Podcasts about voldemort

Kendra Dumbledore has always been the Dumbledore we know least, mentioned mostly as the mother who dies protecting a magic she couldn't control. This episode goes looking for who she was outside of that role, and finds a Muggle-born woman living almost a century before Voldemort ever rises, in a wizarding world with no social cost yet attached to open prejudice against people like her. Working from a handful of scattered details in Deathly Hallows, from Auntie Muriel's gossip at Bill and Fleur's wedding to a single photograph Harry studies years later, this is a speculative read, built out of what the text leaves us to work with rather than anything it confirms. What emerges is a woman organizing her entire existence around four separate secrets, and a case for what one household's silence can tell us about the whole magical world's relationship to concealment.

This week, WHAT'S THAT?! Keep one eye over your shoulder because Andrew, Eric, Micah and Laura are podcasting live from The Luchino Cafe off Tottenham Court Road. Best watch out for Death Eaters disguised us ugly workmen! Chapter-by-Chapter continues with Chapter 9 of Deathly Hallows, A Place to Hide Quizzitch: What does Hermione order for herself and Ron in the cafe off Tottenham Court Road 7-Word Summary: Uncertainty looms heavy over the muggle world Did Harry, Ron and Hermione make the best choice in disapparating to the Muggle World? What would have been a better option? We have a few questions about Hermione's small, beaded handbag! How exactly does the Undetectable Extension Charm work? Even with the taboo in place, how did Dolohov and Rowle arrive at the cafe so quickly? And dressed for the occassion? Even in a remote London cafe, shouldn't the trio have been more discreet? Micah is not satisfied with Dolohov's performance What in the world are these security protocols at Grimmauld Place? Dusty Dumby is scaring who exactly? Harry's mind connection to Voldemort is back with a vengeance! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Collecting Weekly, InArt is back in the Wizarding World with two major new 1/6 scale figures: Harry Potter from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows! We're breaking down both figures, from the portraits and tailoring to the accessories, rooted hair, display options, and all the details InArt has packed into these highly anticipated releases. With Harry in his Triwizard Tournament gear and Voldemort at the height of his power with Nagini and the Elder Wand, there's a lot to talk about. How do these new figures stack up against InArt's previous Harry Potter releases, and are these the versions collectors have been waiting for? #InArt #HarryPotter #Voldemort #LordVoldemort #HarryPotterFigures #InArtHarryPotter #InArtVoldemort #GobletOfFire #DeathlyHallows #HarryPotterCollectibles #WizardingWorld #SixthScale #SixthScaleFigures #1SixthScale #ActionFigures #FigureCollectors #CollectingWeekly #CWLive #ToyNews #PremiumCollectibles

There's something in the air! Wedding season has come to our chapter-by-chapter readthrough of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as we discuss Bill and Fleur's wedding in Chapter 8, "The Wedding," but this episode also features newlyweds Eric and Meg, fresh off of their own wedding! We ask 'who did it better?' and so much more. Welcome back to the show, Meg! We talk about Eric and Meg's wedding, and Andrew and Micah's repeated visits to the bar. Quizzitch: What is the name that the Lovegoods use for the gnomes? News covers recent casting updates for the upcoming HBO TV adaptation of Chamber of Secrets, including Arthur Weasley, Colin Creevey and Moaning Myrtle. Chapter by Chapter continues with Chapter 8 of Deathly Hallows, "The Wedding." Is Bill and Fleur's wedding the last time when these characters will get to let loose and have fun? Does holding the wedding this summer constitute an act of defiance? Is Harry at risk because he's merely present? Are the Weasleys at fault for organizing this event at a time like this? Would it be more impactful if Percy returned now, or later in the book, to make up with his family? Wedding battle! We compare Bill and Fleur's wedding to Eric and Meg's (recent) wedding, and Micah and Andrew vote on several categories. Viktor Krum is back! And he wants to fight Luna's dad. We discuss the disconnect around the Deathly Hallows symbol and historical tie-ins. Should Harry be more alarmed that Voldemort is seeking a foreign wandmaker, now that he knows who Gregorovitch is? Are Elphias Doge and Ron's aunt Muriel two sides of the same coin? Both present conflicting ways of remembering Dumbledore. Who is more correct? Doge or Muriel? Post Fantastic Beasts, what can we read into regarding Ariana's backstory here? Lynx Line: We ask our Patrons to share stories of their weddings OR of their dream weddings, and how they compare to Bill and Fleur's. Next week, we discuss Chapter 9 of Deathly Hallows, "A Place to Hide." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. Go to http://betterhelp.com/super to get 10% off your first month.  Head to https://factormeals.com/super50off and use code super50off to get 50% off and 1 free breakfast item per box for 1 year. What if Slughorn's role in Voldemort's story began long before he explained Horcruxes to Tom Riddle? Today Ben dives into the Wizarding World of Harry Potter and Voldemort's past. From Merope Gaunt and the Slug Club to Tom's first connections at Hogwarts, we're tracing a theory that puts Horace Slughorn at nearly every turning point in Voldemort's rise. Then there's a strange run of luck involving Harry, the Half-Blood Prince's potion book, and Felix Felicis that may have helped bring Voldemort down. Did Slughorn accidentally help create the Dark Lord and give Harry the means to defeat him? Let's dive on in! #HarryPotter #SuperCarlinBrothers

Send us Fan MailIn this episode, we discuss episodes five and six of season five of Tea Leaves, our version of the Harry Potter TV show. Harry wins a victory on the quidditch pitch, but it's a short lived victory. He has some of his darkest dreams to date and comes face to face with a challenge that will continue to stare him down until the end. Enjoy!Topics/Summary:·      1:44 The first quidditch match of the season! Gryffindor wins, but Harry and George are banned from playing quidditch ever again by Umbridge after they beat up Malfoy. Malfoy was sour over his loss and began throwing insults at Ron.·      16:45 Hagrid's back. They see his light on at the edge of the forest after many months. They rush out to speak to him and he tells them about his journey through the mountains and the giants. The next day, Umbridge attends his class and he has to lie about where he was.·      22:24 Harry has a dream, and it's not a good one. He sees Mr. Weasley get attacked through Nagini's eyes, and he then embarks on a journey back to number 12 to visit him. Harry begins to worry if he's been helping Voldemort without knowing it. Has he been possessed?·      37:23 Occlumency takes over Harry's life. This whole episode is defined by the several lessons they have together. Snape is intruding into Harry's mind and seeing memories and other things he would never share. The last lesson, Harry deflects the spell and goes into Snape's mind. That's the end of their lessons, to say the least. ThePotterDiscussion@gmail.comthepotterdiscussion.comNox

Episodio donde Wisto ve las películas: Loco México Mágico y la de zombies coreana Colony Zona Cero, cancelan la continuación de la serie Spider-Noir, rumores sobre el nuevo Voldemort interpretado por Daniel Radcliffe, críticas y gameplays del nuevo juego de Halloween, se propone huelga (que no cumpliremos) sobre jugar PlayStation para que no muera el formato físico, tema sobre juegos digitales y físicos, nuevo videojuego de Batman Beyond, Capcom quiere revivir a Mega Man continuando haciendo bien las cosas como compañía. Escúchanos: Spotify / Apple Podcasts / YouTube Apóyanos: patreon.com/holamsupernova Síguenos: Instagram/ Twitter/ TikTok @holamsupernova Merch: holamsupernova.myshopify.com

Today J and Ben join forces to take down Artificial Intelligence as they compete with ChatGPT in Harry Potter Trivia.  AI might be able to read all 7 books in 3 seconds… but can it remember which kids Voldemort brought to the cave?  Which Weasley went through platform 9 ¾ first? Play Along With Us :: https://supercarlinbrothers.com/j-ben-vs-ai-harry-potter-trivia/  #HarryPotter #SuperCarlinBrothers

*This episode originally aired on Patreon in 2025*Join me for a break down of Chapter 13 of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, 'The Very Secret Diary,' in which a fragment of Voldemort's soul is flushed down a toilet, Harry's eyes are as green as a fresh pickled toad, and why find out why Tim Riddle was given an award for special services to the school... 'Breaking Down Bad Books' is a podcast analysing trashy bestsellers from a literary perspective.Sign up to be a patron at www.patreon.com/breakingdownbadbooks for access to exclusive bonus episodes breaking down Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban every week, as well as a back catalogue analysing Fifty Shades of Grey, Fifty Shades Darker, Fifty Shades Freed, and The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner.Read along with me and let me know your thoughts on Instagram @breakingdownbadbooks or email me at breakingdownpod@gmail.com.Hosted by Nathan Brown, who you can find on Instagram @nathanbrown90 or YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@nathanpatrickbrown. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/breaking-down. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Harry Potter films are iconic… but not every character survived the adaptation process intact.In this video, I break down 10 major Harry Potter characters who were seriously changed (and in some cases completely watered down) in the movies compared to their book counterparts. From Harry losing his sass and inner fire, to Ron being reduced to comic relief, to Hermione absorbing everyone else's best moments. We're diving deep into what was altered and why it matters.We'll also look at how characters like Dumbledore, Voldemort, Draco, Neville, Ginny, Sirius and Luna were interpreted on screen, and whether those changes strengthened or weakened their arcs.

Slay, Voldi!Wer hat eigentlich die Todesser-Masken designt? Haben die eine stylische Uniform? Trifft Lucius Malfoy die Design-Entscheidungen oder macht das Voldemort selbst? Steckt hinter den Roben von Voldemorts Armee ein Designgedanke oder kommen die einfach alle zum Bösewicht-Treff im Kapuzenpulli?Naja, wir lernen auf jeden Fall Bellatrix Lestrange kennen und die spricht erst mal in einer Babystimme, aber sie war ja auch 14 (?) Jahre in Askaban, vielleicht sollte man keine intellektuellen Hochleistungen erwarten.Wir verheddern uns kurz im Hamburger Du (Hamburger Sie?), aber Harry holt uns wieder zurück mit seinen Fähigkeiten, Zeit zu schinden und Lucius nutzt die Gelegenheit für einen sehr hilfreichen Bösewicht-Monolog. Der wird leider unterbrochen von Bellatrix und dann kabbeln die zwei sich wie auf dem Schulhof. Zwischendurch machen sie sich noch über Harry lustig, weil der ja wirklich von Dumbledore null Infos bekommen hat und dann hilft Lucius freundlicherweise und reicht die nötigen Informationen nach.Wir decken noch ein paar Plotholes auf (WARUM HOLT SICH VOLDI DIE PROPHEZEIUNG NICHT SELBST?!?!?!) und die Folge endet auf einem großen Knall -Und noch ganz wichtig: Könnt ihr uns eine Stiftung empfehlen, die Trans-Menschen unterstützt? Schreibt sie gerne in die Kommentare!Viel Spaß beim Zuhören!Hier geht's zu unserem Whatsapp-Kanal: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbB8C00CRs1obJUivo2ZWir haben auch eine Patreon-Seite!Schaut doch mal vorbei, es gibt Bonus-Episoden, Sticker und andere aufregende Dinge! Besucht uns auf den sozialen Netzwerken, unserer Webseite und erzählt euren Freunden von uns! Vielleicht haben die ja auch Lust auf einen Harry-Potter-Podcast!Patreon: www.patreon.com/happypotterDiscord: discord.gg/QpJfFSXY73Facebook: www.facebook.com/happypotterpodcastInstagram: @happypotterpodWebseite: https://shows.acast.com/happy-potterUnd wir haben jetzt auch Playlists mit unseren Lieblingssongs:Martins Playlist:https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2IBxDsPVm1UdNBiW2QkgEJ?si=rU6HLkoFQfGGjvab8g8yEQ&pi=e-bKuIHap7RWCuSophias Playlist:https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0kuOP0TujMhrqOWzLwUH1O?si=9LIZkc2nQTOajHPaqpP_RA&pi=e-tc6w0NgQRo-WDieser Podcast wurde in der Prophezeiung vorhergesehen! (Munkelt man.)Wer das liest, ist bezaubernd.

