Podnotes summary: I’ve been reading Richard Hanania’s posts and noticed he seems to primarily care about his ego. His top Twitter post brags that 1% of his newsletter subscribers are from elite schools, revealing his priorities.
Richard Hanania is like Richard Spencer in seeking attention but different from Mike Benz who commits to causes beyond himself. For example, despite Benz’s outlandish claim of running cyber for the State Department, he supports free speech and Republicans earnestly.
Steve Sailer pointed out an issue in women’s basketball: WNBA star Caitlyn Clark faced racist violence which was ignored by the media. Instead of addressing this serious matter, Richard Hanania mocked it for self-promotion.
At political events like the Democratic National Convention, journalists show bias based on party lines. Some reporters favor Democrats while being hostile toward Republicans. This reflects a deeper division within parties themselves – Democrats united versus Republican tensions around Trump’s conduct.
Richard Hanania dismisses significant issues like nuclear war risks with Russia over Ukraine or Taiwan’s defense against China as trivial compared to economic growth when voting Republican. He also flip-flops on ideologies for acceptance – once alt-right now claiming liberalism with conditions for supporting either party based on policies like euthanasia or abortion rights rather than cultural values or serious global concerns.
On COVID-19, Richard downplays its severity compared to flu without solid evidence and provides misleading information about vaccines and children’s risk levels – showing a lack of seriousness in his approach towards important matters.
Steve Sailer noted that despite Richard Nun’s impressive credentials, including a law degree from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from UCLA, his online boasting could damage his reputation. His transformation from an overweight high school dropout to a skinny public intellectual is remarkable. Despite his achievements, he must keep his ego in check; Harper Collins editors help with this in print but not online.
Richard Hanania has become known for discussing topics like the origins of woke, which others have covered before him. Steve believes no one else could’ve written it quite like Richard did.
As election season approaches, there’s potential for candidates to appeal to independents and Trump-leaning Republicans. While some momentum seems lost after bad press regarding price gouging allegations, it’s unclear if this will significantly impact polls or campaign dynamics.
Tensions within political campaigns are typical; even Biden’s campaign experienced division. Current unity may be fragile due to differing views on issues such as Israel-Palestine relations.
The Democratic National Convention appears promising with well-produced events featuring notable speakers and possibly surprising guests contributing to its success.
There’s debate over whether being overly optimistic about electoral chances poses risks for Democrats who might become complacent or misjudge voter sentiments outside their bubble – especially concerning controversial policy proposals like price controls.
Nathan Cofnas offers serious intellectual contributions by analyzing influential works like Kevin McDonald’s “Culture of Critique,” despite facing criticism for his views on race science at Cambridge—a university less influenced by mainstream American academic trends than Oxford or Harvard.
In contrast, Richard Hanania seeks attention rather than adhering strictly to evidence when presenting theories—something critics argue can lead narratives away from reality towards self-promotion.
Finally, discussions around Trump’s behavior suggest that while some view him as increasingly erratic under pressure from opponents like Kamala Harris’ campaign team—which is adept at using humor and memes—others see consistency in Trump’s approach since 2016 and believe accusations of madness are exaggerated by those strongly opposed to him.
The team running Kamala Harris’s campaign is doing an exceptional job, pushing her to the top of the polls despite challenges. The podcast “If Books Could Kill” offers interesting points on various topics, including a critique of Richard Hana’s book “The Origins of Woke.” They question his arguments and point out inconsistencies in conservative books that repetitively criticize ‘wokeness.’
In one episode, they discuss how disparities are often misattributed solely to discrimination without considering other factors. The hosts also delve into workplace diversity initiatives and civil rights laws’ unintended consequences.
Regarding politics, there’s a discussion about Trump supporters overlooking his lies because past presidents have also been dishonest. This context makes them see Trump as no different when it comes to truthfulness but still their preferred choice due to alignment with their interests.
Overall, the podcast provides critical analysis of right-wing ideas and emphasizes the importance of listening to opposing viewpoints for a comprehensive understanding of political ideologies.
Figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, despite making valid points, often discredit themselves. Candace Owens was once productive with her mid-level IQ content aimed at a general audience. The book Greg refers to criticizes how liberal elites have hijacked civil rights law, focusing on affirmative action, disparate impact, harassment law, and Title IX.
Richard Hanania is criticized for not being factual or thorough in his work; he’s seen as seeking attention rather than accuracy. Disparate impact is discussed—how the Civil Rights Act outlawed employment discrimination without defining it clearly—and how this ambiguity was addressed by the Supreme Court.
Peter Schweizer’s investigation into Kamala Harris reveals her political rise and questionable actions during her career. She ran against the San Francisco incumbent DA who was investigating corruption and priest sex abuse cases but dropped these investigations after winning office with support from influential individuals including Willie Brown.
As California attorney general, she protected allies while targeting enemies—for instance shutting down probes into health supplement companies represented by her husband’s firm. Her decisions also favored powerful donors over public service when dealing with hospital sales.
This is just crazy to me: @lukeford tweaking out hours after 2 cups of coffee when I can slam a Monster and take a nap. I swear you are either sensitive to Caffeine or it just has no effect on you. pic.twitter.com/YTXBhPHvkm
Podnotes summary: Mike Benz has become a key figure in disinformation discourse, especially among Republicans. Known previously as Frame Game Radio, he gained notoriety after Richard Spencer’s decline and the alt-right’s fragmentation in 2018. With his corporate law background, Benz excels at crafting compelling narratives.
We all have various identities; I converted to Orthodox Judaism, I am Australian-American with Irish-English ancestry and several roles including writer and Alexander Technique teacher. But for Mike Benz, his identity as an attorney seems most significant because of his storytelling skills creates compelling narratives that resonate with conservative audiences hungry for tales about media bias and deep state conspiracies.
Despite having zero academic recognition or mainstream news media presence, Benz has captured Republican attention with claims like Taylor Swift being a Pentagon asset—claims often lacking factual support but emotionally charged for his base.
Benz also leads the Foundation for Freedom online—a seemingly one-man operation—and spread theories about government-led censorship that echo wartime propaganda tactics.
I’ve known him from our friendly interactions on my show but haven’t been in touch since mid-2018. His provocative takes often lack empirical backing but appeal to those feeling marginalized by dominant cultural narratives.
Censorship today is more subtle than ever before; it’s based on combating mis/disinformation rather than outright silencing—which can still effectively suppress certain viewpoints.
In conclusion, while freedom of speech remains largely intact online through platforms like Rumble and Odyssey, controversial opinions can still draw backlash akin to ancient tribal ostracism—an age-old consequence of challenging authority regardless of constitutional protections.
Influential figures like Niall Ferguson and Mike Benz gain more support by not sticking strictly to facts. Benz started the Foundation for Freedom online, claiming a vast collusion between government, academia, media, and tech companies in censoring speech. He alleged a social media censorship bureau targeted millions of Americans’ speech.
