I hate how these people always respond. Like, it was an awkward question (understandable, considering all the pressure not to ask it), but the dismissive attitude of the "top minds" of the culture war is frustrating. I wish they'd be willing to honestly engage. It doesn't have to be 'heil Hitler' or 'gas gas gas' or anything, either. In fact, it obviously shouldn't be. But I'd love an honest discussion, instead of mockery or outright defense.
"So, Jews are everywhere in these things we don't like, what do you say to that?"
"Jews are, like, the best, bigot."
There's some middle fucking ground to be had, here.
They'll willingly talk about anything else, and act so smug and brave when they're dunking on leftists or trannies, or whatever.
They'll willingly talk about anything else, and act so smug and brave when they're dunking on leftists or trannies, or whatever.
Consider: Walsh is affiliated with the Daily Wire, Shapiro's outfit, right? Ben Shapiro's whole brand is dunking on safe targets while distracting from the most salient questions. A right wing two-minutes' hate.
So while Walsh may be more palatable than Shapiro himself, he's presumably bound up in the style of contract Crowder rejected-- tied to advertisers through a Jewish boss (Shapiro) who is being actively promoted by the likes of Facebook as controlled opposition.
Yes, Walsh is waving a flag around right now. He's just another rodeo clown keeping the enraged bulls away from anyone important.
My "conspiracy theory" is at the highest levels its two groups of jews fighting over an whose idea will rule the world.
The "liberals" puppet masters are globalist jews who want to dissolve nations entirely in favor of a "star trek" style global government, run by them of course, to prevent the possibility of any force removing them from power. They do this by weakening national identity, pushing multi-culturalism, and supporting any anti-religious framework including the faggotry we are seeing everywhere. They also support multi-national corporations and "agreements" and treaty organizations which remove sovereignty from nations.
The "conservative" puppet masters are zionist jews who are focused on strengthening and funneling resources toward israel, using their control of the US and other nations to fight proxy wars for them, and engaging in economic and cultural warfare against any country that isn't under their control.
Every issue can be boiled down to "does this weaken the US/West" "does this strengthen israel".
I agree with this take 100% except that I think as a practical political matter it has only negative value. I think it is an interesting question though I favor more grounded explanations that look at the demographic characteristics of Jewish people (income, education, intelligence, "minority status", professions) that already highly correlate with leftism/technocratic thinking. Add to that their own normal racial bigotry/nepotism and a, in some ways justifiable, paranoia of nationalism (outside Jewish nationalism, and the hypocrisy of Jewish people on these issues is dreadful but not unique). I think that makes Jewish people poor fellow citizens but extraordinary conspiracy theories require extraordinary evidence, particularly in light of more (IMO) reasonable explanations.
The question then is how "naming the Jew" moves the needle in any positive direction in a society and culture that is unready to have even more basic discussions regarding leftism than that (Walsh can't get people to stop mutilating their own children in a completely insane scheme to turn them into a different gender). All it does is play directly into a trap/narrative the enemies of the right have created. It allows the vast majority of people to dismiss everything you have to say and for the enemies of the right to smear and censor.
I don't even need them to "name the Jew," I just want to live in a free society where you can even answer a question about them.
As to how it moves the needle in a positive direction, I'd say it moves the needle in a free speech direction, and a true equality direction. You should be able to talk about the merits and problems of any group, whether they be black, white or, yes, Jewish.
I agree with you, though, that in the current scenario it is quite the trap question. You have very few incentives to honestly address it, and so many incentives to not engage, it makes sense that people keep dodging.
If I was in his position, I'd like to say I'd behave differently...but I probably wouldn't. If I was independent, perhaps, but in the exact same position? Where my boss is a self-professed Zionist Jew? Even acknowledging the question is going to get you in really hot water, if not outright fired and blacklisted.
It's a question Shapiro himself should be addressing. And, I've heard him mildly address it a few times. I too want to live in that world where we can all have this discussion in the open. I think that we get closer to that world by avoiding the traps until we can rebuild the culture into one that can handle it.
Imagine that twitter and all other social media platforms collectively banned all discussion about pineapple on pizza. You are not allowed to discuss it, or even suggest that it could be a pizza topping. The only acceptable response to anyone even hinting about it being a topping, or suggesting that it could taste good, is met with instant derision and contempt, then banned. You're instantly faced with a ton of articles written about you by people who have market incentives for other toppings to be chosen instead, calling you delusional and insane, and claiming that you clearly need medication if you think it could work or be tasty.