Es wird mal wieder lustig, wenn Chatty schreibt. Es gibt eine Geschichte über Regulus ersten Schultag (und natürlich darf die Liebe nicht fehlen) und eine Geschichte über Olivers Durchhaltevermögen beim Quidditchtraining. Ratet mal, von wem welche Geschichte ist ;) Es gibt neuen Merch: https://www.seedshirt.de/shop/schokofroescheshopIhr wollt uns FanArt schicken oder Sticker von uns bekommen?Schreibt uns an:Postfach 71053281455 München

Listen to Zooming In at The UnPopulist in your favorite podcast app: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTubeBerny Belvedere: Renée DiResta, thanks for joining us on Zooming In, our flagship podcast here at The UnPopulist. You've been on before a couple of times. You've done podcasts with us, you've spoken at LibCon—in fact, during our first LibCon, LibCon 2024, your book generated intense interest. It seemed to be the book of the summer. You remember that?Renée DiResta: I do, thanks so much.Belvedere: It felt like at every other session, some panelist would say something like, “and to explore this further, I really recommend Renée DiResta's new book, which is just wonderful.” Right? I don't know why I did that in a nerd voice. Your endorsers are wonderful people.But Renée, welcome again. I want to dive right in. You have a new report out. It's put out by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It was written by you and two co-authors, Rachel Kleinfeld and Margot Treadwell. That's a powerful lineup. We've run Rachel's work in our pages before and it's top notch. The report is fantastic. It did not disappoint. For anyone interested in how the broader world of news and opinion discourse works today, it's immediately one of the most useful resources to pick up. And it's especially useful for practitioners, for people who work in the space, like we do.But to help with some scene setting, can you tell us about the report in broad brushstrokes? We'll then narrow in from there.DiResta: So I think about this as report part two. Last year, in September, almost one year to the day, we put out a provocation saying: “institutions need to change how they communicate in order to compete in the new media environment.” And we wrote a framing on why that was, on how social media was no longer this niche thing that those people over there did. If you wanted to reach the public, this is where people are—and you have to reach them where they are and in a manner that they find appealing. The way that you communicate is just different now.That attracted a lot of attention and it got us a ton of inbound, particularly from philanthropy, because we were also telling philanthropists you have to change how you think about outputs and outcomes that matter. For a lot of academics and others, participation in the public conversation is, if not discouraged, it's not really encouraged. It doesn't move the needle for your tenure committee, that sort of thing. How could philanthropists shift the thinking on why communicating to the public actually was critical? We got a ton of inbound on it and the question we got most often was: “How?”This report is the how. The basic premise is that most Americans now get their information and form their opinions through creators, podcasts, Substacks, group chats. Most traditional institutions have only minimal engagement or presence in those spaces. So that ecosystem runs on a very different model of legitimacy. People are following people, not institutions. They're following people that they find appealing or relatable. Somebody coming to you from their kitchen. Credentials and institutional polish actually can read as almost a sort of distance now.Those are the elites saying that stuff from over there, whereas this person is just talking to me in their kitchen. They're real.We write about how fact-based institutions have often thought about this shift to social as a repackaging job. “All right, how do I take my massive PDF”—and, by the way, this report is a massive PDF—“how do I take that and put out a couple screenshots on social media or generate a reel?” They see it more as engaging when you have something to release, when you have just put something out. So it's very self-serving. They're not using social media as a communicator in an ongoing conversation where they're having a back and forth with their audience. They're using it as a broadcast tool and they're reformulating the thing that they wanted to broadcast into a format that nominally works but is missing that dialogue.So our guide argues that it's a strategy problem—and that CEOs and boards have to own this. They have to think about it, not as the thing that happens after you've done your work, but as an active part of your ongoing relationship to the public. We framed the report as a series of questions to guide that thinking. We did a bunch of case studies, really spanning the communication ecosystem we have. How Jon Haidt turned some of his work into a movement. We have how Turning Point became a juggernaut. We have some of the Mamdani campaign stuff. Not endorsing any position there—but saying, “here's some interesting stuff that you can learn from how this group strategically chose to engage the public through these means.”Belvedere: I thought the guide did a really great job of bringing in real world examples. You also brought up David French and the reception he received. His case is a fascinating one because of what it represents and what it says about the subcommunity that he had that parting of the ways with, and the way they gate-kept him from continued access to it.But I want to pick up on something that you mentioned in passing just now in your broad overview. There's a line in the report that really struck me as I was reading it. As you put it, credentials and institutional polish—the CV virtues—now read as distance and disconnect rather than authority, which is what it used to read as. Do you think that's a permanent rewiring of how trust just works now?DiResta: It's an interesting question. Trust and authoritativeness are distinct. You trust your neighbor without necessarily thinking they're an authority. You just find them a trustworthy person. You would give them your keys. They can feed your dog, that sort of thing. And it doesn't matter what they do or what their professional credentials are. What matters is just that you have a relationship. You feel that this person is somebody who would support you if you need it, that they're going to level with you. They're going to tell you the truth, even if you might not want to hear it.That's the idea of trust as something that is deeper than expertise. Sure, it goes hand in hand with it at times. We would like it to be tightly coupled. We want people to trust experts, but the idea of relatability instead is: “Why would this person who seems just like me lie to me? Why would they deceive me? What do they get out of it?” Whereas people sincerely believe that elite institutions are working to serve their own agenda, and that is often seen as being at odds with the average, everyday person. You see this in politics when people ask, “Why is this politician talking about this thing, performing this action, when I just care about putting food on the table for my family?” You see that gap in what lands and resonates with people versus what people in elite or institutional positions want to talk about.Sometimes this is a disconnect that gets lamented in liberal spaces, particularly as, “well, if only they listened, they would understand that my policy proposal for this thing does help them 10 degrees and five years later.” But in the immediate here and now, it's that question of: Do I trust the person who's speaking to me? Do they seem just like me?I had this experience when I was a new mom. I was one of the first in my friend group to have kids. I didn't know what to do. I was living across the country from my family and didn't have much support. So I turned to the internet, right? Who are the people who are going to help me understand what I'm supposed to do with this baby? How do I make him sleep? How do I make him eat? How do I not screw this up? I think it's a very personal experience that a lot of people have where that sense that reading a PDF on an institutional website is not the same thing as somebody sitting there with you taking the time. There's a phrase that I think it was Jeff Jarvis who once said to me in conversation: “the media talks to the public and the influencers talk with them.”I think that's the best framing I've heard for that. Content creators understand how to talk with their audiences, where even people who may have better information, more expertise, authoritative content, are not necessarily communicating that in a way that feels real and connects to a sense that this person is telling me the truth.Belvedere: I'm wondering what's the right read on this broad question of trust that we're all grappling with. Take, for example, the aftershocks from a specific high profile instance of trust collapse—something like Covid. I think Covid's a really instructive episode in many different ways. There's been a lot of revisionism about it. What was different about Covid compared to other past trying moments in society is that Covid became politicized in a particular way by an extremely potent right-wing discourse-shaping machine. That's not going to stop being in place.“A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them.” — Renée DiRestaSo my overriding fear is that Covid is not an outlier. And that anything in society like Covid that requires elite management, whether it's the dissemination of information, policies that help curb some of the worst effects of not abiding by certain standards, all of that is going to run up against an information machine architecturally designed to demagogue that issue, to create a trust collapse, to point out any little mistakes and amplify them as though they're an example of the elites just completely botching everything. Is there any hope that that wanes?DiResta: That's a very interesting question—let me give you a couple of answers.Two things were true about Covid. I was writing about this in The Atlantic during the pandemic: the institutional communicators really dropped the ball—in my opinion, but I think that's been quite backed up at this point. I remember writing that it would be nice to see the CDC's website look more like Wikipedia, where you can see the change log, the public can understand in this fast moving situation—you can go back and read the edit history, you can see who made the change, you can understand how consensus forms in a scientific community. Because there's such a time lag, right? They are waiting until they are absolutely, 100% sure before they say something. In that time, the people are still looking for information, and they're going to get it from whoever is willing to give it to them. On social media, there's an incentive structure: if you're first, you get rewarded; if you're sensational, you get rewarded. If you're right? That doesn't really matter. Maybe you'll get a Community Note, maybe a fact check, but that's not really the point. The point is: Are you first, are you relatable, do you seem authentic, can your stuff go viral? It's a very different communication style and game.So the first thing that was true is that the institutions dropped the ball in comms during Covid communications. And I was writing about it as it happened, because my job was to study social media rumors and narratives around the vaccine. I was like: “Come on, guys! You gotta get in the game here! You're not going to content-moderate this out of existence—that's just not how it works. You're going to turn this into forbidden knowledge.” We did everything we possibly could to try to systematically change that. And the people who did respond were the first-person speakers who began to emerge: physicians. You saw doctors working shifts at Bellevue doing live updates about the morgue trucks—those were the people who managed to break through, because they had the credentials, but they were also able to say very directly to the public: this is the truth, this is what you need to know, Covid is real, even as the institutions weren't doing that.But the second thing that's true is that, as you note, the failures, flaws, and missteps get immediately weaponized. That turns into: “you can't trust those people, they didn't tell you the truth then, never forget what they did to us.” That rhetoric isn't really about finding truth, or understanding a novel pathogen, or whether a vaccine works—remember, this was the first time one had ever been rolled out in an emergency setting. It turns into: “here's why you can never trust those people, and you can only trust me.”That got reinforced through litigation. They lost all their court cases, but they still sued people who tried to deal with the falsehoods and misleading content, and any effort to label it or fact-check it got reframed as censorship. It was really wild to see what that machine juggernaut managed to do to reinforce that only it was going to tell its base the truth, and they couldn't trust anything on the outside. That's the kind of rhetoric you usually see from cults—“you can't trust anybody but me.” It's a very different style of communication, and I found it personally alarming to see it happen in the context of a pandemic, because it has serious downstream consequences.Belvedere: Yeah, and I mean, think about the way you just described that—an informational cult kind of environment, scaled up to half the country, or at least to a large share of people getting their news from less-than-ideal sources. I think it's going to continue to be a problem.DiResta: Let me follow up on that quickly. I spent about [six months] watching the vaccine rollout—February through August of 2021, as Operation Warp Speed rolled out. I watched what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other long-standing—just to be clear, long-standing—anti-vaccine activists did. These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, “this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.” And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. “This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.” And now we have kids dying of measles.That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.Belvedere: I want to stay on this, because I think we're all trying to figure out the right posture here. You bring up Joe Rogan and his effect on psychedelics policy: a lot of people know him through segments where he talks through his drug trips, or a guest's. Or, another example: online creators helping speed up the end of USAID. And there are other cases. But these are cases where influence and factual accuracy are completely decoupled. For organizations whose whole value proposition is getting reality right, being accurate—a lot of people in these spaces ask a question that is one neighborhood down but the same city: “Where's the liberal answer to Joe Rogan?” We've been asking that question since the post-mortem on 2024, and even before. A lot of our institutions feel saddled by the sense that in order to compete on reach, in this new marketplace of ideas, we can't really compete on accuracy's terms.Roger Ailes created Fox News in the '90s. It wasn't [presented] as a dominant player—it was a countervailing force: “the media is captured, so we're going to bring balance back.” “Fair and balanced”—that whole thing; a whole alternative institution positioned against the media itself. So [this side] has had an insurgent mindset from the start—Rush Limbaugh and others. I've brought this up a lot. Even the Ailes project, Fox News, it had institutional trappings, institutional clothing, but it really had this insurgent energy, whatever it said about itself early on. That posture was able to scale beautifully once podcasting, YouTube, and the internet more broadly made these tools available. It was disintermediation. People like Ben Shapiro with The Daily Wire, Charlie Kirk, really ran with the ball a lot better in these spaces, it seemed like. It never felt like liberals had their own Ailes moment, because it felt like they were fine with The New York Times and The Atlantic.Is the real gap here about talent, effort, and ability, or just needing to catch up after playing behind for so long? Or is it more that this is a different language, that [that side] can easily and naturally slot into, and for us it has to be more performative, a little contrived—like a theater kid having to learn how to act?DiResta: It's funny—there's so much in what you're saying there. First, when you can position yourself oppositionally—“we're the underdog, we're David, they're Goliath”—that's an archetype, a story everybody knows, that people immediately understand where you're positioning yourself. “They are all telling you the same thing”; “that is a monolith, that's the state propaganda machine manufacturing consent, we're the plucky little outlet trying to break through.” And then, of course, they maintain that outsider branding and status even as their audience becomes massive—quite a lot larger, in fact, than some of that so-called establishment media.You see this with a phrase that comes out of QAnon: “we are the media now.” What they're saying is: “we can break through, we can make stuff trend, we can make stuff go viral, we can take our (in the context of QAnon, I think it's fair to say) crackpot ideas and put them out there, get them seen, get them part of the discourse, and then people have to pay attention to us.” That's where “we are the media now” comes from. It was popularized by Elon, because he picked up that phrase and it is so much in the ether on X—I don't even know if he understands the provenance. But “we are the media now” becomes the idea that we're the opposition now, and all that legacy stuff—including Fox, mind you, which is legacy too—is old. You actually see the schisms now, especially since they're in power everywhere on the right: influencers going to war with Fox News.“I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.” — Renée DiRestaVenkatesh Rao wrote about this in “The Internet of Beefs”—one of the most astute assessments of how social media works, in my opinion. If you have conflict, that's fantastic: it benefits both parties, gets both parties attention, and there's no incentive to actually win the conflict, because the conflict itself is like a soap opera—it just keeps going. That's where you start to see right-wing influencers say, “Fox News is establishment, Bush-era media, and we'll tell you the truth—on social, on our platforms, on our streams, on our podcasts.” That's where you start to see that shift.There's also something Rachel and I wrote about in the first report: institutional and academic speakers are media-trained for a very different world, where you get a three- to five-minute segment. If you've never done TV before, they tell you roughly what you'll be asked, you prepare your talking points in advance because you have so little time, you deliver the soundbite, and the segment's over. That's completely different from what I experienced doing Rogan in 2019—a two-and-a-half-hour conversation with no prep. I'm going to be there and you either know your stuff or you don't. His audience either likes me or it doesn't. Half of them hated me!And that's fine—it is what it is. I showed up for a reason. There's a completely different vernacular, style, and approach when you're having a two-hour conversation with somebody, where you're going to listen to what they have to say, and you're responding back much more as a human than as a person who's there to digest for the public, in a three-minute hit, what you said in that report over there or what happened in the world and why you, the expert, with your credentials and your chyron should think about it. It's a completely different experience.So does it go back to the old way? I don't think it does—I haven't thought that for the better part of 10 years now. I started writing about the anti-vaccine movement in 2015, as a mom, saying: “I have got to say something about this.” What became MAHA is now a political movement that sits in power at HHS. What they understood was that empathy and relatability, the feeling that they are talking with you, matters so much more than a PDF or an academic paper that sits behind a paywall that nobody can read without an academic library license. That's not going back to normal. So the question that's motivated me and Rachel is: How do you teach people who do have the knowledge and the skill set to compete differently?Belvedere: On that note, on liberals' broad failure to penetrate a lot of these spaces, these subcommunities, these niche places where people gather … think about all the subcultures we have in the United States—there are plenty that liberals are just really poor at reaching, or at having any presence within at all.DiResta: I'm an independent. My complaint is about how liberals communicate versus how conservatives communicate. I spend a lot of time in both ecosystems, in person, and I try to engage with the media apparatus on the right too, partly because they make up conspiracy theories about me, so I feel like I have to. But there's a difference in how carefully you have to think through what you're about to say—what performance are you putting on in that moment? Conservatives use the word “based”—you're talking in a way that's almost intentionally provocative at times, and sometimes it goes way off the rails; sometimes it's not good at all. But there's a sense that when you're hearing from the liberal establishment, you're hearing qualifiers—everything is qualified.This is something I used to talk about when making content: on Instagram Reels, you've got three seconds to hook your audience. If you start with a qualifier about how what you're saying doesn't necessarily apply to all people, in all places, at all times, you're done—that took three seconds, that's it, we're done. So the question is: How do you get comfortable either owning an opinion unapologetically, or framing it in a way where you're just like, “yeah, whatever, somebody on the internet is always going to yell at me, I don't care, I'm going to say the thing anyway”? That's a limitation I just don't see in conservative spaces.Again, that means things can go way off the rails, and some of it is genuinely not good. But the flip side is that [liberal content] can sound stilted, practiced, polished. And the incentive structure is scary for the participant—for the academic who decides to try being more casual in their presentation. I once had someone screenshot every social media post where I'd used a curse word and send it to my dean. And I was like: “I said all of that. That's 100% real.” This is the internet, after all. Would I use that language in a talk? Probably not. I'm from New York, so sometimes I do. But if you're constantly second-guessing, clarifying, checking yourself … and you do need to be correct, because in some cases your credentials are on the line when you're speaking about the thing you're actually presenting. But your delivery can afford to be a bit more flexible, a bit more relaxed.What I've loved over the last few years since Covid is watching public health experts and epidemiologists start presenting as themselves: “here I am, I've got this expertise, and I'm also going to tell you about my kids, or this dress I bought, or this thing I did.” It makes them more relatable, more human—because they are, in fact, relatable and human. It's not an artifice. But they understand that doing this actually helps establish their credibility, more than just the credential. So if me saying a curse word on Twitter … normal people curse on Twitter.Belvedere: And not to be too cynical about it, but this is something intuitively understood by people on the wrong side of things. Trump will have a word randomly capitalized as a marker of his style, and without it, the message would feel too polished—even though, grammatically, it would be correct.One reaction people sometimes have to a discussion like this is: “all you're talking about is communication, this is social media stuff, it's more fluff than substance.” I think that couldn't be more