Renee DiResta offers a skeptical analysis that seems more fact-based but less emotionally appealing than Benz’s claims. According to Benz, an “AI censorship Death Star” led by Stanford’s Election Integrity Partnership was suppressing narratives during elections.
Mike Benz alleges that 22 million tweets were censored during the 2020 election due to government pressure on big tech companies. Despite these claims resonating emotionally with some conservatives, Renee DiRestaa’s factual approach appears more reliable.
Benz suggests his work exposes deep-seated conspiracies within powerful institutions aiming to control public discourse and influence elections through narrative manipulation rather than accuracy. His storytelling aligns with other right-wing influencers who prioritize engagement over truth.
The Election Integrity Project’s work has faced backlash from those it negatively impacts—mainly Republicans—who see it as partisan despite its self-perception as objective.
Conspiracy theories spread quickly online; debunking them is much harder. Mike Benz’s allegations have even reached congressional hearings where they’re presented as credible evidence without proper vetting.
Ultimately, this battle over information underscores how controlling narratives can sway public opinion and affect real-world events like elections or societal perceptions of freedom online.
I agree with Mike Benz’s politics.
In late 2018, Benz became Ben Carson’s speechwriter in the Trump administration. His online activities as “frame game radio” were exposed but didn’t hinder his role. During the Trump-Biden election, Pence worked with Stephen Miller on speeches for Mike Pence and sought evidence of voter fraud.
Pence then moved to a cyber policy role at the State Department for two months—a position he claims gave him expertise in this area. However, his brief tenure raises questions about the extent of his knowledge.
His report gained traction when conservative media covered it in September 2022, drawing Republican interest. Benz argued that government censorship was akin to outsourcing warfare—like Blackwater’s private military services.
In March 2023, during a Twitter discussion about January 6th events and censorship, Benz claimed to have key information on unprecedented global censorship efforts.
Critics argue that people like Benz present narratives without solid factual backing; they are more activists than experts. They cater to specific audiences’ needs rather than providing objective truths—a pattern seen across various domains where individuals may be disciplined in one aspect but reckless in another.
The narrative suggests a state-sponsored thought policing system instead of balancing free speech with democratic rights—an accusation lacking empirical support yet resonating with certain political circles due to its emotionally appealing nature.
Kip joins: You asked about convincing people to act against their interests. Most who joined the organization likely did so against their own benefit because they weren’t fully informed. There’s a lack of knowledge—knowns and unknowns—that affects decisions.
For example, I used sales tactics like urgency in memberships that wouldn’t print until later. This wasn’t always honest value, but it happens often in advertising on TV. People paid $300 for a membership that offered little more than a sticker for their business windows, which some valued highly due to perceived credibility.
In areas without Better Business Bureau recognition, its value was even less significant. Yet businesses sought this association for reputation enhancement despite limited actual benefits.
Luke: As for cultural impact over the last 25 years, America has produced influential TV shows and movies catering to universal human desires—whether lowbrow or highbrow—which explains the global reach of American entertainment.
Finally, regarding international conflicts and domestic issues like crime rates and social cohesion—the U.S., like any country, faces challenges when aligning policy with public sentiment or dealing with consequences abroad.
Traditionally, writers keep the rights to their work, but when working for someone else, your speech is no longer free—it’s directed by your employer. For example, a friend who was a free-market economist took a job advocating for subsidies she didn’t personally support; her output conflicted with her beliefs—a common scenario.
The First Amendment protects our right to shape and discuss the world in ways we find meaningful. However, commercial speech aims at profit rather than personal expression or values. Consequently, workplace writing lacks First Amendment protection because it serves an employer’s interests.
Personal writing has cultural prestige associated with creativity and intellect—writers benefit from this respect. Writing can also confer status through publication; authors are seen as authoritative figures contributing to societal growth.
On the internet though, writing holds less esteem compared to traditional publishing like books from renowned publishers such as HarperCollins. Online content often involves less originality—think blogs and social media posts—and blurs the line between writer and reader roles.
Writing publicly carries risks: exposure to criticism or legal issues can arise from what one publishes online. It’s important to note that public expression on social media can clash with court procedures designed to protect defendants’ rights by controlling jurors’ speech.
Lastly, newsrooms have changed due to social media—with reporters branding themselves personally beyond their professional articles—and this impacts how stories are covered due to public feedback on platforms like Twitter or Facebook.
Elliott Blatt joins: I tried real estate after the tech recession, becoming a rental agent in Boston. The job was tough; I had to rent substandard apartments and use manipulative sales tactics. One such tactic involved phrasing questions to make it hard for clients to disagree without feeling uncomfortable.
There was this building next to a graveyard that no one wanted until desperate times hit at the start of the school year. I showed an apartment there once and used those tricky sales phrases, but it didn’t sit right with me ethically.
My nature is too agreeable for cutthroat sales—I can’t just turn off my morals for a paycheck. Ironically, I met an ex-girlfriend while showing apartments; she’d probably say I’m funny but narcissistic.
At auto parts stores or farmers markets, humor helps me navigate interactions—even when discussing politics or dealing with people’s different reactions like laughter or silence.
Success in real estate can be lucrative despite ethical challenges. My brief stint taught me about manipulation and personal boundaries in business dealings.
Lastly, talking politics is easier with those who share your views compared to those on opposite sides—no need for eggshell walking among like-minded individuals.
The internet has changed dating, creating an inefficient market where the most desirable are overwhelmed with attention due to everyone using the same filters on apps like Tinder.
Women sometimes exhibit ‘token resistance’, a concept that reflects differing generational views on dating norms. Older generations may not understand this behavior, while younger people might be shocked by it.
Online identities can influence perceptions; individuals who express certain political or social views may attract specific followers. This dynamic is also seen in how men and women react to each other based on evolutionary psychology—each acting in their own interests.
Rejection, whether in romance or job hunting, eventually fades from memory. It’s the successes we remember and focus on as we move forward with our lives.
Books like “Uncommon People” explore themes of fame and lifestyle through stories of rock stars’ highs and lows, reflecting broader human experiences far beyond music alone.
In the early ’80s, artists didn’t have handlers to protect them from their own excesses. Their world was extreme, and many lived on the edge with drugs and alcohol. This lifestyle took its toll; James Honeyman-Scott of The Pretenders died of heart failure due to cocaine intolerance shortly after agreeing that bandmate Pete Farndon should be fired for heroin addiction. Farndon himself would die within a year.
The Dallas Cowboys struggled post-1978 as drug use became rampant in the team. In 1982, rock stars were scarce but many wanted the lifestyle – actors graced Rolling Stone covers emulating rock icons.