The problem is not that free speech about pineapples would make it tastier as a topping, or would particularly advance other causes. The problem is that it is a fact that it is a topping, and that there is no valid reason that you're not allowed to simply state the truth.
The problem is that it is a fact that it is a topping, and that there is no valid reason that you're not allowed to simply state the truth.
That's actually a pretty good analogy, and pretty much how I feel. It's not even about "the Jews" for me, it's that I resent they're treated so specially, and you can't even talk about it.
Well it’s pretty simple, Jewish people have undue influence on government based on the very ideologies the majority spot. Jews are also 95% one ethnicity (ashkenazi) in the US and 80% one ethnicity (ashkenazi) worldwide. There’s no other ethnic group in the US that has this level of racial Puritanism. There’s legimate questions that need to be discussed when the most ethnically pure group in the US also heads up the SPLC, ADL, and ACLU.
But what do you say to something like that? Hell, I don’t even know. I see stuff about the Jews posted on here all the time and even I’m like “yeah I guess they do control a lot of shit”, but who would you go after? Because everyone knows that the one thing they have to keep everyone in line is the holocaust. It’s an immediate career killer when you even hint at saying Jewish people have too much control. Basically kiss any future career opportunities goodbye. You would barely be able to find a job flipping burgers after that. That’s how much control Jewish people have. So once again, how do you even respond to a question that guy asked? I don’t think you can.
A lot of people correctly understand that accusations of racism are largely meaningless and used almost exclusively to control people and silence legitimate viewpoints.
Accusations of anti-Semitism are no different. They are, in fact, much worse by din of being much more effective.
Until we can eliminate the power of these words over us, we will never be free.
I'm probably just ignorant of the context and who the question asker was (for all I know he's a famous wignat) but am I the only one here who thinks it was an obvious setup? I don't know what the ideal answer would have been but if Matt was suspicious of that, it was wise not to create any media soundbites.
I mean, most people have "free" shows, but the audience can still contribute. It's the basic structure for most online shows and, even the ones that are paywalled usually have a free component to hook people over and drive discoverability. Most shows are free.
If it's free, who is funding it?
Silly question, and you obviously want the answer to be Big Whamen.
Yes, but all those "free" shows are on platforms where ad revenue gives some kind of safety net.
Not even true. Plenty of those shows are mostly or entirely audience funded, since YT is lame and demonetizes them. So people have been running actually free shows for ages, it's nothing new.
He's also not exclusively on Twitter, either. Other platforms will have ad revenue and, again, this isn't a new business model, or anything to be suspicious of. Also, Matt Walsh is big name, he could even have a contract directly with Twitter, for all we know. Even if it's not exclusive, and not to anywhere near the same degree, this is a little like Spotify snagging Joe Rogan. Twitter wants this, to pull in even more creators. Rumble has also been paying creators directly, so there might be another contract there. He's also with the Daily Wire, which has a lot of sponsors.
Again, this is very standard stuff, there's no 'shadow money' or anything (at least no more than with anyone else) just because it's a "free show."
Your question isn't valid it's absurdly obtuse with a sprinkle of im14andverysmart. He gets paid by the Daily Wire. He gets paid by ad revenue from advertisers on his show. He makes additional money for speaking and selling books the value of which increases due to his visibility from the podcast. He's not doing the show for free nor did he (again, to a person of normal functioning) suggest that. You get to watch it without having to go through the Daily Wire paywall which, in normal parlance, qualifies as free.
Not really. The male castration craze was more prominent in the media. I'm not sure why imp is unhappy that he was addressing people convincing men to mutilate themselves
Walsh acts like he's so brave here, yet he becomes cowardly when it comes to a certain issue https://pomf2.lain.la/f/ue1ydie.mp4
And lol twitter is not a free speech platform. Elon Musk caved to ADL
I hate how these people always respond. Like, it was an awkward question (understandable, considering all the pressure not to ask it), but the dismissive attitude of the "top minds" of the culture war is frustrating. I wish they'd be willing to honestly engage. It doesn't have to be 'heil Hitler' or 'gas gas gas' or anything, either. In fact, it obviously shouldn't be. But I'd love an honest discussion, instead of mockery or outright defense.
"So, Jews are everywhere in these things we don't like, what do you say to that?"