wrong, because if we care about the issues we're writing about, if we want action taken on them …DiResta: Yes! It is a persuasive process.Belvedere: … if we want people to care about authoritarianism or corruption in government, raising the salience of those issues becomes really important. If we're collectively bad at it, if we don't have the “juice” that the other side does, our issues stay dormant, untouched, unlistened to, uncared about, while the other side's issues will be front and center, driving the conversation. You talk about issue salience needing to travel across networks before it becomes a thing. Could you unpack that? You've got multiple creators, adjacent communities … help us understand how that works.DiResta: So, often times, when you open your social media feed—whatever ranked platform you use, which is almost all of them—you're seeing what the platform has decided is important for you, and that's not the same as what's important to the person sitting next to you on the train. So you innately think a lot of people care about something, or are talking about something, when it turns out—take X as an example: you log in, there's a “trends” feature, and it'll surface a trend when there are maybe 200 posts about something. That's not a trend in any national sense; it's basically the platform tweaking a small number of people who'll respond to it. They see it and think, “there are 2,000 posts about this, I care a lot about that thing, I'm going to add my voice, retweet it, reshare it”—and if a sufficient number of people do that, it gets bigger, and eventually it shows up on something like a mass-movement leaderboard.I spent five years at the Stanford Internet Observatory taking a network-science approach to this. Let me give a specific example—we can stick with the pandemic, because I think it's quite important as a case study. I don't know how many people remember the Plandemic video. It featured Judy Mikovits, a woman with serious credential issues and at least one retracted paper, who'd had a series of dramatic career incidents that led to her being put into the autism-conference crankosphere. She was releasing a book and doing a lot of book promo, but she was never especially polished doing those direct engagements herself. The director, Mikki Willis, made the video—kept her on task, shot it very strategically. It's about 20 minutes long, and it argues that the pandemic is being used to keep people from “healing microbes on the beach,” and that's why they are locking down beaches, and so on—a very conspiratorial film.Now Mikovits had been saying these things on prior podcasts for a while, but it stayed confined; it got almost no reach outside the anti-vaccine networks, where that kind of content is normal and expected. What was different about Plandemic is that because of the polish, the packaging, the formatting, and Willis's own reach and network, it hopped out of the anti-vaccine ecosystem and started landing everywhere. We had a tool called CrowdTangle that let us pull where URLs were winding up and being shared, and the Plandemic link was showing up in the Corgi Club, the Beach Club, local school-board groups—everywhere. We could only see public data, so I'd imagine that's just the tip of the iceberg.The public really found it compelling. Reading the comments as part of that analysis, people were saying things like: “she seems so authoritative, she has this personal beef with Anthony Fauci, who I've also been hearing is untrustworthy; they are keeping us locked down in our houses, why is that happening?” It really landed and resonated. That's an actual moment where normally this speakers and those topics stay confined to a very specific niche part of the internet, with this video, they managed to absolutely blew out of the water. Here is how it works when you take something and you frame somebody in the right way, you make them seem relatable and resonant and you edit the content in a very compelling, exciting, and mysterious way. This is how you create a mass conversation about something. Ordinarily this person would have stayed confined to her niche, but in that particular moment, with that particular piece of content, they nailed it.Belvedere: I asked about that because on our side, we're trying to do some of the same work you're outlining. ISMA puts out LibCon and The UnPopulist—The UnPopulist is our flagship publication, LibCon is the conference series that we put out. The UnPopulist has buy-in from figures across the ideological spectrum; and the whole model of ISMA is to build a coalition—a realignment of liberal versus illiberal—and for us to be on that liberal side, spanning classical liberals, center-left, and center-right: people who are single-issue defectors, who have enough qualms with the authoritarianism we're seeing that they come over to our side. At our last LibCon, we had C-SPAN in the same room as a bunch of streamers broadcasting. It was an interesting mix, and that's the sort of work we're trying to do. As I said earlier, though, it's not necessarily the language that's easy for a lot of liberals to speak—it takes intentional partnerships, looking through different content forms, finding where a good ally or partner can be found.“These weren't people who simply didn't like the Covid shot; no, these were people who had been telling you vaccines cause autism, dating back to the 1990s. I watched them capitalize on this in the most incredible ways. They were absolutely transparent about it—they were like, ‘this is our chance to undermine confidence in the entire vaccine enterprise.' And that is exactly what they did. They didn't hide the ball—they were live-streaming taking about it. ‘This is our chance to tell the public that all of these things are poison.' And now we have kids dying of measles. That's the downstream effect of this: they managed to connect that distrust to other things. They didn't just create distrust around one incident or fact; they created the idea that nobody in the medical establishment has your best interests at heart. That's what they managed to achieve as a result of Covid.” — Renée DiRestaIt used to be that an organization could get away with just publishing a headline, an article image, and letting the feed auto-populate. Now every platform, the whole online space, requires more thoughtfulness, more intentionality, more strategic thinking. At the risk of asking for a One Neat Trick: is there one thing that, if a capacity developed overnight, would be a game changer for us on this path that we want to take—to be better communicators, to help the issues we care about get that amplification and resonance?DiResta: I think it is that co-creation and that incorporation of people who are innately good and talented at this. I was at LibCon this year with Whick and Soypill, two of the streamers who were there, because the first night of the conference happened to be the night Trump gave that speech about the election being rigged by China. As it happens, I have a lot of experience looking at Chinese influence operations around the 2020 election, so I'd been on Whick's stream before, and he asked if I wanted to come on. I said let's do it, and we broke it down live for the audience—here's what Trump's saying, here's a Georgetown professor who can help explain it—but done conversationally. It's funny, because you still carry that credential with you; you're still saying, “here's how I know this stuff.” And, of course, later on I'm going to write about this for Lawfare, I'm going to write about it on my Substack, I'm going to put it out as personal content. But in this moment the most impactful thing I think I can do is discuss it live with people who are watching it in a community, trying to make sense of it together. That's something streamers in particular are very good at—they bring people together to watch jointly.I don't know how many people have watched a Destiny stream, or, on the other side of the spectrum, a Hasan Piker stream, but it's the same appeal: people who are in a community, like-minded, enjoying that back-and-forth, not only listening to the streamer but participating in the community itself. It reminds me of being in New York in my 20s, gathering at someone's house to watch TV together on a Sunday night—that feeling of experiencing something together, reacting to it together. When you watch a news broadcast by yourself, it's not like that. When you're watching a stream, there's as much back-and-forth and community-building happening among the audience as there is between the audience and the influencer or streamer. That creates a feeling of belonging and participation, and when you want to ask people to take political action, there's a feeling that we're all in this together, we all want to see this thing accomplished. You see this when you watch political streamers across the spectrum doing fundraisers and things like that—“how can we galvanize and generate momentum?”This isn't limited to partisan politics—you can do the same with issue-based advocacy as well.One of the reasons institutions [struggle here] is a fear of relinquishing control. A lot of institutions are taught to stay on message at all times—if you hand your message to somebody else, you lose control of it. But you can't tell them what to say. They're going to say what they want to say. They might get it wrong. But counterintuitively, I think that actually generates more dialogue, more attention, and provides you with a way to accomplish something you might not be good at yourself. Your CEO might not actually be the best face to talk about this thing—the 20 year old you hired, who is much more comfortable with this, is actually the person who should be out there engaging, putting out the message, or working with a creator or creator lab and essentially briefing them like you would brief media: “here's your embargoed copy of my report, I'd love it if you talked about it, no pressure, no requirements, this is just me providing you with information about something we've done that I think your audience might care about—and then wherever it goes, goes.”Belvedere: And as you note in the report, this is already the cultural air a lot of these younger staffers breathe—they have to code-switch to seem more “professional,” to be someone who …DiResta: … doesn't curse on Twitter.Belvedere: Exactly. But that also gives them the advantage of understanding the discourse, the environment, the information landscape, far more natively. So they can put a message that the CEO might want in a way that will have more effectiveness.I want to bring up two of the case studies I found fascinating—David French and Zohran Mamdani. David French was trying to bring a [pluralist], depoliticized message into a very hostile, ideologically policed, polarized evangelical base. Zohran Mamdani, now the mayor of New York, built his campaign almost entirely on vibes, aesthetics, joy—messaging, sure, but messaging that met people where they were and responded to what they actually needed. One of those approaches got crushed by the gatekeepers; the other was able to bypass them. It's not that one was effective and the other wasn't—David French ran up against a buzzsaw that no Christian thinker, however winsome or articulate, probably would have fared well against. Mamdani certainly was very skilled in how he approached his campaign and carried it out. In these two profiles, is there a lesson there about why one got crushed and the other persevered?DiResta: It's very interesting, and I've thought about this a lot. So, first, some of it is: How heavy a hold does the establishment party have on the space you're speaking into? Are you entering fresh ground? Mamdani, of course, ran against an egregiously terrible establishment candidate. I mean, it was one of those “is this really the best we've got to offer?”Mamdani's politics weren't mine, but I'm from New York—I lived there for 30 years, still have a house and family in Brooklyn—and I watched that race, and I just thought … every time I saw Mamdani content in my feed, and there was a lot of it, because I'm still plugged into New York, I was like, “this is so inspiring. This is a person where that love of the city comes through.” I remember he did a thing with a bodega cat. I had a bodega cat, and it was amazing! In a way, the politics and the policy was almost secondary to the feeling that you were watching something genuine.The candidate he was running against—well, there were two, of course, including Curtis Sliwa, who really nailed it on the “genuine” front. I mean, my God, that man gave interviews that left my jaw on the floor—where he's like, “here's how they're trying to pay me to drop out of the race, let's talk about that.” It's a very New York political moment.Belvedere: Zero filter.DiResta: Oh, no filter. I mean, Cuomo doesn't lack a filter either. I'm New York Italian too—you know that. Someone should send him to his dean!It was wild watching that race and seeing what landed with the public. There was such a sense of “God, we need something new! We just need something new”—and that landed, I think, in a way, more than anything else, regardless of your opinions on specific policies. It was the way in which he turned people who found him personally appealing into organizers—fans became organizers. That's really the story of the Mamdani campaign. With French, by contrast, top-down control still held much more strongly. I don't think many New Yorkers love the Democratic Party establishment enough to say, “we really need to listen to what they tell us”—if anything, an official endorsement had become a bit of a negative signal by that point. That's at least how I experienced New York politics.Mamdani was also an unknown quantity, French was much more of a known quantity, so he had this experience of gatekeepers who used character assassination to attack, not so much his ideas as his person—finding things he'd said or done previously and using them to attack him personally and make it costly to associate with him and his ideas by extension. Once an establishment is well-networked enough to mount that kind of opposition, it's much harder to win. French was moving into a hostile, contested, polarized space. Mamdani, by contrast, faced an establishment, in his case the more centrist wing of the Democratic Party, that simply didn't have the social media clout or networks to make its attacks land. It was a very different dynamic.That's why we put French in a section of the report about figuring out what kind of space you're actually trying to participate in. Are you putting forward a policy or a vision that's going to be actively and adversarially rebuffed by very entrenched, well-networked forces? Or are you moving into a much fresher space—a new issue, a new take, less contested ground—where you are potentially going to run a very different kind of strategy?Belvedere: I think that's a great point. Trump is a good example in the political space—the GOP establishment was set against him initially. They had money behind other candidates, Jeb Bush chief among them, and had a war chest that was insane backing Jeb Bush. And that was … nothing in the end. It didn't amount to anything. All the work French had done in the past, caring about the Bill of Rights, about a constitutionally constrained vision of limited government—the intellectual energy the Republican Party used to draw on more heavily—had given way to something else. David went a different direction than a lot of evangelicals did, and there are enough of them to effectively block him now.Whereas Mamdani, I think, was able to bypass a lot of that resistance because there was more overlap with what a standard Democratic candidate might have offered—a lot of the same campaign substance, just a different approach on some issues. There were enough people who weren't already set against him. That's unlike the evangelical space, where mentioning French's name is practically like saying “Voldemort.” Which is sad, because on a lot of issues, especially theological tenets, there's still broad alignment between them.This is something that your report presses people to internalize: the idea that who you're speaking to matters, and how you're speaking to them matters. That's a lesson a lot of liberals still need to work out. There's a lot of trial and error right now, a lot of figuring out how to be effective in this new information landscape. But the report is genuinely helpful. I imagine a lot of people will read it and think: “okay, everything I thought I knew about what it takes to project credibility has been turned on its head, and I need to account for that or risk being left behind.” That's what makes it such an important read.DiResta: Thank you. We really tried to make it as tangible as possible—which is why it's long. We went back and forth at the end about whether to release different versions for different audiences: a philanthropist version, a C-suite version, a version for op-ed writers. In the end we put it all out as one document—you can always Control-F to find what's most relevant to you, there's an index, and AI can digest it too.But, in all seriousness, though, there has to be a shift. You mentioned Trump. His energy came from the internet. He was so good at tapping into … because he was almost a meme candidate at first; people didn't quite believe he'd be a serious thing. This was right around the time … I bring up Gamergate not for its specifics, but because it was a moment when people started realizing the internet could actually affect the real world. The Arab Spring was another one of those moments—realizing that people's voices online could genuinely accomplish things.“When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. ‘Damn, we are the media now'—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change. That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: ‘we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.' Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—'this is a movement, and you're part of it.'” — Renée DiRestaYou mentioned my book. I'll give a shameless plug here—but only because the paperback just came out and it has a new epilogue. If you bought the Kindle version, go refresh it, because the new epilogue gets into exactly this. What was the appeal of DOGE? It was that the government was going to be transformed—that's great, it's a huge incentive for people who cared about that. Even liberals were like, “Maybe it's time to shake some stuff up.” But what DOGE did for the public, particularly Trump's base and Elon's base, was this: they'd tweet out some grant they found ridiculous, often with no real idea what it actually did, and Elon would respond with something like “killed,” “nuked,” “through the wood chipper,” about USAID.Belvedere: And a lot of those actually got Community-Noted on themselves—people pointing out that he was egregiously misreading the grant. They got fact-checked by their own system.DiResta: They did—but it didn't actually matter, because what mattered to the people participating was: “I said a thing, somebody powerful listened to me, and then a change happened.” When you have this sclerotic sense that nothing happens in the United States, that no one is listening to you, that no change happens, that nothing you want to see in the world will ever be realized, that's an intoxicating moment. “Damn, we are the media now”—that phrase is literally about empowerment, the sense that someone powerful is listening to you and making something happen. That's the complete opposite of the faceless institution where you leave a comment in a form and never hear back, where nothing ever changes, your taxes don't change, your cost of living doesn't change.That's what Mamdani tapped into as well: “we are actually going to change things, we are going to do things, the world is going to be different starting day one, and here's how it's going to happen.” Whatever you think of the man's politics, he nailed that sense of empowerment—“this is a movement, and you're part of it.” That's the same thing Trump tapped into online back in 2015: “we're going to change things, this is your movement, and I'm going to accomplish this for you.” Which can go off in some weird ways, when you look at exclusionary populism and authoritarianism, which you guys at ISMA focus so much on.I want to mention one more thing. In San Francisco, we recalled the school board: a very local, niche race that ended up becoming a story of national attention, for the same reason—people saying, “we've got to change something, what can we do?” The groups that grew out of that were advancing a very liberal policy—this was not the far-left, not the far-right doing it: “we'd like eighth-grade algebra back, we'd like schools reopened.” This is late 2021. “It would be nice for my kid not to have three years of no school.”It was an unapologetically liberal politics that was powering that, and it was unapologetic in how it framed itself, how it spoke, how it used social media. And I thought, “Okay, now maybe liberals will see”—again, not Democrats, but liberals, people who believe in the core liberal values—“people will start to see that there's real power in direct, unapologetic appeals.” And it is my sincere hope that we start to see that in a movement that rises to push back against the excesses of MAHA and things like that.[In the new edition of my book], the new epilogue is really about how these dynamics play out once a group is actually in power—because a lot of people think of social media as a tool of insurgency, and once you're in power, that's supposedly the end of it. What's been interesting watching Trump and DOGE is that they've kept that cycle going: people still believe they're having an impact, shaping policy.We saw a version of this with Obama, who was a very digital candidate—he rose to power on a lot of popular digital support, did interviews with content creators, that kind of thing. There were creators in the White House—my friend Destin Sandlin, who runs Smarter Every Day, did an interview with Obama. There was a sense that the administration was beginning to engage with new media, but there was still a divide: the new media was media, engaging with the president on certain terms, at certain times, in certain venues. What you're seeing from this administration is they're literally the press corps, seated front and center. Some of them are even working as special government employees, which is wild—and there are some real ethical issues there. But there's still a sense that the online movement, that source of validation that propelled someone to a win, is actively in there, working with them on governance and policy.Is that a mirage, to some extent? Yes—there's a veneer of them wanting to do something anyway and using online narratives to justify it. And I'd argue that once an influencer becomes a special government employee, they're no longer independent—they're speaking as an agent of the government at that point. But setting that aside, you really do see the way those boundaries are shifting, and that sense of personal participation is what keeps this particular populist movement feeling valuable to its participants.Belvedere: I remember when Madison Cawthorn infamously hired only comms people rather than policy people, and a lot of people in conservative-adjacent spaces saw that as the start of a new era. The model is no longer Paul Ryan-ing your way through, nor is it about governing—Cawthorn was actively, explicitly building a kind of image-only candidacy, seeing how far that element alone could carry him. It didn't carry him very far; a few things tripped him up, like, hilariously, a visit to Hitler's home. But he was building toward being a comms-only operation as the only thing that matters now. When Trump did the whole Alligator Alcatraz stunt, that's the same understanding at work—it's an ongoing comms exercise, you have to keep the performative aspect going, because the campaign never really stops.We're out of time. Thank you so much, Renée.Thanks for checking out The UnPopulist! Subscribe to support our project.© The UnPopulist, 2026Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy. Get full access to The UnPopulist at www.theunpopulist.net/subscribe