John Belushi died from a “speedball” mix of heroin and cocaine in March 1982, followed by music critic Lester Bangs’ accidental overdose in April. Bands often broke up due to internal conflicts and ego clashes while relying on an audience’s suspension of disbelief – once shattered by mishaps onstage, the illusion faded.
By mid-’80s, rock superstars resembled aristocrats with complex family structures reflecting wealth and power hierarchies. Teenage boys idolized this seemingly glamorous life paid for by fame.
Hard rock emphasized image over substance; Guns N’ Roses epitomized this look perfectly in 1987. As musicians battled addictions, therapy became part of their narrative – seeking public forgiveness for past transgressions.
The internet era signaled an end to traditional rock stardom by ’95; everyone could now star in their own digital lives. Prince stood out as an all-around talented artist who managed his image well into the ’90s.
Lastly, political discourse touched upon how progressives struggle with setting boundaries against radicals within their ranks leading to naivety about policies like equity which undermine personal property rights and free exchange principles fundamental to society’s functioning.
Buzz Feed Video: Voice coach Amy Chapman explains how to overcome monotone voice aka Kermit the Frog voice.
* Rolling Stone , once the organ of the alternative society, was about to move from San Francisco to New York in order to be nearer its real customers, the agencies that bought colour ads for cigarettes, drink and cars which were aimed at its free – spending thirty – something readership. The editorial had simultaneously smartened up to provide a more seductive environment. The photographers were more upmarket, which meant they brought with them their customary armies of stylists, make – up artists, hairdressers and miscellaneous ministers of the arts of vanity to make sure that their subjects looked reassuringly rich as well as edgily stylish. The look of 1976 was expensive and dissolute.
* THE GIRLS WHO shared Elvis Presley’s bed knew the drill. They had to listen for his breathing, which had on occasion seemed to stop in the night. If he got up to go to the bathroom they should knock on the door after a while and ask if he was all right. There were members of his personal entourage around the house at all times. Further staff, including a nurse who worked for his personal doctor George Nichopoulos, known to all as ‘Doctor Nick’, lived in trailers behind the house. Nonetheless the women he slept with were his last defence against the thing he feared most, loneliness.
Since he was a small child Elvis had hated to sleep alone. Once he was famous he no longer needed to. If he wasn’t with one of his longer – term girlfriends, willing women could be brought to him.
* Among the diminishing number of people who actually cared about Elvis Presley there was a feeling he was running out of road.
* Like all superstars Elvis alternated between utter certainty and crippling doubt, spending very little time in the region between the two where normal human beings live out their lives.
* Even when he was dead, Time magazine didn’t put him on their cover. Nor did People . They didn’t think he was big enough, in the sense that they felt he no longer reached into people’s hearts. Elvis was just a rock star who wasn’t hot any more. Then, as the days turned into weeks and the news programmes continued to run footage of distraught middle – aged people talking about what Elvis had meant to them, the reality began to sink in. The late Elvis, as opposed to the living Elvis, was the one thing they could agree on.
* IN 1963 AMERICAN journalist Michael Braun went to Sunderland to write about a new group called the Beatles. As he observed how these four men interacted with the world he began to recognize that their appeal went beyond just music. ‘I began suspecting,’ he wrote later, ‘that I was in the presence of a new kind of person.’
Over the years pop music has unwittingly introduced many new kinds of people to a wider world. From Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis through Pete Townshend and Janis Joplin to Lou Reed and Bob Marley, pop has introduced young people to personalities they might never have encountered any other way.
* [Robert] Plant was rebuilding his family life, which had been shattered not only by the loss of his child but also by an article his wife had read in an American music magazine which suggested that once on the road her husband was not faithful.
In those days before the death of distance it was possible for even world – famous musicians to be accompanied on tour by a species of ‘road wife’ without their actual wives getting to hear about it. The tabloids weren’t particularly interested in these people, the specialist press knew discretion was the price they paid for access, and the mobile phone and the internet were still the stuff of science fiction. Furthermore the dictionary of disapproval had not yet been developed. Drug users weren’t said to have substance issues. Heavy drinkers weren’t yet alcoholics. Rock stars who expected unfettered access to the bodies of any young women in their orbit weren’t yet deemed to have a problem with male entitlement.
* Poses are vital in rock. They are not some optional extra. Poses are what send the pulses of young men racing. There was a splendour about Led Zeppelin’s swagger. It was the apogee of a certain sort of rock dream. None of the hundreds of bands that came after them and tried to adopt the same shape were anything like as convincing. However, like everything else in show business, it was a trick based on confidence. Once Plant no longer believed he could get away with it, once the essential absurdity of it began to dawn on him, once he started to believe the things all those punks were whispering in his ear via the letters pages of the music papers, once he was no longer cocksure, the magic inevitably ebbed away. After all, he was an old man. He was thirty – one.
* Although he played the wild man on stage, in the real world Ozzy was as helpless and needy as a small boy. Sharon found this side of him attractive. Without her he simply couldn’t function. Together they flourished.
* There is a disorientation in the atmosphere around a rock band on tour which brings about a certain detachment from the elementary laws of physics and chemistry governing normal life. Even if none of the protagonists are particularly unhinged or suffering from the need to test the limits of their own mortality there is a tendency to do the ill – advised which would only rarely arise in everyday life. This was particularly the case in 1982 when artists didn’t yet employ people whose primary job was to protect them from themselves. The world in which these people lived and moved was attuned to extremes. Nobody was yet suggesting that exercise and abstinence might be the secret to surviving life on the road. They were all prone to thinking themselves indestructible. The touring life was sustained by drugs and drink. Very few didn’t partake. All these people were moved to go beyond the red line, to hang themselves over the precipice, with predictable consequences.
* In June [1982], James Honeyman – Scott, the guitarist with the Pretenders, was found dead of heart failure in a girlfriend’s flat. ‘Cocaine intolerance’ was blamed. This was only days after he had agreed that bassist Pete Farndon should be fired from the same group because of his own addiction to heroin. Farndon would be found dead in his bath less than a year later.
* 1982 seemed short on new rock stars but it was long on people who wanted to act like them. Rolling Stone ’s cover stars for that year were mostly actors and TV people – David Letterman, Robin Williams, Mariel Hemingway, Matt Dillon, Timothy Hutton and Warren Beatty – all affecting the casual drag and ‘we mean it’ looks of rock stars. On 5 March the comedian and actor John Belushi was found dead in a bungalow at the Chateau Marmont, having ingested a speedball, a cocktail of heroin and cocaine. The woman who administered it to him, Cathy Smith, was a former associate of three members of the Band…
* On 30 April Lester Bangs, the rock critic whose words were as impressive in print as their author was unimpressive in person, whose reviews were a plea for acceptance from musicians and hipsters who wouldn’t spare him the time of day, who liked to say that rock and roll wasn’t so much a music as a way of living your life, finished the final draft of a new book he called Rock Gomorrah . His idea of celebrating completion was to take a number of Valium pills together with a strong cold remedy. He never woke up. He was thirty – three.