"Jews are, like, the best, bigot."
There's some middle fucking ground to be had, here.
They'll willingly talk about anything else, and act so smug and brave when they're dunking on leftists or trannies, or whatever.
Consider: Walsh is affiliated with the Daily Wire, Shapiro's outfit, right? Ben Shapiro's whole brand is dunking on safe targets while distracting from the most salient questions. A right wing two-minutes' hate.
So while Walsh may be more palatable than Shapiro himself, he's presumably bound up in the style of contract Crowder rejected-- tied to advertisers through a Jewish boss (Shapiro) who is being actively promoted by the likes of Facebook as controlled opposition.
Yes, Walsh is waving a flag around right now. He's just another rodeo clown keeping the enraged bulls away from anyone important.
My "conspiracy theory" is at the highest levels its two groups of jews fighting over an whose idea will rule the world.
The "liberals" puppet masters are globalist jews who want to dissolve nations entirely in favor of a "star trek" style global government, run by them of course, to prevent the possibility of any force removing them from power. They do this by weakening national identity, pushing multi-culturalism, and supporting any anti-religious framework including the faggotry we are seeing everywhere. They also support multi-national corporations and "agreements" and treaty organizations which remove sovereignty from nations.
The "conservative" puppet masters are zionist jews who are focused on strengthening and funneling resources toward israel, using their control of the US and other nations to fight proxy wars for them, and engaging in economic and cultural warfare against any country that isn't under their control.
Every issue can be boiled down to "does this weaken the US/West" "does this strengthen israel".
I agree with this take 100% except that I think as a practical political matter it has only negative value. I think it is an interesting question though I favor more grounded explanations that look at the demographic characteristics of Jewish people (income, education, intelligence, "minority status", professions) that already highly correlate with leftism/technocratic thinking. Add to that their own normal racial bigotry/nepotism and a, in some ways justifiable, paranoia of nationalism (outside Jewish nationalism, and the hypocrisy of Jewish people on these issues is dreadful but not unique). I think that makes Jewish people poor fellow citizens but extraordinary conspiracy theories require extraordinary evidence, particularly in light of more (IMO) reasonable explanations.
The question then is how "naming the Jew" moves the needle in any positive direction in a society and culture that is unready to have even more basic discussions regarding leftism than that (Walsh can't get people to stop mutilating their own children in a completely insane scheme to turn them into a different gender). All it does is play directly into a trap/narrative the enemies of the right have created. It allows the vast majority of people to dismiss everything you have to say and for the enemies of the right to smear and censor.
I don't even need them to "name the Jew," I just want to live in a free society where you can even answer a question about them.
As to how it moves the needle in a positive direction, I'd say it moves the needle in a free speech direction, and a true equality direction. You should be able to talk about the merits and problems of any group, whether they be black, white or, yes, Jewish.
I agree with you, though, that in the current scenario it is quite the trap question. You have very few incentives to honestly address it, and so many incentives to not engage, it makes sense that people keep dodging.
If I was in his position, I'd like to say I'd behave differently...but I probably wouldn't. If I was independent, perhaps, but in the exact same position? Where my boss is a self-professed Zionist Jew? Even acknowledging the question is going to get you in really hot water, if not outright fired and blacklisted.
It's a question Shapiro himself should be addressing. And, I've heard him mildly address it a few times. I too want to live in that world where we can all have this discussion in the open. I think that we get closer to that world by avoiding the traps until we can rebuild the culture into one that can handle it.
Here's a shitty analogy:
Imagine that twitter and all other social media platforms collectively banned all discussion about pineapple on pizza. You are not allowed to discuss it, or even suggest that it could be a pizza topping. The only acceptable response to anyone even hinting about it being a topping, or suggesting that it could taste good, is met with instant derision and contempt, then banned. You're instantly faced with a ton of articles written about you by people who have market incentives for other toppings to be chosen instead, calling you delusional and insane, and claiming that you clearly need medication if you think it could work or be tasty.
The problem is not that free speech about pineapples would make it tastier as a topping, or would particularly advance other causes. The problem is that it is a fact that it is a topping, and that there is no valid reason that you're not allowed to simply state the truth.
That's actually a pretty good analogy, and pretty much how I feel. It's not even about "the Jews" for me, it's that I resent they're treated so specially, and you can't even talk about it.
Well it’s pretty simple, Jewish people have undue influence on government based on the very ideologies the majority spot. Jews are also 95% one ethnicity (ashkenazi) in the US and 80% one ethnicity (ashkenazi) worldwide. There’s no other ethnic group in the US that has this level of racial Puritanism. There’s legimate questions that need to be discussed when the most ethnically pure group in the US also heads up the SPLC, ADL, and ACLU.
The middle ground is literal fascism according to the people with the boot on their necks. Anything but zealous crusading has been deemed hate.
But what do you say to something like that? Hell, I don’t even know. I see stuff about the Jews posted on here all the time and even I’m like “yeah I guess they do control a lot of shit”, but who would you go after? Because everyone knows that the one thing they have to keep everyone in line is the holocaust. It’s an immediate career killer when you even hint at saying Jewish people have too much control. Basically kiss any future career opportunities goodbye. You would barely be able to find a job flipping burgers after that. That’s how much control Jewish people have. So once again, how do you even respond to a question that guy asked? I don’t think you can.
A lot of people correctly understand that accusations of racism are largely meaningless and used almost exclusively to control people and silence legitimate viewpoints.
Accusations of anti-Semitism are no different. They are, in fact, much worse by din of being much more effective.
Until we can eliminate the power of these words over us, we will never be free.
I caught a ban on Twitter for posting "Trans Terrorism is Terrorism". Twitter is fully onboard with the troon agenda.
Trans rapists are rapists.
TRA stands for Trans Rape Activist, change my mind.
What a bitch
I'm probably just ignorant of the context and who the question asker was (for all I know he's a famous wignat) but am I the only one here who thinks it was an obvious setup? I don't know what the ideal answer would have been but if Matt was suspicious of that, it was wise not to create any media soundbites.
There's some merit to what you're saying, but I think we can safely assume that no matter how the question was phrased, Matt wasn't going to answer.
I will say that it's easy for me to call him a bitch when it isn't my career on the line.
This seems to prove that Crowder's concerns were correct
https://nitter.nl/MattWalshShow/status/1650603708252831745
The first episode was released here and he goes far more deeper into what happened: https://nitter.nl/MattWalshShow/status/1650578859287273496
So too early to tell if the new guy is worse than Susan or about the same (sound like a bloody optician)
He’ll be much worse. He had to kiss her ass to get promoted.
The woke CEO of twitter was also Indian
he's worse by default, because he's not even american.
I mean, most people have "free" shows, but the audience can still contribute. It's the basic structure for most online shows and, even the ones that are paywalled usually have a free component to hook people over and drive discoverability. Most shows are free.
Silly question, and you obviously want the answer to be Big Whamen.
if its russia, we should thank them
israel funds the woke shit so why not
Not even true. Plenty of those shows are mostly or entirely audience funded, since YT is lame and demonetizes them. So people have been running actually free shows for ages, it's nothing new.
He's also not exclusively on Twitter, either. Other platforms will have ad revenue and, again, this isn't a new business model, or anything to be suspicious of. Also, Matt Walsh is big name, he could even have a contract directly with Twitter, for all we know. Even if it's not exclusive, and not to anywhere near the same degree, this is a little like Spotify snagging Joe Rogan. Twitter wants this, to pull in even more creators. Rumble has also been paying creators directly, so there might be another contract there. He's also with the Daily Wire, which has a lot of sponsors.
Again, this is very standard stuff, there's no 'shadow money' or anything (at least no more than with anyone else) just because it's a "free show."
Now Big Wahmen is secretly funding Matt Walsh, and not the sponsors and company he works for.
Imp gets crazier every post.
Your question isn't valid it's absurdly obtuse with a sprinkle of im14andverysmart. He gets paid by the Daily Wire. He gets paid by ad revenue from advertisers on his show. He makes additional money for speaking and selling books the value of which increases due to his visibility from the podcast. He's not doing the show for free nor did he (again, to a person of normal functioning) suggest that. You get to watch it without having to go through the Daily Wire paywall which, in normal parlance, qualifies as free.
Still got that tranny dick in your mouth huh
Not anymore-- Walsh got demonitized.
Do try and keep up.
Not really. The male castration craze was more prominent in the media. I'm not sure why imp is unhappy that he was addressing people convincing men to mutilate themselves
Because Imp doesn't want anyone to know that, behind the persona, they're a self hating FtM tranny.