Send us Fan MailIn this episode, Umbridge takes the stage as one of the worst people ever. She gives Harry detention, and it's one of the worst he's had. Hogwarts turns on Harry as his story surrounding Voldemort's return is under fire, despite Dumbledore's support. Enjoy!Topics/Summary:·      1:15 Classes at Hogwarts are underway! Harry and Umbridge lock horns in their first DADA class, and she gives him detention. The episode opens up with some shots of the grounds to engrain the idea of nature in magic into the audience. The Gryffindors sit through one of the worst defense classes ever. ·      17:44 Harry goes through the worst detention he has ever experienced, and we begin to understand just how horrible Umbridge is. Umbridge forces Harry to miss keeper try outs, but Ron still makes the team.·      29:50 Harry writes to Sirius about his scar. The Gryffindor team has their first practice where the Slytherins are watching and jeering along.·      34:26 Episode four begins with the mass meeting at the Hog's Head. Dumbledore's Army is created in that meeting, even though Harry feels like he has nothing to share. Everyone in the bar writes their names down on the parchment and the group is officially formed.·      41:56 Dobby tells Harry about the Room of Requirement. Harry asks him because he can't think of anyone else who might know. Dobby tells him and the trio goes to check it out. It's perfect, so that's where the first meeting takes place. The DA assembles and Harry tells them how useful the disarming charm is. Many don't believe him, but he tells them about how it has saved his life many times. They have a very successful first meeting, and for the first time that year, hopes are running high. ThePotterDiscussion@gmail.comthepotterdiscussion.comNox