* Bands are like small political parties, presenting a united front to the outside world while a low – level internecine war is being perpetually waged within, a war in which nothing is forgiven or forgotten, nothing is openly discussed, and any person brave enough to propose a change of direction suffers the fate of being openly derided for doing what so clearly needs doing. This Is Spinal Tap captures the imperceptible heightening of tension and meaningful sidelong glances that greet any member apparently seeking the approval of anyone outside the group.
* rock industry: that it relies on the audience’s willing suspension of disbelief. Once you’re no longer swept along by the power of its grand illusion, once you begin to question the conventions to which it clings, once the wires along which it dances are plainly visible, once you actually glimpse the desperation in the musicians’ eyes as they see some piece of on – stage business begin to unravel, once the amplification fails and you hear them barking at each other like any bunch of workmen in crisis, then you are seeing the world through the lens of Spinal Tap.
* 1985 was the year the scale of rock changed the nature of rock. The bigger the show is, the more it’s about ritual rather than content.
* THE ROCK INTERVIEW is an artificial interaction. It’s primarily a business transaction, entered into by both parties for their mutual commercial benefit. At the same time form dictates that it must masquerade as a friendly, almost flirtatious exchange of ideas. It often takes months of negotiation to set up but then takes place as if it’s a chance meeting. It demands a display of outward nonchalance from both interviewer and interviewee. The former is flushed and excited but pretends to be relaxed. The latter is suspicious and guarded but pretends to be relaxed.
* By the mid – eighties the family structures of rock superstars had come to resemble those of all – powerful sovereigns or landed aristocrats of years gone by. Their success meant that they, and they alone, sat at the top of a pyramid of wealth, status and power. As they looked down from the summit they could see the serried ranks of their heirs, their heirs’ tow – headed dependents, the long – established courtiers who transacted their business for them, the vassals and liegemen who handled the tasks beneath their dignity or competence, the new mistresses and the old ones who always knew far more than they let on, even the fools and soothsayers whose job it was to calm their troubled mind…
* The most impressionable group in society are teenage boys. They have a touching readiness to believe that somewhere nearby a bunch of young men only slightly older than they are and certainly no more exceptional are living a life larger, louder and more licentious than any in human history and are getting paid a fortune for doing so.
* The golden rule in music is that the more people protest that it’s all about the music, the more certain it is that it’s all about something else entirely. The thing that mattered most in hard rock was not the rock or the hardness thereof; it was looking the part. And Guns N’ Roses did. They combined glamour and danger in just the right proportions. This is the quality that was impossible to contrive.
* when fashion editors think of a rock star they think of Axl Rose in 1987. Nobody has ever looked more the part.
* The mother of the singer James Taylor, who had watched this process at close quarters, sagely observed that where musicians are concerned ‘The work is always the last thing that goes because it’s the thing that holds their life together.’
Their counsellors had to deal with the toxic combination of arrogance and self – abasement that is often the lot of the rock star. Performing provided its own high, both in terms of the sheer satisfaction it brought with it and also the transformational effect it had on their status. When not performing they were prone to feeling that others had detected their inner worthlessness.
* As part of her treatment at the Betty Ford Center, where she was an in – patient with Tammy Wynette, [Stevie] Nicks had to write the words ‘I am not special: I am dying’ on a piece of paper. ‘That’s a serious thing to swallow,’ she reflected.
Ringo and Clapton were among the first wave of rock stars to change their ways with professional help. In time they would be joined by hundreds of others until it seemed that whenever you interviewed a musician over the age of forty they would volunteer their stories of how they’d stopped using drugs or alcohol. People who in the past were reluctant talkers would now hold forth at length with the practised ease of those accustomed to giving a detached account of their strengths and weaknesses. The confessional press interview became almost an extension of the process of therapy. Major retrospective features increasingly followed a standard arc: I flew high, I went too far, I crashed, I put myself back together with the help of a good woman/man/manager/therapist, and now what I want most of all from my public is forgiveness. Therapy saved the lives of a lot of rock stars, which is a blessing. It also diminished their mystique, which isn’t.
* After Madonna, stars had no secrets. What’s more, the technology that would eventually enable us all to be the stars of our own lives was already on its way.
* Gay people in the world of rock, which likes to congratulate itself on being an outrider for new ways of living, were no quicker to announce their sexuality than their counterparts in Parliament, business, sport or the movies.
* People in rock bands can’t afford to allow themselves to glimpse the preposterousness of what they do.
* Prince could do anything. In terms of all – round ability he was probably the most accomplished rock star of them all. He could play most instruments, he had written huge hit songs like ‘Purple Rain’ and ‘Little Red Corvette’, he could sing in a variety of styles…
* If in 1993 Michael Jackson had still been a member of the Jacksons rather than a solo performer, it’s possible that somebody in their circle would have told him that sharing his bed with thirteen – year – old Jordan Chandler was likely to be interpreted unsympathetically.
Posted inRock|Comments Off on Uncommon People: The Rise and Fall of The Rock Stars
* all fiction is genre fiction in that it caters to a generic desire.
* With its by – all – accounts absolute requirement of a happy ending for it to even receive recognition as a member of the genre by its devotees, the romance’s unforgivable sin is that it flagrantly satisfies the “imaginative needs of the community”… What other genres do indirectly, or even “critically,” it does shamelessly in the open and in resourcefully new ways.
From Pamela to the present, the novel in the English – speaking world has developed alongside and within a capitalist economy increasingly oriented toward consumer enjoyment and, if only implicitly, has been telling the story of that economy the whole time. What we now label the “romance” novel is the reflexive expression of the novel’s original appeal: not only is it written for the satisfaction of the imaginative needs of the reader, but it is about that satisfaction in the figure of the heroine and her mate, who always get what they want, and who in getting what they want reassure their readers of the legitimacy and continuity of the social order.
* Entering through the eyes as a succession of words, the novel is transformed into a series of affectively charged mental images of people and places.
* It would be for Norman Holland, whose classic Dynamics of Literary Response (1968) argues that the better part of what we do when we read is to activate emotional resonances between the text and our unacknowledged fantasies of return to pre – oedipal pleasures.
In his view, the conferral of interpretive meaning on the literary text is a form of defense against the unruliness and unspeakability of those pleasures, which are nonetheless the text’s primary raison d’être and source of generic appeal. In this sense, and never more so than when it is utterly obscene “adult entertainment,” all literature is children’s literature at its core.
