are going to be more names getting banned, again."
- "So they're doing that on a skeleton crew while, investigating 3 continents worth of match fixing in MDL and semi-pro level CS." "They're doing this with half a dozen people." "They don't have any money or any help. People barely even fucking cooperate with them, they are treated like pariahs. It's ridiculous."
  - "Why are the CSPPA popping off at ESIC on my Twitter timeline, when you should be working together." "because its all about what's in it in for me." "2020, the online era of CS: 'What is in it for me?' How can I cheat, how can I get my paper, how can I bleed this scene one last time before I fuck off and play shooty shooty bang bang Riot Games babys first fps."
RL says that in the CIS region, teams have gone to tournaments and have been eliminated multiple times by the same team. We found out they were cheating and those players who lost, have been cut from their roster, careers ended because of cheaters.

Stream Sniping

"They're all at it in the online era, they're all at it, they're all cheating, they're all using exploits, probably that see through smoke bug got used a bunch of times"

RL talks about how there is no integrity from dead (the player), always denying when caught doing something
- On the topic of 'BLAST never said we couldn't stream snipe': "Lies, BLAST never said you could do that, they had to sort of retcon it." "because what happened after that they fucking started snitching and squealing"
  - "Suddenly you had like, 10 of the top 15 teams in the world, staring into the abyss of being banned for 6-12 months in line with ESIC recommendations."
    - He says that ESIC was put in a tough situation and couldn't enforce the bans because it would have resulted in killing CS. What resulted was, BLAST, ESIC, and teams came together and gave them a warning and told them, in RL's words "don't do this again or you're gonna get got."
      - He then says the top teams brushed this off and didn't give a fuck
      - The new MiBR team playing Flashpoint, that wasn't involved in the previous incidents are doing it again (stream sniping). He gave credit to Flashpoint for the quick resolution and punishment and respect for cogu's response to the situation.
      - "ESIC came out and said, once more, 'Guys, zero tolerance from now on.'" RL then got upset at community's reaction calling ESIC "pussies" for their non enforcement and said if we want competitive CS we cant ban the top 10 teams.
He points out how players have no integrity and will do anything for an edge as long as they won't get detected or banned or it's within a grey area.
"All of this shit was mad avoidable, even in the pandemic era."
- He talks about why aren't we filming them. Why aren't there representatives for leagues and tournaments making sure players aren't cheating?

Match Fixing

"How many years have we let our scene be fucking pillaged by these greedy cunts?" "We just let it happen."

RL says that gambling and skins betting which existed in moderation was "accelerated and blown up by the Call of Duty greedy fucks."
- "Never forget TmarTn was on the board of EnVyUs." "His website, CSGOLotto, they had a bunch of off-the-books sponsorships." "NBK promoted them. People forget."
"Those people who had access to the skins, go to the players" "Even people like s1mple, best player in the world, even he scammed knives and skins off fucking fans."
Owners of skin casino sites would approach pros and lend them skins to use in tournaments and possibly keep them after reaching a deal
- Players would tip off inside info about matches and teams in exchange for skins. Info such as: roster changes, how they played in scrims
  - They would use this info to bet and subvert the odds on their sites. "That happened religiously, I can't even tell you how many times it happened."
    - "I had access to the biggest database of information, from an inside betting circle in NA, and it would take information and screenshots from other pro players, who were feeding them info in exchange for money or skins."
      - "Some of these players are still playing." "Incredibly, there are players still in the CSPPA today, complaining about the BLAST recordings, that were embroiled in this murky shit back then."
RL also says that there were tournaments where teams contrived with each other, who should throw, who should win.
"There's a handful of people that are trying to fucking clean it up, and you think you get something over the line and you see something like the CSPPA and it's run by corrupt fucking chuckle heads, and now you've got another corrupt body you have to fight on a fucking daily basis, it's demoralizing."
- "It's too far gone. Our entire semi-professional scene is compromised."
"It's rife guys, I'm not going to lie any more. It's not just China, it's not just Russia, it's here, it's NA, it's Europe, it's Australia, so much more than you think, so much more than we can prove."
- "I get sent chat logs all the time […] and they're morons, these players, short-sighted, amateur, morons and they're doing it on WhatsApp." People would get cut from the bets because they want to make more money, then they leak the logs. He says, from the chat logs, they spread "little" bets across every site they can (400 to 1k dollars) to prevent shifting odds
He says the scumbags who've fucked off to Valorant will do the same there if Riot doesn't do something and says Valorant "is an esports scene heading for a very early fall based on the sheer volume of scumbags that are already there."
"That's tier 2 CS in a nutshell these days. They know they're never going to play in a major, so what's the punishment?"
- "All of these tier 2 fucks that are fixing games now they are like the fucking mafia compared to iBuyPower" "These guys are working with organized criminals to fix entire seasons worth of games. That's what's going on in your tier 2 CS."
"I'm literally being told that there are players fixing games at all levels of Chinese esports and motherfuckers with guns are turning up to team houses and stuff."