Potter Revisited Episode #117 George with a Knife AKA Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 19 "The Lion and the Serpent" We hate Umbridge so so much Harry is feeling so good about the work he is doing in the DA Hermione creates a way for Harry to relay DA meeting dates secretly which is really cool It seems wrong that Hogwarts doesn't encourage students to be friends with others outside their house Confirmation that Hermione was almost put in Ravenclaw  Would Ravenclaw been a better fit for Hermione, especially at the beginning of the series? Hermione using the Death Eater dark marks for inspiration shows how lucky we are that she is on the good side Minerva's dedication to ensuring the Gryffindor Quidditch team wins is admirable  Snape is not putting a stop to the Slytherin's cursing members of the Gryffindor Quidditch team, +1 Sucks Point  Harry is used to the ridicule and attacks from the Slytherin's before a Quidditch match but poor Ron is not handling it well  Ron needs to remember he has punched Malfoy before and he can do it again  Luna's Gryffindor Hat is so cool! Luna is obviously very creative and very talented with magic  Tori recalls her fangirl moment when Hermione kisses Ron for good luck  Malfoy has made badges for the Slytherin's to wear - very foreboding  Who is making all these badges for Draco? Tori hates the badges, Malfoy and the fact he is a nepo baby Crabbe and Goyle have made the Slytherin team as beaters, goon Quidditch at its finest  We have missed Lee Jordan's commentary Tori struggles reading the Quidditch game, and feels so bad for Ron  Draco appears to have written and taught all the Slytherin's a terrible song about Ron to sing during the game  What song makes you want to die of embarrassment more, Ginny's singing Valentine to Harry or the Weasley is our King song? Imagine if Draco applied himself to other tasks instead of harassing Harry and Ron  Ron is not able to play well understandably, but Harry catches the snitch and is able to win the game for Gryffindor  Draco cannot let this go and continues to say disgusting things about the Weasley's to Harry and the team  George and Harry basically jump Malfoy, and it is deserved  Shay thinks they should of waited to jump Malfoy when their were no witnesses  Draco has gotten away with far too much, what he is saying is vile  Tori goes back to all the times Malfoy was hit in the series and a new counter has been made! Talk Shit Get Hit will count all the times Draco gets hit (which he deserves) Is Hogwarts (and Dumbledore) partly responsible for why Draco is the way he is?  Is Draco more emboldened in OOTP due to Lucius being in both Fudge's inner circle and Voldemort's? Was Draco surprised to be attacked? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes? George with a Knife is the new Harry with a Gun  Would you trust the Weasley twins with a spoon? McGonagall is not happy with Harry and George and plans to punish them but Umbridge arrives to make this worse Umbridge is SO petty  Umbridge confirms that she tried to stop the Gryffindor team from reforming because she has a vendetta against a fifteen year old  Umbridge gives Harry, Fred and George a lifetime ban from Quidditch unjustly, and Fred wasn't even involved in the fight  Tori hates Umbridge, and gives her +3 sucks points for being petty, being bias, being power-hungry and for being a huge bitch  How does a lifelong ban even work? It seems wrong for Umbridge to confiscate Harry and the Twins brooms since they are their property that they paid for  Harry needs a lawyer Umbridge gets another sucks point for the unfair Quidditch ban +1  Ron hasn't been seen since the game and comes back so sad and wanting to resign Harry has also had a terrible day and refuses to let Ron resign  What would Oliver Wood have to say about Harry's lifelong Quidditch Ban? Hermione tries to cheer the boys up by letting them know that Hagrid is back  Hagrid save us all!! Tori probably sweared more than Shay in this episode - a new record! Snape Sucks count for Chapter 19: 1 Umbridge Sucks count for Chapter 19: 4 Talk Shit, Get Hit Counter: 4 Email any thoughts, questions or feedback to  potterrevisitedpodcast@gmail.com Music: Shelter Song by Alexander Nakarada (www.serpentsoundstudios.com) Licensed under Creative Commons BY Attribution 4.0 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Links:  Trans Lifeline https://translifeline.org/ The Trevor Project https://www.thetrevorproject.org/ Follow Us:  Facebook  https://www.facebook.com/potterrevisited Twitter https://twitter.com/potterevisited Instagram https://www.instagram.com/potterrevisited_/ Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4v2Xt0OIQ8_LCVYhKf2S5A TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@potterrevisited  

Bonus Episode - The Black Sisters!Two sisters, two very different kinds of loyalty: Narcissa lies straight to Voldemort's face to save her son, while Bellatrix stays devoted to him until her literal last breath in the Great Hall. We're breaking down blood purity, motherhood vs. madness, and whether Voldemort actually loved anyone back — new episode out now, link in bio!  ⚡️

In dieser Folge widmen wir uns "Weasleys Zauberhafte Zauberscherzen", dem Laden mit den Produkten von Fred & George. Wir haben eine Auswahl der angebotenen Scherzartikel genauer unter die Lupe genommen, zum Beispiel die Minimuffs, den Langziehohren und natürlich auch die Nasch- und Schwänzleckerein. Es gibt neuen Merch: https://www.seedshirt.de/shop/schokofroescheshopIhr wollt uns FanArt schicken oder Sticker von uns bekommen?Schreibt uns an:Postfach 71053281455 München

This video explores how adding just one additional chapter to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows could have dramatically enhanced the emotional impact of Harry's sacrifice. What if instead of following Harry to King's Cross after Voldemort's killing curse, we experienced the aftermath through the perspectives of Hagrid, Hermione, Ginny, and Neville? I break down how this missing chapter would have shown us Hagrid's raw grief carrying Harry's body, Hermione's analytical mind breaking down, Ginny's fiery determination to continue fighting, and Neville's transformation into a leader—all before Harry's triumphant return. This simple addition would have made readers truly believe Harry was dead, creating a more powerful emotional payoff while giving beloved secondary characters their moment to shine during the Battle of Hogwarts. Would this one chapter have made the final book even better? Let me know what you think in the comments!

In this episode, David and Kyle discuss Chapter 27 of Harry Potter, titled 'The Final Hiding Place.' They explore the chapter's events, including a thrilling dragon ride, Voldemort's reaction to Harry hunting Horcruxes, and the implications of their actions. The conversation also covers character insights, comic-relief moments, and predictions for the next chapter.