* In the mostly unconscious act of introjection, which converts words into psychic events, the reader finds (or feels) analogies between the text’s fantasy material and their own. I have added an additional “basement” level, representing something like the Lacanian or Lovecraftian Real — that is, the substratum of utter indifference to human well – being from which literary and all other forms of fantasizing are obsessively repeated attempts to recover. The literary text is in this sense a therapeutic processing of that indifference as a pleasurable sensation of narrative meaning, and each distinct genre a quasi – algorithmic form of doing so.
Posted inAmazon|Comments Off on Everything and Less: The Novel in the Age of Amazon
* Writing has always been used for work, production, output, earning, profit, publicity, practicality, record-keeping, buying, and selling. Increasingly, writing itself is the product that is bought and sold, as it embodies knowledge, information, invention, service, social relations, news – that is, the products of the new economy. At the turn of the twentieth century, knowledge workers represented 10 percent of all employees. By 1959 this proportion had increased to more than 30 percent of the workforce, and by 1970 it was 50 percent. In 2000, knowledge workers were estimated to account for 75 percent of the employed population, with the biggest gains found among highly educated professional
and technical workers in government and service-producing industries (Wyatt and Hecker 2006). If, as Thomas Stewart (1998) asserts, “Knowledge has become the primary ingredient in what we make, do, buy, and sell” (p. 12), then writing has become a dominant form of labor as it transforms knowledge and news into useable, shareable form.
* The status of writing as a dominant form of labor in the US economy puts an unusual degree of pressure on people’s scribal skills, as their writing literacy is pulled deeply into manufacturing, processing, mining, and distributing information and knowledge. Writing is a time-intensive form of labor that tends to follow people home.
* So rapacious are the production pressures on writing, in fact, that they are redefining reading, as people increasingly read from the posture of the writer, from inside acts of writing, as they respond to others, research, edit, or review other people’s writing or search for styles or approaches to borrow and use in their own writing. Reading is being subordinated to the needs of writing…
* the idea that a text belongs to the person who writes it is not the only concept of authorship that can be found in current US copyright law. When it comes to writing undertaken within the scope of employment – in other words, the writing done by most people in society – copyright turns inside out: under a provision called “Work Made for Hire,” the law is careful to sever writers from ownership claims over the texts that they write at work.
* In the eyes of the law, the employer is the author of their texts. As individuals, workplace writers are not allowed to profit individually from the writing they do. Even the knowledge they may produce in their heads as a result of the writing they do at work is technically not theirs to benefit from. Further, workaday writers are not legally entitled to express their own views through their workplace writing. They can be fired for doing it, and they won’t get much support from the courts if they appeal. According to the Supreme Court, people do not really write at work as citizens or free beings but rather as willingly enlisted corporate voices. At least in their official capacities, workaday writers don’t write as themselves at work, according to the Court. They are not individually responsible for what they are paid to say. Consequently, they don’t really mean what they say. In fact, according to the Court, people who write for pay can’t really mean what they say. Their speech rights are corrupted and, hence, inoperable. From this perspective, writing starts to look a lot less romantic and a lot more feudal.
* copyright is reserved for texts that are considered creative or artistic, or that otherwise promote learning, or have some other enduring social utility…
* teachers and academics still enjoy this privileged exemption and, by dint of long-standing tradition, retain rights to their own writing and other intellectual property even when done on an employer’s premises.
* Constitutional scholar C. Edwin Baker (1989) has written most compellingly of what happens to a citizen’s voice once it is put into paid service – when it becomes (someone else’s) rented property. Such coerced speech necessarily loses its free-speech protections because it is no longer self-directed: “Once a person is employed to say what she does, the speech usually represents not her own self-expression but, at best, the expression of the employer” (p. 54 ). Baker elaborates:
“The First Amendment protects a person’s use of speech to order and create the world in a desired way and as a tool for understanding and communicating about the world in ways
he or she finds important. These uses are fundamental aspects of individual liberty and choice. However, in our present historical setting, commercial speech reflects market
forces that require enterprises to be profit-oriented. This forced profit orientation is not a manifestation of individual freedom or choice. Unlike the broad categories of protected speech, commercial speech does not represent an attempt to create or affect the world in a way that has any logical or intrinsic connection to anyone’s substantive values or personal wishes.”
* speech made pursuant to official duties receives no First Amendment protection. Like private employers, government may control its employees’ speech in order to protect and promulgate its own interests.
* workaday writers are legally severed – economically, ethically, and politically – from the words they write on the job.
* writing – particularly literary writing but not exclusively so – enjoys its own prestige. Through the sometimes convoluted history of literacy in this culture and the ideologies it produces, writing is associated with creativity, talent, intellect, sensibility, knowledge – in a word, authority. In general, writing is a desirable skill, a somewhat scarce skill, respected for its difficulty and the achievement it represents, particularly when it results in publication. Writing benefits most of all from the cultural prestige of reading. Because many forms of reading over time have been marked with high cultural value, this value has come to extend to those who can write in those forms. In this climate, then, writing may bequeath its high status to an individual who engages in it. One can “make a name” through writing. Writing is also its own verifiable record of a powerful engagement with literacy and all of its goodness – including the human growth that is presumed to be entailed in an artistic or intellectual experience. This achievement of the writing per se certifies the writer and warrants the reading. Writing, then, can be an independent source of social value and power and, with some exceptions, it enhances the stature of anyone who claims authorship.
* Legal ghostwriting also collides with the custom of the court to be lenient with self-represented litigants.
* the Internet seems to be favoring a less original form of writing: creation by citation, sampling, cutting and pasting, the blurring of the roles of writers and readers.
* writing is wrapped in yearning and sometimes titanic ambition, tantamount to chasing a dream…
* Just as these young people were well aware of the high prestige afforded the successful artist or published author, they were also well aware of the precariousness of the occupation and the difficulty or unlikelihood of making a viable living as an independent writer…
* a writing orientation can create wariness toward reading, particularly toward its association with passivity and conformity.
* Another predicament of authorship… had to do with managing relations between one’s life and one’s work. …authorship could bring a heightened sense of confusion
and vulnerability, especially in the vicinity of friends and family. …misattribution, parody, estrangement, charges of libel, self exposure, the need for a pseudonym – these are all uncomfortable experiences that can attach to people who write yet rarely enter writing instruction as a focus for exploration and learning.
* reading is largely an internalizing process… writing per se is action in the world. It is an externalizing experience, and so its effects, as we have seen, can come back at writers from the outside. Thoughts can stay private during reading, but they are relentlessly externalized during writing. …bring more wear and tear, more trouble, more risk. Writing risks social exposure, political retaliation, legal blame.