North America

"Everyone in NA has left we've lost a continents worth of support during this pandemic and Valve haven't said a fucking word."

RL says the Call of Duty "goblins" that destroyed CS for years are the same people who are now trying to leave CS. "The nerve to treat a game where the fans, and the community, and the TO's were nothing but good to you." "To just kick the players out now and go and leave and say 'It just doesn't make financial sense.' Oh you'll slither back when we have a major though for them stickers won't you."
There's a cascading effect in NA where people don't bother with CS anymore and people like Chaos suffer.
He says NA team owners are incompetent for always wanting it easy and always wanting a guarantee on their investment without skill or nuance.
- RL says he would be able to market a team correctly and would have a good ROI and also points out how TSM wouldn't even be bothered to tweet that their team, which was one of the best in the world, was playing at the Major.
- He also says not all NA owners are like that, compliments and respects Jason Lake who nearly lost everything to keep Complexity going.
He then calls out the incompetence in Infinite Esports when they acquired OpTic Gaming and bought an Indian CS team.
- He says HECZ is not to blame here and that they couldn't tell forsaken was cheating when it was so obvious.
  - They measured his reaction time to the likes of dev1ce and s1mple
  - When an enemy showed up on his screen he won that duel something like 44% of the time
  - "was like the number 1 player in the world statistically"
  - He brought a laptop to their bootcamp and refused to use the high end PCs that hey provided
He respects Andy Miller (NRG CEO) and HECZ but says that the attitude of not being able to easily monetize their teams is "piss weak" and there needs to be a risk.
- He says Chaos EC shouldn't be cutting their roster and should be competent enough to be able to figure out how to make money off their team.
He says there are still opportunities in NA and people are panicking and pulling out, and says Valorant will be the same if not worse.
- He also says "bums" who couldn't even get out of groups in NA competitions, are making crazy money in Valorant and says it will continue to inflate.
He also said that he heard rumors that EG (Evil Geniuses) are done.
He also thinks that the rumors of a Valve franchised league from before was sparked up from "these lazy fabled weak NA fucking team owners basically trying to see if Valve would bite at the hook if it was dangled and they didn't"
- Slasher says NA team owners are really in favor of franchised leagues because they want to make more money. "Most of the powerful team owners right now are on board with ditching this third party organization structure, or they are trying to play this power politics with all the TOs, and that is contributing to a lot of the problems there"
RL says that Riot has proved they can run a franchised league (LCS) and will be profitable in 2021 which is what a lot of team owners care about and says the competition will only serve to snatch people away from CS.
RL continues to say, "I am so sick and tired of what we have done to this scene, I am just exhausted with it." "I think we have legitimately fucked it, I really think we have. I think we're staring into almost like a CGS (Championship Gaming Series) wasteland in NA." "Counter-Strike esports is a fucking joke."

Talent

"TO's have treated CS talent like absolute human garbage for years now."

RL says that people like Sean Gares and ddk switching over to Valorant isn't for financial reasons because they are making less over there.
He points out that TO's can't even give talent a 3 month in advance calendar.
Because of the pandemic TO's won't hire certain people and some people are working more hours for the same money.
He says we as a community don't respect journalists enough which is why we don't have good journalists.
- He also says DeKay is leaving the scene soon and that Thorin is close to leaving also
He says he had to talk a caster down from quitting and was struggling to find reasons.
He says that DreamHack told Vince they would hire him but not if he wants to stick with dusT and says that this is the norm in esports. "Constant leveraging of people against each other." and says this is why we don't have a talent union.
New gen casters are getting put into shit situations and the community's reaction to them is adding fuel to the fire
He says the reason Moses left was because of the terrible conditions
He says that Anders had to constantly leave his family and kid because someone fucked up or broke promises and had to constantly tell his kid to their face that "daddy can't be home this weekend."
He says that esports has always been a lie to sell you this dream, "Meanwhile there's about 2% of the cunts getting all the checks."

Valve

"Anything that Riot does, is better than Valve's inaction"

Slasher says that the larger aspect of esports as a whole compared to other entertainment mediums and Valve's lack of inattention are the bigger problems. He continues saying that the fact that Valve let their game be ran as an esport, they need to take on the responsibilities of it.
- Both Slasher and RL wants Valve to take control but not on the level of Riot Games, there needs to be a balance.
In case it was ever a question: Gabe Newell has been to 0 CSGO Majors.
RL calls Valve out saying they could have done something during the gambling era.
He says Valve used to come to the majors, but doesn't think they do anymore.
RL had met with Valve at the Cluj-Napoca Major and had tried to appeal iBP's indefinite punishment and had also gave Brax's life story:
- A recent family member passed away, they had lost a lot of income, they had to live in trailer, iBuyPower did not pay any salaries, and was pressured by family to make money who didn't support his career.
- RL said that Valve told him, "How dare you try and make us feel guilty." "We shouldn't feel bad about enforcing the only thing that matters that we need to make players afraid of: cheating and match fixing"
- RL also tried to share other info about match fixing and nothing came of it
RL points out that Source 2 or a new engine is not something you will want based on the experience of transitioning from CS 1.6 to CS:S. "Valve's track record with brand new engines being launched, not fucking great from what I remember."
Slasher says "If there is anything the community should do, is pressure Valve to hire a community manager."
- They say that we need a commissioner, a community manager (not the person who runs the Twitter who posts memes all day), then we need to have a circuit
RL reiterates that Valve doesn't care about CS esports and says they need to change the culture at Valve to make them care about CS esports
- Slasher says a systemic problem is making it so working on CSGO would be a bad decision for you as an employee for Valve
He also hasn't talked to Valve in ages and have sent over bugs and cheats and doesn't get emails back anymore
Slasher says we should be directing attention at the developer leads, pointing out Ido Magal, if he even is still the project lead
- RL thinks that Ido and Brian are the only people that "vaguely even give a fuck about CS" and were the only people that RL recalled that actually read Reddit and paid attention from time to time
"It is really fucking precarious. Somebody has got to step the fuck up and start giving a shit"
- Slasher suggests org owners, with CSPPA, with ESIC, with TOs have a concerted effort against Valve
"Riot Games are doing better things than Valve in the esports space" which is something RL didn't think he'd say.
"People who used to be talent, working with unions, arguing with other talent, when the unions fucked them over, can't understand their perspective, TOs fucking over broadcast talent, broadcast talent wanting to leave and go and work for orgs, orgs having no money, Valve might take coaches away because all the coaches are cheating, ESIC has about 4 people in a fucking call doing the investigations, everyone thinks they're spies for ESL, ESL are just the evil fucking overlords wanting to rule the scene and will just somehow, like cockroaches outliving a nuclear bomb, and Valve are in a fucking holiday in Hawaii thinking about the next Dota character because they don't give a fuck about us."

Closing Statements

"We've peaked. If we want to sustain and exist, now is the time to figure it out. No esports lasts as long as this, we've already done 8 years. We've already broke the records. We have got to figure out a way to coexist and drive the negative forces out and we need to do it as a collective and we're not doing that."

RL compared the Counter-Strike scene to the people on the Titanic who ran around with guns robbing people while the boat was sinking.
"We have given up on being a respectable esports scene." "We are now a conduit to make money for those who want to just milk it, just have one last ride, one last roll of the dice. It's done." "What a fucking mess. What have we done to our fucking scene?"
"There's just too much self-interest driving all of this." "I don't see a way we stop the dominoes." "When it's that bad, when there's that many dishonest people that ESIC have to come out and say that if we punish them all there's no one left. What does that tell you?"
"How many opportunities have we had to clean house? How many times have we said, 'this must never happen again', and another scandal." "The entire skins betting operations was the biggest criminal conspiracy in esports ever executed and no one has been punished for it." "The people who could be driving that don't want to."
"Right now people are fans of those organizations because the scene has value. It is worth being a fan of Astralis because they are excellent at Counter-Strike. It is worth being a fan of s1mple because he is the best player in Counter-Strike, maybe the exception of ZywOo. If the scene is devalued, if the scene loses its meaning, those things lose its meaning too, and people will leave, people will stop tuning into the games. I have seen it happen in multiple esports, this is not my first time at the rodeo. I am getting big Brood War vibes right now and I don't like it."
"The role you play in all of this as fans, as viewers, as listeners, as consumers of esports content, it's absolutely imperative that you know who the good guys are. It's absolutely imperative that you use your voice. It's absolutely imperative that when things are bad, you know who, at least, is trying to make them good, and you have to apply your criticism to the right targets."
- He continues saying it's no good in continuing to attack ESIC and saying how they are bad, ESIC have it hard
He says CSPPA are on the right side of the argument on BLAST but have been on the wrong side of many arguments many times.
- "If you are not willing to stand along side the weakest member of the union, with the least amount of influence, and the least amount of power, then it is not a union at all and you shouldn't pose as one." "You wanna serve a bunch of special interest do it, everyone else in esports fucking does, but do not pose as something you are not." "We love the players. I've been fighting for players rights for as long as I've been able to, but the CSPPA is not what we needed."
  - "They are not applying the pressure to the right people, they are not fighting the right battles, they are not helping their weaker members."
He says what orgs have done by keeping or hiring coaches is bad. "When you give up on holding an appreciable standard, you've lost the scene" "Competition matters, rules matter, punishments matter, achievements matter, excellence matters" "If you start stripping that away, you have nothing" "You guys need to take that knowledge and apply it sensibly."
"Valve has sold you all down the river, they sold everyone in the esports scene down the river, tournament organizers are selling their talent down the river. Don't hate on them for sounding tired after a 16 hour day. Don't hate on them because the hype for a matchup they've seen for the 20th time in the past 3 months, they can't be as excited or it sounds contrived. Support your guys, they're there for you, these are your people."
"This community has got to start acting like one for the first fucking time. Just put the petty shit away, let's try and fix this fucking scene while we still have one to save."
"You can't rely on Valve, you can't rely on ESL, you can't rely on the CSPPA, you can't rely on anyone." "Once again, it's gonna be the likes of us, the amateurs, the people who give a fuck, rolling up our sleeves and grafting." "I'm old and tired and I don't want to have to do it again. People need to pick up the torch and do it."
- "Like Michal did, like Dudenhoeffer did. You see something wrong, fix it. You see somebody doing something wrong, call it out. If you think something could be better, let people know."
"Vote with your wallets if you're not happy with the direction Valve goes in. If when we do get to the Major, they serve up another subpar, same old bullshit stickers and signatures package again, do not buy it."
- "You're a powerful block and if you use it correctly we can fucking avert this disaster."
"I'm not doing another year in this broken, bust-up fucking scene, where everyone is miserable, everyone is broke, everyone is tired, and everyone is trying to fucking rob everyone else, blind, while the fucking people who are meant to be protecting you, are just fucking enhancing it and lining their own pockets."
- "I'm not doing it anymore and you shouldn't want to do it either."
"I stand by every fucking thing I said. I mean it, because this game fucking matters to me, this scene fucking matters to me. I put my life into this, my adult life, and to see it in this state is fucking sad."

what are good party favors for 1 year olds video

Your child's first birthday comes with a lot of expectations. But as important as this milestone is, the best 1-year-old birthday party ideas and themes are usually the simplest. Here's how to throw a successful, memorable birthday party for your 1-year-old. 57 Creative and Healthy 1 Year Old Birthday Party Food Ideas. You need to remember that the food is more likely to be enjoyed by adults as the food for babies and toddler mostly end up on the floor. But still as it is your kid’s first birthday party, he or she and his or her friends are the VIP guests and you need to treat them well. Thus, it is very important to plan the 1 st birthday party Hi, we are having a birthday party for my daughter, who will be one. I'd like to give out little party favors for her little friends (also around 1) that come to her party. Most toys, candy, etc. are not appropriate for babies. Does anyone have any ideas for me? Aug 10, 2014 - Explore Nell Smith's board "Birthday Party Ideas for 12 Year Old Girl", followed by 411 people on Pinterest. See more ideas about birthday party, party, girls birthday party. Party favors can be more than just flashy, superficial items. When done right, they can be educational and inspiring. How To Throw A Stress-Free Kids Party. Once a year, every parent faces this struggle: it's time to throw your child a birthday party. If you have several kids, then you may go through this every few months. Putting on an event Since it was a two-year-old's birthday party, I was more comfortable making sure that the favors were appropriate for two-year-olds—hopefully, the eight-year-olds liked them too. Dietary restrictions: If the favors will include any candy or food, it's good to think about the group of children and parents you're inviting. We have a number of Hi! I am having my little guys first birthday party at the end of March.. *sigh* my little guy grew up too fast.. hehe.. I am looking for ideas to put in his little goodie bags. We are having a big party with alot of kids (most under the age of 6). I am looking for ideas for party bags. The theme of his party is all little construction vehicles. Good Questions. Party Favors for One Year Olds. by Carrie McBride. published Jun 22, 2010. Save Comments. We independently select these products—if you buy from one of our links, we may earn a commission. Q: I love seeing all the birthday posts, they are totally inspiring me in planning my baby’s first birthday (it’s still 6 months away, but I learned from Clive’s Party that it’s not This At-Home Bouncy House Will Have You Ditching Expensive Party Rentals For Good Best Gifts for 6-Year-Olds for Birthdays and Holidays Gift Guides For Mom Based On Their Astrological Sign DIY Party Favors . If you love a craft or baking project, you can really add a personal spin to your party favors. Swap store-bought food for some homemade treats. Go back to some of those cute and simple craft ideas you saved on your Pinterest board and create custom goodie bags for your tween. You can even plan an activity that lets the kids