Du Quoin, Illinois is having a rough week, and this one hits close to home.Massive downtown fire in Rafe's hometown of Du Quoin. Multiple businesses were destroyed, including Home Lumber Company, BJ's Garden Inn and other properties along the downtown business district. Making an already difficult situation even worse, the fire happened during the Du Quoin State Fair, one of the biggest economic weeks of the year for the small Southern Illinois community.Rafe talks about seeing the damage to a downtown that's already watched businesses disappear over the years, while Lern shares her own memories of growing up nearby and planning entire summers around the Du Quoin State Fair. Thankfully, the transcript reports no injuries or deaths, but the loss is still devastating for a town of roughly 6,000 people.So the crew sends some love south and encourages everybody heading to the fair to support Du Quoin however they can.Then, eventually, the daily comedy machine starts malfunctioning again.The conversation turns into a full Southern Illinois State Fair nostalgia session, complete with Wiz Khalifa, Russell Dickerson, demo derbies, Night Ranger and Rafe remembering the time he watched Joe Diffie put on what felt like a full stadium concert inside a tiny Budweiser beer tent. Rafe also officially declares the Du Quoin State Fair superior to the Illinois State Fair in Springfield. Complaints may be directed to somebody who cares.From there, September 3rd's collection of completely necessary national holidays introduces National Welsh Rarebit Day, which briefly causes confusion over whether anyone is eating a rabbit. They're not. It's cheese. That discovery leads directly to Worcestershire sauce, pork-steak marinades and the shocking revelation that Rafe doesn't own a grill.On Labor Day weekend.We don't make the rules, but we're pretty sure that's grounds for deportation from the Midwest.Luckily, Lern has an even worse idea.After talking with Tim Virgin, she introduces a potential reality-dating concept called Rock Hard Island. The premise involves eligible bachelors from St. Louis rock radio, women applying to date them and enough trash-TV energy to immediately attract hypothetical sponsors. There isn't actually an island involved, but that's apparently a minor logistical concern. Even more alarming: sales is interested.Nothing bad has ever happened after those three words.The crew also takes a trip through September 3rd history, covering everything from the beginning of World War II to Vince Lombardi, Iron Maiden's Powerslave, Prince's massive Warner Bros. deal, Charlie Sheen's 1995 marriage and the founding of eBay.Then Lern takes over for Crap on Celebrities with a packed entertainment rundown. There's a documentary about late Rush drummer Neil Peart featuring Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and fellow drummers including Stewart Copeland, Chad Smith and Danny Carey. Rush is also headed back to St. Louis, giving Moon another chance to see a band he thought he'd never get to experience after Peart's death.There's Beck news for local record-store fans, TV talk involving Chad Powers and The Gentlemen, a rundown of the upcoming Dancing with the Stars cast, and news involving Wheel of Fortune. The show also discusses an upcoming documentary about The Office and remembers Gloria Steinem and her enormous influence on American journalism and the women's movement.Then we arrive at one of those debates designed specifically to waste productive adults' time: the greatest movie and television villains ever.Darth Vader? Obviously.Annie Wilkes? Terrifying.Voldemort? Sure.Hannibal Lecter? Yep.The Joker? Somehow they almost forgot him.The crew runs through villains ranging from Cruella de Vil and Scar to Patrick Bateman, Magneto, John Doe and Dr. Evil, proving once again that this daily comedy show can turn almost any entertainment list into an argument.Finally, Moon breaks down which music genres are supposedly most popular in different states based on search trends, with pop leading the country, metal putting up an impressive fight and Sleep Token emerging as a heavily searched metal act.Then it's birthday time, which means any remaining professionalism is escorted from the building.We've got Charlie Sheen, King Scott's twin Shaun White, Kaia Gerber, Todd Lewis, Steve Jones and more before Rafe handles the final birthday honors and everybody briefly convinces themselves that Amber Lynn is dead.She isn't.Great work, team.It's a show that starts with genuine concern for a Southern Illinois community, takes a detour through State Fair memories, somehow invents a trashy St. Louis dating show, argues about fictional villains and ends with an accidental celebrity death announcement.In other words, another perfectly normal episode of daily comedy from The Rizzuto Show.Follow The Rizzuto Show → linktr.ee/rizzshow for more from your favorite daily comedy show.Connect with The Rizzuto Show Comedy Podcast online → 1057thepoint.com/RizzShow.Hear The Rizz Show daily on the radio at 105.7 The Point | Hubbard Radio in St. Louis, MO.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this conversation, Maverick & Avalon discuss the film Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone. The hosts delve into the character of Harry Potter, discussing his perceived overpowered nature and the implications of plot armor. They explore the themes of stakes and consequences in storytelling, particularly in children's films, and how these elements are portrayed in the Harry Potter series. The discussion also covers character perspectives, world-building, and the roles of antagonists, particularly Voldemort and Quirrell. Finally, they reflect on the overall impact of the film and its cultural significance, considering how it resonates with audiences and its financial success.---------Highlights:0:00 ‘Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone' Introduction5:50 Plot Armor & Other Issues in the Film20:10 The Antagonist28:39 Could the Film Be Improved?33:13 Release & Reception#harrypotter #thesorcerersstone #alostplot #film #jkrowling 

It’s time for You vs. Victoria, and Andy steps up to see if he can outsmart The Jubal Show’s trivia queen. The questions cover everything from Dave Grohl and Nirvana to Harry Potter, Disney, Christmas movies, and one famous landmark—but the real laughs begin when the hosts ask Andy and Victoria who they’d rather take to prom: Darth Vader or Voldemort. Victoria’s answer takes an unexpected turn, leading to a hilarious exchange that completely derails the trivia game.

Review các phim ra rạp từ ngày 28/08/2026TÀU BUÔN NGƯỜI – T18Đạo diễn: Jean-François RichetDiễn viên: Jason Statham, Annabelle Wallis, Adrian LesterThể loại: Hành Động, Hồi hộp, Tội phạm"Mutiny (Tàu buồn người) kể về Cole Reed do Jason Statham thủ vai, sau khi tận mắt chứng kiến ông chủ tỷ phú của mình bị sát hại và bản thân trở thành kẻ thế thân bị vu oan, Cole Reed (Jason Statham) đã đột nhập lên một con tàu chở hàng để bắt đầu hành trình truy tìm sự thật và trả thù cho vị sếp cũ. Tuy nhiên, chuyến đi đơn độc này lại đẩy anh vào nguy hiểm khi Cole vô tình bóc trần một âm mưu quốc tế quy mô và cực kỳ nguy hiểm.CHIIKAWA: BÍ MẬT ĐẢO NGƯỜI CÁĐạo diễn: Kei OikawaDiễn viên: Haruka Aoki, Makoto Tanaka, Ari Ozawa, Yuka Iguchi, Takayuki Asai, Yuma Uchida, Miyuri Shimabukuro, Momo HarumiThể loại: Hoạt HìnhBộ ba Chiikawa, Hachiware và Usagi nhận được một lời mời tham gia chuyến đi đến hòn đảo đặc biệt với những phần thưởng và đồ ăn miễn phí. Cả nhóm cùng lên đường phiêu lưu ra đảo cùng với nhân vật Rakko – người vốn mang lòng hoài nghi về những lời hứa hẹn trong tờ rơi. Hòn đảo tưởng chừng vui vẻ này lại ẩn chứa nhiều điều kỳ bí và bí mật lâu đời liên quan đến người cá.SIÊU CHÓ ĐẠP GIÓ ĐÓN LỄĐạo diễn: Shea WagemanDiễn viên: Owen Wilson, Vincent Tong, Tabitha St. GermainThể loại: Gia đình, Hài, Hoạt HìnhCharlie – chú chó cưng đáng yêu của Danny – bất ngờ bị người ngoài hành tinh bắt cóc và trao cho những siêu năng lực đặc biệt. Nhưng Charlie không phải là “siêu thú” duy nhất trong khu phố khi Puddy – chú mèo tinh quái nhà bên – cũng sở hữu những năng lực phi thường. Cuộc đối đầu giữa hai “siêu thú” mở ra hàng loạt tình huống hài hước, bất ngờ và đầy thú vị, đồng thời mang đến những khoảnh khắc đáng yêu về tình bạn, tình cảm gia đình và tình yêu dành cho các loài vật. Liệu Charlie có thể làm chủ sức mạnh mới và vượt qua những thử thách đang chờ đợi phía trước?HARRY POTTER VÀ HÒN ĐÁ PHÙ THỦY: PHIÊN BẢN KỶ NIỆM 25 NĂMĐạo diễn: Chris ColumbusDiễn viên: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman,...Thể loại: Phiêu Lưu, Thần thoạiLà phần phim đầu tiên chuyển thể từ bộ tiểu thuyết nổi tiếng của tác giả J.K. Rowling, phim xoay quanh Harry Potter - cậu bé mồ côi phải sống nhờ vào gia đình Dursley, và cuộc sống của cậu tưởng chừng sẽ mãi mãi trôi qua trong sự ghẻ lạnh cho đến sinh nhật lần thứ 11. Cậu bất ngờ phát hiện mình là một phù thủy và cha mẹ cậu từng là những phù thủy nổi tiếng. Đặc biệt, Harry Potter sở hữu năng lực phép thuật đặc biệt khi đã sống sót sau lời nguyền của Chúa tể Voldemort. Thoát khỏi gia đình Dursley để nhập học vào trường Hogwarts, một trường đào tạo phù thủy có tiếng, Harry tình cờ dấn thân vào một cuộc phiêu lưu đầy gai góc cùng hai người bạn thân Ron và Hermione. Cậu phát hiện ra một con chó ba đầu đang canh giữ một căn phòng trên tầng ba và nghe nói đến một viên đá bị mất tích sở hữu những sức mạnh lạ kì. Nhân dịp kỷ niệm 25 năm ra mắt bộ phim, phiên bản đặc biệt lần này sẽ mang đến 12 phút hậu trường độc quyền chưa từng được công bố, tạo thêm trải nghiệm thú vị và bất ngờ dành cho người hâm mộ khi thưởng thức bộ phim trên màn ảnh rộng.HÀNH TRÌNH BẤT HẢOĐạo diễn: KIM MI-JODiễn viên: LEE JUNG-EUN, KONG HYO-JIN, PARK SO-DAM & LEE YEONThể loại: Hài, Hành Động, Tội phạmBị bóp nghẹt bởi nỗi đau mất đi đứa con gái út, bốn mẹ con quyết tâm thực hiện kế hoạch bắt cóc kẻ giết người vừa được tại ngoại sau 8 năm thụ án. Chuyến du lịch ‘chữa lành' sẽ là chứng cứ ngoại phạm hoàn hảo hay sẽ là hành trình đầy sóng gió cho những “sát thủ nghiệp dư”?---------------------------------------#8saigon #reviewphimrap #taubuonnguoi #hanhtrinhbathao #chiikawabimatdaonguoica

Wir spielen in dieser Folge Schokotratsch ein neues Spiel, in dem wir verschiedene Harry Potter relevanten Dinge schätzen müssen, zum Beispiel wie viele Filmminuten hat Draco Malfoy, wann wurde der Themenpark eröffnet und wie groß ist Hagrid. Spielt mit! Es gibt neuen Merch: https://www.seedshirt.de/shop/schokofroescheshopIhr wollt uns FanArt schicken oder Sticker von uns bekommen?Schreibt uns an:Postfach 71053281455 München