* in the twenty-first century, citizens are more likely to run afoul of the courts not because they are able to read too little but because they choose to write too much. Prosecutors and defense attorneys scour the online writing of prospective jurors, including blogs, Facebook entries, and tweets, to look for predispositions and biases. Several criminal convictions have been overturned in recent years after jurors were discovered writing online about their jury experiences (Grow 2010). Freewheeling personal expression associated with social media is in friction with the court’s traditional ways of protecting the rights of defendants by controlling the speech of jurors.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on The Rise of Writing: Redefining Mass Literacy
The most frequently quoted sentence in the literature of settler colonialism is from the Australian scholar Patrick Wolfe: “Invasion is a structure, not an event.” Wolfe was referring specifically to the British settlement of Australia, but the principle applies equally to the United States and Canada, which were also created by dispossessing the peoples living there when Europeans arrived. That fact is hardly unknown—everyone who grows up in these countries learns about it in elementary school.
What is new in Wolfe’s formula is the idea that this original injustice is being renewed at every moment through various forms of oppression, some obvious, others invisible. The violence involved in a nation’s founding continues to define every aspect of its life, even after centuries—its economic arrangements, environmental practices, gender relations. Because settlement is not a past event but a present structure, every inhabitant of a settler colonial society who is not descended from the original indigenous population is, and always will be, a settler, rather than a legitimate inhabitant.
For the academic discipline of settler colonial studies, the goal of learning about settler colonialism in America and elsewhere is not simply to understand it, as a historian would, but to dismantle it. That process is known as decolonization, and the increasing currency of this term is an index of the rising influence of what might seem a merely academic idea. The command to “decolonize” has become almost faddish; guides have been written on how to decolonize your diet, your bookshelf, your backyard, your corporate board, and much more.
Posted inAustralia|Comments Off on Invasion is a structure not an event (8-16-24)
Podnotes summary: The World Health Organization has raised concerns about a monkeypox epidemic. While the disease itself is concerning, there’s something even worse: stigma. Stigma around behaviors that transmit monkeypox, like certain sexual activities among gay men, can be more harmful than the disease by perpetuating discrimination.
Monkeypox primarily affects sexually active men in the LGBTQ+ community but isn’t exclusive to them; it’s not a “gay disease.” It spreads through close contact and while it disproportionately impacts gay men engaging in frequent sexual encounters, stigmatizing this behavior could hinder efforts to combat the virus.
HIV-positive chefs in Toronto held an event to fight against stigma associated with infectious diseases. Randy Davis believes education is key to alleviating fear and ignorance which fuel such stigmas.
Stigmatization doesn’t just affect those who are reckless; during the AIDS crisis, innocent people suffered due to a few individuals’ actions. This shouldn’t be repeated with monkeypox—we must follow science instead of falling into discriminatory traps.
Misinformation online has led doctors to correct homophobic narratives surrounding monkeypox transmission—it’s not limited by sexuality or behavior alone.
The story shifts focus onto Matt Drudge of Drudge Report fame—a once-conservative figure who turned against Donald Trump for reasons unknown—showing how quickly allies can become adversaries based on personal biases or changing political winds. Former associates describe Drudge as sensitive and unpredictable—a drama queen prone to cutting ties over minor slights.
In politics and media alike, relationships are often fragile; alliances built one day may crumble the next as interests diverge—much like nations might betray their own spies for broader strategic gains—as suggested by reports of U.S.-Iranian dealings regarding Israeli agents involved in assassinations. These complex dynamics underscore human fallibility and shifting priorities rather than inherent malice or betrayal.
Ultimately, understanding why figures like Drudge pivot politically remains speculative at best—with various insiders offering theories from policy disagreements to personal dislikes—but what’s clear is that attention-seeking individuals will always seek relevance amidst changing landscapes.
To dodge monkeypox, simply avoid certain gatherings such as gay piss orgies.
Charlie Kirk tweeted about monkeypox being a lesser concern compared to other issues. The Jerusalem Post reported on Tehran’s assassination list linked to Iran targeting Assad agents. Car insurance has spiked by 55% during the Harris-Biden administration due to less law enforcement leading to more reckless driving and higher insurance claims.
A young girl is forced into marriage with an older Muslim man, raising questions about cultural integration versus diversity needs. This practice, along with slavery, persists in modern Islam, reflecting underdevelopment and brutality in some parts of the Arab-Islamic world.
The term “fascism” lacks a clear definition; it varied across regions as a counter-response to communism without a central doctrine or headquarters. After research, one way to prevent monkeypox seems avoiding specific events.
A fabricated story accused Israeli soldiers of raping Palestinians but was debunked after medical exams showed no evidence of assault—just an attempt at smuggling contraband via concealment.
Scott Rasmussen discussed polling differences between elites (those earning over $150k/year with postgraduate degrees living in dense areas) and average Americans regarding trust in government and individual freedom—the elite often favor more control than what public policy reflects.
Many elites believe most Americans share their views even when they don’t align with public sentiment—a disconnect influencing political toxicity and voter disenchantment within America’s polarized society.
Polls show close elections can lead to legitimacy disputes among voters who distrust results not aligned with their beliefs—with both sides having history disputing election outcomes.
As for polls’ accuracy during elections: while skepticism exists due to changes like those seen during COVID-19-related voting adjustments, overwhelming evidence suggests presidential vote counts are generally reliable despite right-wing media casting doubts through selective reporting.
An attorney for Detroit explained that the windows were partially covered during voting to protect voter privacy. Official observers and hundreds of party challengers were present, alongside dozens of reporters. Despite objections to the 2020 count’s legitimacy, analyses debunking these claims are more convincing; no reputable lawyer would support Trump’s rigged election claims due to facts like a suburban shift towards Biden.
Noah Carl suggests academia’s leftward shift is influenced by an influx of women who tend to be less supportive of free speech and more in favor of censorship—often seen as protective but potentially contributing to a culture less open to controversial discourse.
ABC Australia documentary Four Corners reports: Channel 7 faced allegations ranging from using sex workers and drugs for interviews, workplace bullying, discrimination, and harassment. Many employees signed NDAs upon leaving or being fired under various circumstances such as maternity leave or after filing complaints about their treatment at work. These agreements often silence them from discussing their experiences publicly.
The text also mentions how certain jobs can be tough on everyone but claims there’s an expectation that men will endure silently while women might not tolerate such conditions well. It discusses the impact this has on industries like journalism where competition is fierce and economic stability is waning.
Employers often hesitate to hire women who might become pregnant or people from groups they perceive as less desirable workers, prioritizing their interests. Similarly, employees aim to maximize earnings while minimizing effort, and employers seek the most work for the least pay. We’re conducting a Zoom interview with a woman who risks speaking out even anonymously about management’s tactics.
At Channel 7, she was told to sift through staff emails that could be used against them. Asked how she felt about this task, she now feels sick; it reflects a broader issue where many have had to do distasteful things at work. The idea is that employment equates to choosing your “slave owner”—a harsh view of reality.
She criticizes the abuse of internal policies meant for ethical purposes but notes self-interest is common among all people—men and women, employers and employees. Everyone can claim victimhood; surrounding individuals may feel wronged by those same complaining parties. Life involves inadvertently harming others while pursuing one’s goals.