what are good party favors for 1 year olds top

Life Lessons From 100-Year-Olds - YouTube

Nancy Wilson - What Are You Doing New Year's EveMaybe it's much too early in the gameAh, but I thought I'd ask you just the sameWhat are you doing New Year's... This is the best news interview we have ever seen! Good Day Spokane anchor Nichole Mischke interviewed 110-Year-Old Flossie Dickey on her birthday. What did... We asked three unique and lovely centenarians what their most valuable life lessons were, and also their regrets.The conversations that followed were remarka... Want to launch your own ecommerce brand in 12 weeks or less? Then sign up to our free training where Gretta shares her proven framework behind 4x multi-mill... 10pcs/lot Party Favors 15 Years Old Birthday Souvenir Creative Gift Alloy Wedding Day Present Opener For Guest Giveaways Visit the store: https://www.wholesa... Sorry For Party Rocking - Buy the album now! http://smarturl.it/LMFAODeluxeBest of LMFAO: https://goo.gl/F2XN78Subscribe here: https://goo.gl/4ecUJp 11-year-old throws "Thank You" party for policeA young boy in Michigan helped coordinate an appreciation event for his heroes: the men in blue. Steve Hartman...

Any ideas what to put in goodie bags for a 1 year olds

what are good party favors for 1 year olds

what are good party favors for 1 year olds - win

I believe I have found lotto FDs (and other puts) that will actually print. DoorDash is about to collapse, and this is your opportunity to bank.

Analysis:

But don’t take my word for it on valuation, take smart money’s word

The Company, according to The Company, has peaked. It’s over.

And Now the Fun Part

Positions

FDs

Puts

Bull case

What are the negatives?

Parting Words.

Give Me One More TLDR At The End

How to Survive Camping - old habits die hard

I believe I have found lotto FDs (and other puts) that will actually print. DoorDash is about to collapse, and this is your opportunity to bank.

Analysis:

But don’t take my word for it on valuation, take smart money’s word

The Company, according to The Company, has peaked. It’s over.

And Now the Fun Part

Positions

FDs

Puts

Bull case

What are the negatives?

Parting Words.

Give Me One More TLDR At The End

GME: Next Steps

OverSimplified's videos on the French Revolution are still completely wrong on everything

SCMP no longer a trustworthy source of news: observations from a long-time reader

Post AEW Dynamite 1/13/2021: New Years Smash Night 2 Discussion

[Jacobin] Everyone Hates the Democrats

"I think I've lived long enough to see competitive Counter-Strike as we know it, kill itself." Summary of Richard Lewis' stream (Long)

Intro

CSPPA - Counter-Strike Professional Players' Association

"Who does this union really fucking serve?"

ESIC - Esports Integrity Commission

"They have been put in an impossible position."

Stream Sniping

"They're all at it in the online era, they're all at it, they're all cheating, they're all using exploits, probably that see through smoke bug got used a bunch of times"

Match Fixing

"How many years have we let our scene be fucking pillaged by these greedy cunts?" "We just let it happen."

North America

"Everyone in NA has left we've lost a continents worth of support during this pandemic and Valve haven't said a fucking word."

Talent

"TO's have treated CS talent like absolute human garbage for years now."

Valve

"Anything that Riot does, is better than Valve's inaction"

Closing Statements

what are good party favors for 1 year olds video

what are good party favors for 1 year olds top

Life Lessons From 100-Year-Olds - YouTube