Send us Fan MailIn this episode, we discuss the opening two episodes to Tea Leaves, our version of the Harry Potter TV show. Harry encounters old magical enemies and barely escapes intact. Enjoy!Topics/Summary:·      1:45 Set our goals. Harry is growing up, and this season must reflect that.·      4:52 We open with the Muggle news. Harry has been kept in the dark over the summer so he is forced to listen to the Muggle news to hear anything about Voldemort. He and Dudley get into some magical trouble, and Mrs. Figg and Aunt Petunia show they know more than they let on.·      30:47 Harry is rescued. The Dursleys go off to their All-England Best Kept Suburban Lawn Competition, and some Order members arrive to bring Harry off to number 12 Grimmauld Place.·      37:53 Episode two begins with the morning of the hearing. Harry is incredibly nervous. Mr. Weasley brings him into the office, but they find out that the time and location of the hearing had been changed. They rush down to the old courtrooms where the entire Wizengamot is assembled in Court Room 10.·       49:03 Off to Hogwarts! They get their badges and lists in order and head off to King's Cross, Padfoot in toe. They sit with Luna on the train and get to Hogwarts with little friction. Dumbledore begins the year with the feast and introduces Professors Grubbly-Plank and Umbridge as new staff members. Off to the races. ThePotterDiscussion@gmail.comthepotterdiscussion.comNox

Grab your favourite summer-drink to face the unusal convergence of stuffy weather and dementors at Privet Drive: Join DJ, Karoline, Taavi, and our guest Lane as they discuss Chapter 1 of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - "Dudley Demented"! Join the discussion on our website In this episode: Everyone is bored… The privilege of living like the Dursleys Dumbledore is the real villain, or is it Umbridge, or Skeeter? Whispers in Fudge's ear Dudley's greatest piglike fear Voldemort's most boring Privet Drive Dreams Petunia and Vernon - the perfect couple

Raycon's Everyday Earbuds Classics are the perfect back-to-school companion. Go to https://www.BUYRAYCON.com/supercarlin to get 20% off. Thanks to Raycon for sponsoring! Head to https://www.FACTORMEALS.com/super50off and use code 'super50off' to get 50% off and 1 free breakfast item per box for 1 year, while supplies last until 10/31/2026. See website for more details Today J is diving into the Wizarding World to uncover Harry Potter's secret storytelling structure known as Ring Composition.  Where the second half of a story mirrors the first half in reverse. And once you know what to look for, it starts showing up EVERYWHERE. From Harry's encounters with Voldemort and his parents, to Sirius, Aragog, the Malfoys, prophecies, Patronuses, potions and even dragons, today we're breaking down the SECRET PATTERN hidden throughout the Harry Potter series! #HarryPotter #WizardingWorld #SuperCarlinBrothers

Part 2 of Critical Magic Theory's wand series asks what wands actually offer if they don't grant magical ability. Professor Julian Wamble traces the dependency wands create, Ron's broken wand, Voldemort needing Lucius's, etc., and argues that feeling powerless without one is a manufactured psychological state, not a magical fact. The episode explores wands as weapons and property, transferred by conquest among Draco, Dumbledore, and Harry, and asks whether wands exhibit real sentience or merely the appearance of choice. It examines Ollivander's monopoly on wandlore as guarded, dynastic knowledge, and raises open questions about the ethics of sourcing wand cores from dragons, unicorns, and phoenixes. The episode closes on its central claim: wands function as a registry and surveillance tool, meaning it isn't the wand that chooses the wizard — it's the Ministry.

Wie schrecklich die Familie Gaunt ist, wissen alle, die die Bücher gelesen haben. Trotzdem beleuchten wir in dieser Folge Marvolo (Vorlost) und Morfin Gaunt nochmal genauer. Was hat es mit Tom Riddles Großvater und Onkel auf sich? Es gibt neuen Merch: https://www.seedshirt.de/shop/schokofroescheshopIhr wollt uns FanArt schicken oder Sticker von uns bekommen?Schreibt uns an:Postfach 71053281455 München

Send us Fan MailIn this episode, we reflect on our just finished season four of Tea Leaves, our version of the Harry Potter TV show. Enjoy!Topics/Summary:·      2:16 Voldemort is really scary. With the people we've seen working on this show, it really isn't going to be a strictly kids show. There is going to be a darker, more mature air about the characters and that will translate to a more intense Voldemort.·      10:47 Dark magic and Amos Diggory. We first see Amos and slightly annoying and at odds with Harry, but that is driven out of our minds at the quidditch world cup. After Harry brings Cedric's body back from the graveyard, we realize that Amos was never at odds with Harry and that there are bigger fish to fry.·      16:42 Dumbledore and Harry don't have as close a relationship. They are in a transition year between the first three and last three seasons, though we'll have to get into season five to know about this I think.·      22:35 Harry feeling more connected with his past.·      26:04 Looking forward. There are a few magical threads getting woven together. Magic is clearly getting more advanced and taking on a deeper meaning, and these new developments and conflicts surrounding Voldemort will lend itself to a more dynamic and dangerous magical ecosystem. ThePotterDiscussion@gmail.comthepotterdiscussion.comNox

First up, we debate a highly important question: what would your “walk-up” song be for speaking at Stake Conference? We’re throwing out everything from Michael McLean to Usher to the Imperial March. We also share some stories from a genuinely incredible trip on the Rocky Mountaineer train (those glass-dome roofs are top-tier) and countdown the final 90 days of wedding season. (If you still need a DJ, you know where to go: BestDJinUtah.com). We also read an awesome email from a listener in McGrath, Alberta, who took our advice for a Bear Lake trip, which naturally led us into a brand new round of Smooch, Marry, Kill: Villain Edition. If your ward bishop had to be Voldemort, Sauron, or Darth Vader… who are you picking? Then, we get into a pretty heavy and packed Articles of News: The Viral “Darth Vader” Devotional: Elder Lawrence E. Corbridge's clip about staying in the Church—even if the culture was Alcatraz and Vader was your bishop—went viral. We break down the massive online debate it sparked. Copyrights & Lawsuits: The ACLU just filed an amicus brief in the Mormon Stories lawsuit. We talk about the reality of copyright protection and why this is one of thousands of similar suits filed every year. Arizona Supreme Court: We discuss a very difficult ruling out of AZ determining that clergy are not required to report child abuse disclosed during a confession. Kearns Tragedy: We touch on the heartbreaking news of a deadly shooting outside a local meetinghouse during a funeral. BYU Marriage Stats: The married student population at BYU has plummeted to just 17%. We talk about what's causing the drop and the school’s new “date night” initiative to fix it. Chapel Layouts: Are the sacrament tables actually moving to the center of the rostrum? The post Bishop Vader, I wish that Gangs were more Respectful appeared first on The Cultural Hall Podcast.

Chapter 27 - The Final Hiding Place, covered by Abby!They just escaped Gringotts on a dragon, they're burned, soaking wet, and laughing — and then Harry's scar explodes and Voldemort knows exactly what they took. We're breaking down the aftermath of the heist, Voldemort's rage, and the moment Harry realizes the last Horcrux is at Hogwarts — new episode out now, link in bio!  ⚡️

Die allerletzte Folge "Spion der Nächte". Das war alles, was Antonia damals abgetippt hat. Was glaubt ihr wie es weiter gehen könnte? Es gibt neuen Merch: https://www.seedshirt.de/shop/schokofroescheshopIhr wollt uns FanArt schicken oder Sticker von uns bekommen?Schreibt uns an:Postfach 71053281455 München

Send us Fan MailIn this episode, we discuss the season finale of season four of Tea Leaves, our version of the Harry Potter TV show. Harry and the champions face the final task in the Tri-Wizard Tournament, and the Dark Lord returns. Enjoy!Topics/Summary:·      2:16 Aftermath of the Second Task. Ron is a hero (and gets more heroic with each version of the story), and Harry just can't shake the nagging feeling of the crushing task in the lake.·      10:37 Rita Skeeter and Karkaroff are stirring the pot. Rita writes an article about Hermione playing with the hearts of Krum and Harry. Karkaroff barges into a potions class and flashes the dark mark at Snape, but Harry catches a glimpse.·      18:08 The trio go to Hogsmeade and Sirius tells them everything about Crouch's past. They learn that he was in line to become the next minister but was cast aside after his son, Barty Crouch Jr., was convicted of being a Death Eater.·      23:59 Moody, Crouch(es), and Karkaroff all implode. Mr. Crouch appears in a bad state but disappears when Dumbledore comes to help him. Harry goes into the pensive and watches the trial of Barty Crouch Jr.·      35:08 The trio discuss what just happened to open the last episode. Then, families arrive and everything prepares for the third task.·      49:17 We're back in the forest in Albania. We follow Voldemort as he gains his power back and moves to the Riddle house, turning the light on in the living room and planning to kill Harry. Eventually, he emerges from the house and sees Harry and Cedric standing in the graveyard. ThePotterDiscussion@gmail.comthepotterdiscussion.comNox

This week, we hope you like the taste of Polyjuice Potion because we're all transforming into Harry to (narrowly) escape Privet Drive! Join Andrew, Eric, Micah, Laura and Grace as they climb aboard Hagrid's motorbike for a fun ride to the home of Ted and Andromeda Tonks! Welcome to the show, Grace Candido-Beecher, author of Voldemort: An Unofficial Exploration! Chapter-by-Chapter continues with Deathly Hallows, Chapter 4: The Seven Potters 7-Word Summary: Moody helps Harry escape safely from Voldemort Let's discuss this plan: is it brilliant or unnecessarily risky? Do any other options come to mind that may have been overlooked? Which of the seven Potters surprises us the most (putting Mundungus aside)? We analyze the characters willing to transform into Harry and why they'd be so willing! Grace compares the 7 Harrys to the 7 Divine Virtues Does Hedwig's death symbolize the end of Harry's childhood more than any other moment in the series? Did the movie do it better?  MAX THAT: Everybody out here is playing Grand Theft Auto, and Hagrid is playing Mario Kart (and winning, by the way)! Expelliarmus: If they thought this had become Harry's signature move, why did they not direct him to cast any spell but this one? Why didn't Voldemort's (Lucius') wand work against Harry? Lynx Line: Which Order member would you trust most if you were flying alongside them? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this special, chaotic episode of STEAM Box vs! The summer program Steampunks sit down with none other than the Digital Dark Lord himself, Lord Voldemort. Our youth hosts don't hold back, grilling him on everything from his half-muggle heritage to why he famously underestimated Harry Potter. Voldemort opens up about his miserable, sweaty days living as a parasite on the back of Professor Quirrell's head, his absolute disdain for Hogwarts "reality shifters", his bizarre feelings about muggles "shipping" him with Beatatrix, and his intense hatred of pop music. Tune in to hear the Digital Dark Lord lose his patience and place a dramatic curse on our microphones and batteries, before they run out of power entirely!#SteamboxPodcast #HarrysQuest #LordVoldemort #Steampunks #TomRiddle #ProfessorQuirrell #Hogwarts #Beatatrix #MuggleWorld #PodcastCurse