Elliot Blatt urges us to recognize these realities—wake up and smell the eucalyptus.
Another great show Luke. I appreciate all the effort you put into your research and the videos you show provide high quality information from leading academics and experts. This show has a little bit of everything and the callers add a touch of variety to the livestreams. I like how some (if not most) of your world view is shaped around self-help/AA. Which is interesting because I feel what self-help/AA tries to get you to do is to confront your own ego. A problem we have on the right is how everyone wants to be unique as possible and refuses to work with others because we are all natural born contrarians. No wonder many of us don’t have good relationships with our family and friends, as we are ready to burn bridges at the drop of a hat if someone dares bring any harm upon our volatile emotions.
This show is a hidden gem and I always leave feeling happy, informed and centered. For the record my world view lines up closely to yours and Steve Sailor’s. I can’t stand the rampant pessimism, hatred and bickering which goes on the DR and this is a show where I can get my views said back to me and sometimes even challenged or confronted. I appreciate your normal and fair approach to charged topics like race, immigration and the Israel/palestine conflict. It tells me you have a social life.
I used to before just say every far right opinion I had and if someone had a problem with it then good one less weak willed, immature person out of my life. I like how you pull from mainstream news sources, even though sometimes it must feel like wading through mud to find pearls because I before had completely written off news websites before you shared a Richard Hanania article about how mainstream news sites are not all that bad and the article you share about the jealous pastor’s brother was very intriguing and provided a fascinating look into the world of end times obsessed Christian fundamentalists even though the journalist is most likely a giga shitlib. I could tell behind her faux neutrality she loathed all the people involved in the article.
Podnotes summary: Kamala Harris has been on the rise in recent weeks, with increasing poll numbers and support from both sides of the political spectrum. Despite previous doubts by Democratic elites who considered replacing her as vice president due to fears she might falter off-script, Harris has run a tight campaign that’s garnered media backing.
She’s now ahead of Donald Trump by four points in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. This leaves Republicans searching for ways to counter her momentum.
Kamala Harris’ team is top-notch; they’re strategic and she follows their lead well—unlike Trump who often deviates from planned messages. Questions about his cognitive ability at age 78 have surfaced among Republicans.
There are concerns within the Harris campaign regarding potential scandals or controversies that could emerge. Tim Walls’ National Guard service portrayal has come under scrutiny, which may distract from Harris’ state tours if amplified by opponents like Trump.
At a rally in Michigan, when confronted by protesters accusing her of supporting genocide, rather than addressing their claims directly, Harris warned them not to help Trump win with such accusations.
Harris also hinted at potential policy changes towards Israel during a private meeting before the rally—a topic that remains sensitive for many voters.
In terms of societal commentary:
– YouTube’s content restrictions reflect pressures from advertisers more than individual decisions.
– The feminist movement aims at removing constraints on female sexuality while restricting male sexuality.
– Societies tend toward feminism until challenged by patriarchal forces; this shift impacts various social dynamics including dating and marriage norms.
The balance between choice and discipline is crucial: too much freedom can be overwhelming whereas structured limitations can guide productive behavior.
As we navigate these complex issues around gender politics and societal expectations, it’s clear there’s no one-size-fits-all answer but an ongoing dialogue about our evolving values and behaviors is essential.
Some women cope with insults to their femininity by turning to hobbies like gardening or arts and crafts, while others express anger through political activism. A few seek revenge on society due to feeling displaced from the dating scene.
Childlessness can deepen despair as it reduces opportunities for nurturing, impacting both personal fulfillment and societal stability. Commentary suggests that masculinity is about invasion, while femininity is about invitation; mistakes made by each gender are influenced by these traits.
The UK faces social media crackdowns following riots sparked by misinformation. Prime Minister K Star warns of arrests for sharing riot footage online. The unrest began after a tragic incident at a children’s dance event led to the wrongful vilification of an immigrant suspect on social media.
Nigel Farage discusses divisions in British cities, blaming unchecked immigration and identity politics for eroding national identity and fueling violence. He criticizes government responses during COVID-19 lockdowns, advocating free speech over censorship on social media platforms like Facebook.
David Starkey highlights ethnic tensions in Britain, noting how multiculturalism has led to differential treatment by police towards certain groups. This approach often exempts historically marginalized communities from criticism but stokes resentment among those who feel excluded from such protections.
In conclusion, divisive issues related to immigration, policing practices, and freedom of speech are intensifying debates within the UK as leaders grapple with maintaining order amid rising discontent.
Tim Walz’s a joyful, effective communicator with an impressive background. Even as a conservative, I acknowledge that. However, the media critical of him focus on his liberal policies in Minnesota and warn against the financial implications if he gains more power.
Tim Walz is known for being progressive and not moderate within his party. His selection has been controversial; critics label him extreme and blame him for unrest in Minnesota.
Contrastingly, Trump confidently faced the media while Harris avoided it. She briefly engaged with press questions but should face more to provide unscripted answers.
The discussion shifted to riots in the UK and their dynamics influenced by racial tensions and new right-wing outlets like GB News funded by foreign interests possibly aimed at sowing division.
Debates also touched on low fertility rates driving immigration and multiculturalism despite resistance from some who prefer understanding over emotional responses.
Media outlets sensationalize news for attention but elite media balance this with maintaining status among certain demographics or advertisers’ support—highlighting Joe Biden’s cognitive decline was avoided due to civility norms despite its obviousness to many outside elite circles.
Lastly, discussions turned to two-tier policing where different communities receive varied police treatment highlighting disparities without much mainstream effort to understand white working-class frustrations compared to other groups’ riots.
The British government has a policy of multiculturalism and has been dispersing refugees across the nation to cut costs and encourage assimilation. This, however, leads to increased housing prices in poorer areas due to contracted private landlords raising rents. The government believes spreading migrants out prevents isolated communities from forming and speeds up assimilation.
In an unrelated incident, I witnessed a father with his children dangerously close to traffic. It raised questions about when it’s appropriate to intervene with strangers who may be at risk.
Regarding political figures like Tommy Robinson and David Starkey, opinions vary on their influence and credibility. Trust in commentators is hard-earned since they often speak outside their expertise.
Domestic politics are equally contentious; Labour’s majority doesn’t reflect its popularity or connection with the white working class. Japan’s societal differences also come into focus when comparing it with Britain regarding optimism for the future despite modern comforts.
Finally, media coverage of politicians requires scrutiny as it influences public perception without necessarily providing substance or encouraging accountability in potential leaders.
I often wonder, if foreign support for a political cause is good or bad. The African National Congress accepted Soviet aid and I can’t blame them—they needed help. But does accepting foreign assistance mean we’re part of the problem?
In Britain, I want my country to improve but worry about foreign influence like Russia’s backing of extreme groups. Are they trying to destabilize us? Arrests during riots make me question the freedom to observe protests.
Our prosecutor-turned-leader seems too eager to punish rioters harshly, with no bail and quick prison sentences. It deters people but also punishes those caught in the moment—like the young man jailed for stealing from a bakery.
Stephen: Discussing politics, I don’t trust mainstream media; instead, I follow independent voices online who dare speak out against current issues. People are apolitical in real life; they accept gender equality on the surface but avoid discussing sensitive topics openly due to fear of repercussions.
Online speech restrictions have grown significantly though people still speak freely in private settings. There’s a class divide in political correctness adherence—with working-class individuals less influenced by it than middle- or upper-class ones.
The UK has its own set of problems: work environments without English speakers, healthcare access issues, housing shortages—all affecting deprived communities who feel overlooked by media and elites.
Humor is restricted; feminism isn’t prominent among everyday folks who focus more on practical matters than ideology. Political correctness awareness exists yet doesn’t dominate casual conversations as much as one might think.
As for sexual divides and relationship dynamics among youth—it varies across social classes with different attitudes toward sex and relationships evident between age groups and backgrounds.
Luke: Despite having its issues, England’s government still provides a better quality of life than most people in history or the world today. While it may not be as prosperous as neighboring Luxembourg, it holds up well compared to other nations. However, our perception of the world is often biased by our own attitudes – optimists see positive news while pessimists focus on doom and gloom.
The media feeds into these biases with their stories. For instance, I’ve observed that society has become too comfortable pressing the “easy button,” losing resilience in the process. It seems like genuine grit is dwindling as more people rely on external support systems rather than internal strength.
Kip: Financial concerns have grown even for those who are technically millionaires due to inflation eroding what was once considered wealth. The concept of community and culture feels audacious now; there’s an overwhelming sense that we’re spiraling down into madness.
Financially speaking, debt levels are alarming. As interest rates rise from 3.9% to 4.1%, worries about economic stability increase alongside them. Observing spelling bees reveals how immigrant children outperform native ones, suggesting a decline in homegrown excellence.
Luke: In education too, passion-driven learning seems rarer among local students compared to their Asian counterparts who excel through rote learning and pragmatic approaches—yet innovation typically emerges from those willing to explore beyond test material.
Kip: Concerns also extend to regional banks struggling with low-interest loans and potential bailouts by governments which could lead us further towards dependency on state assistance rather than self-reliance.
Looking at global dynamics, countries like Saudi Arabia have begun questioning long-standing agreements like oil trade in US dollars—a sign that America’s influence might be waning as others grow tired of playing by rules set predominantly for US benefit.
The accumulation of gold by Asian governments contrasts sharply with sales in America over the past decade; this shift signals a possible transfer of wealth and power Eastward despite America’s military might keeping it dominant—for now.
Finally, discussing whether another country could challenge American dominance remains speculative but highlights underlying shifts away from traditional power structures toward something new yet undefined.
In the past, the English Tory party was seen as self-worshipping and undeserving of its own admiration. England’s history is marked by significant advancements such as increased life expectancy, prosperity, health improvements, and mass literacy—all starting here. Yet now we face a unique situation with unprecedented levels of migration since 1997 that surpass even ancient population movements in scale.
Mass immigration began modestly post-World War II but has since escalated dramatically. This surge has had profound impacts on society and has occurred alongside suppressed public debate—a combination that exacerbates problems.
Turning to human rights discourse, historically it was conservatives who championed these ideals in Europe after World War II—not the left as commonly assumed today. Conservatives saw human rights as a means to protect democracy from tyranny—whether from majoritarianism or totalitarian ideologies within socialism or fascism.
After WWII, British Protestant conservatives valued time-tested institutions over popular sovereignty while Catholic French conservatives sought corporate structures reminiscent of medieval times. Both groups were skeptical about universal rights applications; instead, they favored liberties tailored to specific historical communities.
The conservative push for a European human rights court aimed at protecting individual freedoms against expansive state power reflects this tradition. However, they did not extend these protections universally across all peoples—a notion still debated today regarding European identity amidst growing diversity.
Nowadays in Europe and America alike, there’s contention over how much authority courts should wield versus elected bodies—a reversal from past perspectives where conservatives once advocated for judicial oversight over executive actions.
The complex legacy of conservative involvement in shaping modern human rights continues to influence contemporary politics amid discussions around immigration policy and national identity within an increasingly diverse Europe.
Keir Starmer was a staunch leftist, unchanged over time. Unlike Jeremy Corbyn, who supported Marxist dictators and terrorist groups, Starmer’s alignment is different. He believes in the human rights culture that many Western critics of Israel subscribe to—a culture now questioned by some on the right who see it as undermining social cohesion.
Human rights have become politicized; conservatives once supportive now see them hijacked by progressive agendas. This divide affects global standards and national interests, with each side prioritizing either security or personal liberties.
The United Nations Human Rights Council and associated organizations champion human rights but are seen by some as biased against Israel. Critics argue that universities chase popularity rather than truth, often ignoring flawed science for fame or funding—mirroring issues found in corporations and governments alike.
In academia and media, incentives encourage networking over honesty; criticism can jeopardize one’s standing within an institution or community. The quest for evidence-based self-help is challenging since what works varies from person to person without clear scientific backing.
Finally, discussions about addiction treatment highlight how complex clinical advice gets oversimplified online for mass appeal—reflecting systemic pressures across platforms promoting easily digestible content at the expense of nuanced accuracy.
WP: Jose gazed at the wall sign that read, “In the morning when I rise, give me Jesus,” and pondered how his brother Jeremiah was using Christianity to gain fame. With a large social media following, Jeremiah spread far-right beliefs claiming Trump was chosen by God. Jose’s frustration grew as he saw his brother twist religion for political gains.
Jeremiah led a church and school preparing for end times, sold e-courses on prophecy, and shared supposed divine messages about American politics online. Meanwhile, 37-year-old Jose struggled with dead-end jobs to support his small ministry in Alabama.
Their father always sided with Jeremiah which pained Jose who felt compelled to speak out against false prophets leading believers astray. Despite knowing it could cause family strife or attract public criticism from strangers labeling him delusional or worse.
Finally deciding to act, Jose posted a message challenging religious fabrications on Facebook. He knew morality sometimes meant speaking up even if it risked conflict with those closest to you.
The story illustrates complex dynamics within families where success contrasts sharply with struggle; how personal narratives must adapt when faced with such disparities; and the tension between loyalty and truth amidst differing interpretations of shared experiences.
Addressing broader issues like gender roles in combat or cultural oppression claims underscores societal debates over equality versus recognizing inherent differences among groups—highlighting that liberal perspectives often prioritize some harms over others depending on ideological stances.
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