Is Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire demonic? Enjoy David and Marcus' popcorn discussion and hot takes takes warmer than dragon's breath. We dive deep into the biblical imagery, such as Harry's Christ parallels. We also navigate the maze of the inverted Christian symbolism around Voldemort's return. Remember C.S. Lewis (I mean, uh, Cedric)! Episodes for each Harry Potter film will be released throughout 2026. But for Premium Seating Patreon supporters, you can hear the full series right away! Consider this your owl, inviting you to enroll as a Patron Saint so you can interact, influence, and enjoy exclusive bonus content.  Here is when episodes will release publicly so muggles can enjoy them: Harry Potter: Biblical Symbolism, Alchemy, and The Occult(?) - https://youtu.be/dpzU9OLPuUI  Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - https://youtu.be/ovmcjjei9XA Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - https://youtu.be/GfAIujY-tvE Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - https://youtu.be/SjmOcL6MFyM Aug 11: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - https://youtu.be/FFtHUWL1h9U Sep 8: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Oct 27: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Dec 1: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (1-2) Marcus is the CEO of Cornerstone Educational Supply, your source for hands-on science supplies and homeschool curriculum kits. www.cornerstone-edsupply.com Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE and click the notification bell. Follow & connect: https://linktr.ee/popcorntheology Support: https://www.patreon.com/popcorntheology Rate and review to get 2 FREE Popcorn Theology Stickers! Write a 5-star review and send a screenshot, along with your mailing address, to feedback@popcorntheology.com, and you'll receive 2 FREE stickers!  #HarryPotterDebate #Alchemy #MagicAndFaith #HarryPotter #JKRowling #DanielRadcliffe #FaithAndFilm #MoviePodcast #FilmReview #ChristianPodcast #MediaLiteracy #ReformedTheology  Intro Music by Ross Bugden: https://youtu.be/Bln0BEv5AJ0?si=vZx_YiHK3hNxaETA

Så er vi nået til starten på enden. Vi tager hul på Harry Potter og Dødsregalierne i første episode af sæson 7, bogen vi alle har ventet på de sidste 9 år. I denne første episode kommer vi vidt omkring: vi får indblik i Voldemort's guerillataktikker og krigsstrategi, overværer mordet på Charity Burbage, og forholder os til Dumbledore's eftermægle (det renskurede og pæne såvel som det knap så pæne). Vi håber, at I vil nyde sidste bog sammen med os ⚡

Send us Fan MailIn this episode, we discuss episodes five and six of Tea Leaves, our version of the Harry Potter TV show. Harry has more strange encounters with Mad-Eye Moody, and is continuing to confront his identity as the fourth champion in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Enjoy!Topics/Summary:·      1:56 Harry goes up to the Owlery, and jumps on a table for Moody. He wants to confide in Sirius the dreams of Voldemort he's been having and the pains in his scar that have come along with them. He wonders if there's something greater stirring. Then, he goes off to class and learns all too well about the imperious curse.·      18:38 Viktor Krum drops his name into the Goblet of Fire and the four champions are chosen. This moment should show us why we should care about Krum, and what makes him ticks. He respects competition but doesn't seek fame. That evening, Dumbledore chooses the name at the evening feast. In a startling change of events, Harry's name also flies forth and he becomes the fourth champion.·      41:13 Episode six begins with Harry walking down to the champion's room. The staircase he walks down is huge and the camera is still in an unbroken shot to show just how small Harry is. Over the next few days, he learns about the dragons, tells Cedric, is coached by Moody, and finally competes in the First Task. He emerges victorious and the episode comes to an end. ThePotterDiscussion@gmail.comthepotterdiscussion.comNox

Have you ever wondered why Gilderoy Lockhart's favorite color is lilac? Believe it or not... the Harry Potter books actually answer that question. Today we're diving into five bite-sized Harry Potter theories that were too fun to leave on the cutting room floor. From the hidden meaning behind Lockhart's favorite color to how Love Potions might actually work, whether Regulus Black was a Hatstall, the true identity of the mysterious "Muggle tramp" Voldemort killed to create Slytherin's Locket Horcrux, and why Dumbledore compliments the Dursleys' agapanthus flowers, we're uncovering some of the smallest (and strangest) secrets hidden throughout the Wizarding World. Sometimes the best Harry Potter theories aren't big enough for their own video... but they're way too good not to share. #HarryPotter #SuperCarlinBrothers 

Y'all remember the Wizards' 78 lineup? Gandalf, Merlin, Voldemort on defense? Join Spencer, Ty, and Andy as they pit a number of legends of both basketball and cartoons against each other in pitched combat, for your entertainment! Support us on Patreon for $5, $7, or $10: www.patreon.com/tgofv. TGOFV Theme by World Record Pace. A big shout-out to our $10/month patrons: Celeste, Yung Zoe, Dane Stephen, Weedworf, James Lloyd-Jones, Sam Thomas, Josh O'Brien, Kilo, David, Sam, T, Rach, Tomix, Adam W, L M, Revidicism, Jennifer Knowles, Jeremy-Alice, Louis Ceresa, Charles Doyle, Dean, Axon, Themandme, Raouldyke, Stephen Tucker, Lawrence, Rebecca Kimpel, Malek Douglas, Jacon Sauber-Cavazos, Bernventers, William Copping, NewmansOwn, Heather-Pleather, Bunknown, Dinosarden, Bedi, Francis Wolf, King Krang, Anthony C, ASDF, Buffoonworld, Bavbiff, D Love, and Tugboat!

This week, it's a series of awkward goodbyes at Privet Drive! Join Andrew, Eric, Micah and Laura as they say so-long to Dudley, Petunia and Vernon in Deathly Hallows, Chapter 3: The Dursleys Departing! 7-Word Summary: Goodbyes are flying through awkwardly among family Why is Vernon Dursley so impressed by Kingsley Shacklebolt? Are Daedalus Diggle and Hestia Jones really the best the Order have to offer? Would any of the Dursleys actually sell out Harry to Voldemort? What If... the Dursleys were kidnapped? Would Harry come to their rescue? Why can't Vernon bring himself to shake Harry's hand? Dudley does a complete 180! What made him warm up to Harry? What was Petunia going to say to Harry? The movie got it right, but why was the scene deleted? Lynx Line: In this chapter, the Dursleys are off with Dedalus Diggle and Hestia Jones into the unknown. What adventures will they go on over the next year? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

No guest this week, just CannCon and Ashe in America turning the heat all the way up. They start with that newly declassified CIA note on Venezuela and lay out why it reads less like a bombshell about Maduro and more like a blueprint for what happened at home. From there, things get spicy. The two dig into a certain must-read election book (now referred to strictly as Voldemort) and why wrong technology and phantom barcodes make them question the whole point of it. Then come the Patrick Byrne clips, complete with a Qatar phone call, a data center in Belgrade, and a casual mention of being asked to lead a coup. Along the way: Bill Pulte's firing spree, Smartmatic and Sequoia genealogy, Colombia's Petro claims, blockchain voting waiting in the wings, and cautious optimism about 2026. Plus gold, boomerangs, and a heated debate over Wawa.

Chapter 24 - The Wandmaker, covered by Sarah!Harry buries Dobby by hand at Freshwater West, grief-stricken but finally able to shut Voldemort out of his mind. From there, the trio regroups at Shell Cottage, where Harry gets Ollivander to confirm the Elder Wand's history and convinces Griphook to help plan a break-in at Gringotts.⚡️

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp – Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com/SUPER What if we've misunderstood the prophecy for nearly 30 years? Everyone assumes Harry Potter is the Chosen One... but what if Neville Longbottom actually fulfills every requirement first? Today we're breaking down every line of Trelawney's prophecy, Voldemort's choices, Neville's role at the Battle of Hogwarts, and why Harry may never have been the prophecy's true subject after all. Could Dumbledore—and all of us—have been reading it wrong? Let us know what you think in the comments! #HarryPotter #SuperCarlinBrothers 

Professor Julian Wamble returns to the Half-Blood Showdown listener mailbag to dig into three of the community's sharpest debates: whether Dolores Umbridge outranking Voldemort as the series' worst villain says more about misogyny than about her actions, whether Peter Pettigrew's placement in Gryffindor holds up under real scrutiny of what bravery and courage actually mean, and what it says about Hogwarts as an institution that it never teaches its students to think critically. Pulled straight from the Critical Magic Theory Patreon and Spotify comments, this episode is a masterclass in taking fandom seriously.

Fresh off President Trump's big election speech, CannCon and Ashe in America bring on a heavy hitter: True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht, one of the original voices in the election integrity world. She revisits the Georgia GBI saga, the Konnech story that sent her from FBI briefings to a stage in the Arizona desert telling a room to stop filming, and a $5 million check that raised more questions than it answered. Then the guys roll up their sleeves for the main event: a page-by-page walk through a newly declassified intelligence report on Venezuela, Smartmatic, Sequoia, and voting machines that could allegedly tell when they were being audited. Expect hash files, virtual machines, a New Jersey voter roll mess, and a running theory that the real playbook was written abroad but run at home. Plus moisturized elbows, honey, and a Voldemort-grade book reference.

This week, we hope you brought your appetite, because we're joining Nagini for dinner. Pull up a chair alongside Andrew, Eric, Micah and Laura at the dining room table inside Malfoy Manor for some delicious Death Eater tea! We're going chapter-by-chapter through Deathly Hallows for the first time since 2007! Deathly Hallows: A History: we reflect back on the ultimate midnight release party and the fastest selling book ever in a 24-hour period! Chapter-by-Chapter returns with Deathly Hallows, Chapter 1 - The Dark Lord Ascending 7-Word Summary: Voldemort hosts his people menacingly around updates Can Voldemort trust the portraits inside Malfoy Manor? Snape and Yaxley jostle for Voldemort's affection: who has the better intel on Harry Potter? The Ministry has been infiltrated! The Castration of Lucius Malfoy: we discuss the symbolism of Voldemort taking his wand and utter humiliation the Malfoy family receives inside their own home The irony of Voldemort discussing blood status So long, Charity Burbage! We asked our patrons via our Lynx Line: Lucius has peacocks strutting around his property - what creature would you want to live on yours? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp - Sign up and get 10% off at Betterhelp.com/super Voldemort always believed Harry Potter was his greatest enemy... but what if Harry was actually Voldemort's greatest mistake? Today we're exploring one of the most overlooked consequences of the night Voldemort attacked baby Harry: not just the scar or the Horcrux, but the possibility that Voldemort accidentally shaped Harry into the exact kind of leader capable of defeating him. Did Voldemort unknowingly create the hero who would one day bring about his own downfall? Let's dive in. #HarryPotter #SuperCarlinBrothers

This week, we hope you can sing in Mermish or fire an arrow cleanly, because we're paying tribute to the great Albus Dumbledore. Join Andrew, Eric, Micah and Laura as they wrap the sixth book in the Harry Potter series! Welcome Slug Club Member Sam! Chapter-by-Chapter of Half-Blood Prince concludes with Chapter 30, "The White Tomb" Harry has developed a mantra of all of the remaining Horcruxes. Did we ever establish similar practices when we were younger? Could the rope ladder turning to snakes in Harry's dream actually be the Horcrux within him preventing him from obtaining the others? Harry makes some astute observations about Snape and Voldemort. Do we think it's a fair comparison? Pity for Draco: What does this say about Harry's character development? Is Dumbledore's funeral is as much about paying tribute to him as it is about a transfer of responsibility? Should Harry have accepted the offer to have Auror protection/assistance? Dumbledore is clearly beloved by the wizarding community. Is his funeral a reflection of the unity he was so desperately working toward? We celebrate and question the presence of certain characters who attend Dumbledore's funeral The Symbolism of The White Tomb On our Lynx Line, we asked our patrons how they would pay tribute to Dumbledore? Quizzitch: With an in-person attendance of only 2,000 people, what funeral took place in the UK during the 90's whose television audience is estimated to be 2.5 billion? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices