It's fair enough for Pete to say that he's king of his podcast hill, or his substack hill, or whatever hill he chooses, from which to express his opinions. But it seems to me that a couple of things are missing from this equation. The first is that people aren't usually looking for open-mindedness. That is not a criticism of the audience, it's human nature. When someone is involved in a legal battle, they hire a lawyer - an advocate, not a judge. They don’t want their lawyer to act as a conduit for arguments from all sides, they want someone who will prosecute their side. Then the judge will do his or her job. The media space is analogous to a legal battle in that feelings run high on every side of nearly every issue. So once opinions are formed, people are expecting an advocate for their ideas, but instead they get a judge who is bending over backwards to hear the other side of the story. If they want to hear the other side, the typical listener will go find someone to express that other side.
Nothing says you have to recognize this aspect of human communication, but it is what it is, and you will be kicking against the goads if you expect anything else. You can still have your hill to call your very own, it will just be going against the tide of human nature.
But there is a second aspect to all this, and that is that someone like Pete always has the option to limit comments to paying supporters. One could argue that by casting a broad net with open comments and then complaining vociferously about those that end up being critical or antagonistic, one is trying to have one's cake and eat it, too. If you don't want to accept harsh criticism, then close your comments and make it clear from the start that you want an echo chamber. And while you are at it, be intellectually honest enough to applaud the fact that X and Facebook, and Amazon, and every other platform out there will censor you, deplatform you, demonetize you, and shadow ban you, because when you think about it, those behaviors are just their way of saying that they are kings of their hills (which happen to be bigger than your hill), and that if you don't want to applaud their opinions, then go start your own social media platform. Fair enough to go either way, but it isn't intellectually honest to try to have it both ways, and to complain about both critical listeners and the problems of censorship.
Substantively, the reprimand that everyone who disagrees should go start their own podcast is antithetical to the very idea of free speech. When opinions are expressed, especially if they carry moral implications, can you honestly expect people to remain silent? Two writers who ordinarily have commentary that is not stellar, but which is useful enough, have chosen, for some unknown reason, to feature and promote scantily clad women in suggestive poses. Do you not understand why that would evoke a visceral response from some members of their audience, with individuals feeling compelled to respond at that site, and not run to start their own podcast to respond? It is the immediacy of response, the directness of confrontation, that makes disagreement meaningful and gives free speech its value. You will be doing your detractors a favor if you close your comments, because the moral imperative that might be driving them to respond will then be satisfied - they tried to respond, but couldn't. Moral obligation satisfied.
It is tiresome to listen to a podcast, thinking it will be about geopolitical something or other, and end up listening to two grown men complain about how annoying their audiences can be. Grow up. Pick a side. Go for the king-of-the-hill, echo chamber model, close your comments, give annoying people their money back if you weren't clear about where your content would be headed (which is the right thing to do) and celebrate the fact that others will censor you. Then everyone knows where you stand, and that is fair enough. If not, accept that the public, as a general rule, will feel no obligation to censor itself if you keep your comments open while you attempt to represent competing sides of the same issue. Good luck.
Luttwak … Luttwak. I have his books somewhere on a shelf. Nothing inspiring enough to have taken notes. But there's certainly nothing wrong with interviewing someone who's boring, right? He wrote a book about coups. Wikipedia said one of his predictions about something or other turned out to be wrong. Nobody gets it all right. So why would someone object to anyone having Luttwak on as a guest - a boring writer who makes mistakes?
I haven't been paying attention to what you or Quinones have been doing. I never heard of Quinones until I stumbled upon him here, and after I unsubscribed from your podcast some time ago, I've never come back to your site to visit to see what you're doing. The only reason I landed back here at all is because you seem to be advertising with Mike Adams on Brighteon (not a fan) and so there you are in my feed again. If you advertise, you are saying to the public, here I am, take a look at what I have to say. Right? Right. So I did. Per the implied invitation to the public by virtue of the Brighteon promos. You had a bunch of promos, so I watched a bunch of interviews.
Since I had no idea what could be objectionable about Luttwak, I started looking around - and lo and behold, you interviewed him too! What luck. I read the comments first. You respond with such favor to the listener who compliments you for interviewing Luttwak. You appreciate his appreciation because you were expecting some antagonistic comment for hosting him. You've got this bonding thing going on with this listener. Good for you. Bonding is a good thing.
Beneath it all, however, both you and Quinones seem to have or to be expecting hostile comments, all because of Luttwak. The suspense is killing me. I must listen to see what all the fuss is about. A high risk proposition because you and Quinones have made it clear that you wish anyone who stops short of throwing rose petals at your feet for your work would just shut up and get out of your face. And how could I possibly carry on if I were unable to post comments here?
Luttwak … Luttwak. What could it be? Well, there's the arrogance, of course, but anyone who is so lauded as a writer, as he makes clear he is, gets to be arrogant, as he also makes clear he is. There must be more. Keep listening, keep listening. Wait! Back up a minute. Did you hear that reprimand to the Gazans? Shhh. Did you hear it, too, what the maestro of political analysis has to say? Why didn't they just go away and emigrate to some other place, like most responsible defeated peoples do. Yes, but of course. I must have learned that principle in civics class somewhere, too - or if not, surely I can find it in the … Bible (you know, that book you wish people would stop referring to). If you are attacked by an enemy and you lose it is your responsibility to go away quietly. Go jump in the sea, if you must, I suppose. And the Gazans even have a sea! Of course, it had never occurred to me - the Gazans are the guilty ones, including the little ones who weren't even born yet, for not disappearing themselves! But after listening to Luttwak, by golly I got it! I Got it!
The Bible (whoops, did it again) makes it clear that at the end of days the Jews will be slaughtered by the armies of the antichrist. Two thirds will be killed. One third will be left. The third, the remnant, will be carried away into the nations as slaves. We should not celebrate this, not for any group of people. Not for God's people. The magnitude of the slaughter should give everyone pause. We should care for the remnant. But for Mr. Luttwak, who is so proud of Israel's ability to acquire a nuclear bomb while the Iranians are still bumbling around with incomplete parts, well, this should be exactly what he would want - for the third that remain, that is. That is what a defeated peoples should do - they should remove themselves from the land which their conquerors now occupy. We should applaud the nations for carrying them off, to help them along. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Right?
This isn't offensive to you because you've got this thing going on, Hrvoje - that innocent look where you say, "Hey, I'm just a dude down here in Mexico." Don't come after me for having some guest on because I present the other side, too, you say. Is that how it works? You listen, stone-faced, making no defense, no objection, not even offering a question to suggest that something might be a bit off with Luttwak's analysis. Stone-faced.
Are you that morally tone deaf? (That's a real question, I've dropped the sarcasm here.) People of good conscience can disagree about a lot of different things, but I am not aware of anyone with a moral compass, Christian or not, who thinks that a message (unopposed) of death and displacement is neutralized by interviewing someone else with a contrary opinion. Many things are debatable. Slaughter is not. But you're just a dude with a microphone down there in Mexico, and that gives you special license to do what no other dude can do. Right?
I am revolted at the thought of what I heard. It makes me sick to my stomach, it is so offensive. Everyone who isn't tone-deaf when it comes to human communication knows that when confronted with a morally reprehensible statement, a person who has agency to intervene and remains silent is signaling assent. When you put evil on the same footing as the good, you stand with evil. That is because, although evil can accommodate the good, the good cannot accommodate evil. Poisoned water is poison, and if your podcasts are a well of dialog, then you have poisoned your well. A listener - who also has agency, although to a lesser degree, because all a listener can do is write a comment, you hear something that enters your psyche, and you can either spit it out in disgust, or it rots within you and weighs on your conscience, for becoming a person who doesn't speak out.
Start your own podcast, declares Quinones. But such ugliness requires direct disavowal - not running to say it behind someone's back. Here and now I speak from conscience. Now I understand the feedback that you and Quinones got, or were expecting. I can only surmise that others who object to Luttwak have done so for the same reasons as mine. And what do you do, Hrvoje? You insult those who speak from conscience, as I do, as they do. You offend their conscience, in direct defiance of the instructions in the Word of God. You, you and Quinones, you provide a forum for those who advocate the destruction of the innocent and tell people with a conscience to shut up.
I have seen you promote a guest who advocates for microdosing psychoactive drugs, while you hold up a vial of something or other in your own hand That is a temptation to sorcery. The internet would be a better place, not without those who object to what you do, but without you. It would also be for your own good. Because when the remnant of Israel is carried off, I would not want to answer for the words that Luttwak spoke, that you and Quinones have enabled, that have caused your listeners to speak with approval about what he has said. For the good of the Gazans, for the good of Israel itself, we must speak peace and defend the innocent - not peace as one side of a debate, not defense of the innocent as one option among many, but peace and defense of those who cannot defend themselves as the only legitimate position to take. And that, you do not do.
Apparently, what Pete has FAILED to COMPREHEND.......is that there is NO 'left' or 'right', in the District of Criminals (D.C.).......they ARE the UNIPARTY!
They BOTH.......are ON THE SAME SIDE......and CHARGED WITH (via ORDERS from their Globalists' MASTERS) DESTROYING AMERICA! As one can LOOK BACK and SEE.......with EVERY 'D' President, and EVERY 'R' President! ALL did their part in DISMANTLING this country!
What We, The People witness, coming from the District of Criminals......is PURE THEATRE!
THEATRE, for the DUMBED-DOWN MASSES!!
TRAITOR Trump is NOT going to deport ILLEGALS.
WHY???......
Because the ILLEGALS serve the purpose of DESTROYING AMERICA!
AmeriKa/AmeriKans are to be BROUGHT DOWN to 3rd World living conditions.
And the ILLEGALS ARE A WAY TO HELP DO THIS!
"YOU WILL OWN NOTHING, AND BE HAPPY!" <<<< STILL the PLAN!
The reason we are all so upset is because we worked hard all our life to gain some kind of retirement for ourselves. The taxes were removed at 50% if you ever got to a point where you could save any part of your income. Now, the money that remains is worthless. And to make things worse the society that we supposedly funded to bring ACTUAL JUSTICE to people who break the laws : They are completely immune to prosecution. OUr 2 tiered justice system acts as predators and parasites upon the very persons who funded it. THAT'S WHY I'M DEPRESSED.
Great guest, rant and conversation. I enjoyed it.
Do not comply with tyranny. Exit the centrally controlled fiat currency system.
Great interview!
What are the conversations like behind closed doors of the secret societies?
It's fair enough for Pete to say that he's king of his podcast hill, or his substack hill, or whatever hill he chooses, from which to express his opinions. But it seems to me that a couple of things are missing from this equation. The first is that people aren't usually looking for open-mindedness. That is not a criticism of the audience, it's human nature. When someone is involved in a legal battle, they hire a lawyer - an advocate, not a judge. They don’t want their lawyer to act as a conduit for arguments from all sides, they want someone who will prosecute their side. Then the judge will do his or her job. The media space is analogous to a legal battle in that feelings run high on every side of nearly every issue. So once opinions are formed, people are expecting an advocate for their ideas, but instead they get a judge who is bending over backwards to hear the other side of the story. If they want to hear the other side, the typical listener will go find someone to express that other side.
Nothing says you have to recognize this aspect of human communication, but it is what it is, and you will be kicking against the goads if you expect anything else. You can still have your hill to call your very own, it will just be going against the tide of human nature.
But there is a second aspect to all this, and that is that someone like Pete always has the option to limit comments to paying supporters. One could argue that by casting a broad net with open comments and then complaining vociferously about those that end up being critical or antagonistic, one is trying to have one's cake and eat it, too. If you don't want to accept harsh criticism, then close your comments and make it clear from the start that you want an echo chamber. And while you are at it, be intellectually honest enough to applaud the fact that X and Facebook, and Amazon, and every other platform out there will censor you, deplatform you, demonetize you, and shadow ban you, because when you think about it, those behaviors are just their way of saying that they are kings of their hills (which happen to be bigger than your hill), and that if you don't want to applaud their opinions, then go start your own social media platform. Fair enough to go either way, but it isn't intellectually honest to try to have it both ways, and to complain about both critical listeners and the problems of censorship.
Substantively, the reprimand that everyone who disagrees should go start their own podcast is antithetical to the very idea of free speech. When opinions are expressed, especially if they carry moral implications, can you honestly expect people to remain silent? Two writers who ordinarily have commentary that is not stellar, but which is useful enough, have chosen, for some unknown reason, to feature and promote scantily clad women in suggestive poses. Do you not understand why that would evoke a visceral response from some members of their audience, with individuals feeling compelled to respond at that site, and not run to start their own podcast to respond? It is the immediacy of response, the directness of confrontation, that makes disagreement meaningful and gives free speech its value. You will be doing your detractors a favor if you close your comments, because the moral imperative that might be driving them to respond will then be satisfied - they tried to respond, but couldn't. Moral obligation satisfied.
It is tiresome to listen to a podcast, thinking it will be about geopolitical something or other, and end up listening to two grown men complain about how annoying their audiences can be. Grow up. Pick a side. Go for the king-of-the-hill, echo chamber model, close your comments, give annoying people their money back if you weren't clear about where your content would be headed (which is the right thing to do) and celebrate the fact that others will censor you. Then everyone knows where you stand, and that is fair enough. If not, accept that the public, as a general rule, will feel no obligation to censor itself if you keep your comments open while you attempt to represent competing sides of the same issue. Good luck.
We are being manipulated by our labels.
Disavow them all.
https://open.substack.com/pub/joshketry/p/our-labels-are-a-big-problem?r=7oa9d&utm_medium=ios
Luttwak … Luttwak. I have his books somewhere on a shelf. Nothing inspiring enough to have taken notes. But there's certainly nothing wrong with interviewing someone who's boring, right? He wrote a book about coups. Wikipedia said one of his predictions about something or other turned out to be wrong. Nobody gets it all right. So why would someone object to anyone having Luttwak on as a guest - a boring writer who makes mistakes?
I haven't been paying attention to what you or Quinones have been doing. I never heard of Quinones until I stumbled upon him here, and after I unsubscribed from your podcast some time ago, I've never come back to your site to visit to see what you're doing. The only reason I landed back here at all is because you seem to be advertising with Mike Adams on Brighteon (not a fan) and so there you are in my feed again. If you advertise, you are saying to the public, here I am, take a look at what I have to say. Right? Right. So I did. Per the implied invitation to the public by virtue of the Brighteon promos. You had a bunch of promos, so I watched a bunch of interviews.
Since I had no idea what could be objectionable about Luttwak, I started looking around - and lo and behold, you interviewed him too! What luck. I read the comments first. You respond with such favor to the listener who compliments you for interviewing Luttwak. You appreciate his appreciation because you were expecting some antagonistic comment for hosting him. You've got this bonding thing going on with this listener. Good for you. Bonding is a good thing.
Beneath it all, however, both you and Quinones seem to have or to be expecting hostile comments, all because of Luttwak. The suspense is killing me. I must listen to see what all the fuss is about. A high risk proposition because you and Quinones have made it clear that you wish anyone who stops short of throwing rose petals at your feet for your work would just shut up and get out of your face. And how could I possibly carry on if I were unable to post comments here?
Luttwak … Luttwak. What could it be? Well, there's the arrogance, of course, but anyone who is so lauded as a writer, as he makes clear he is, gets to be arrogant, as he also makes clear he is. There must be more. Keep listening, keep listening. Wait! Back up a minute. Did you hear that reprimand to the Gazans? Shhh. Did you hear it, too, what the maestro of political analysis has to say? Why didn't they just go away and emigrate to some other place, like most responsible defeated peoples do. Yes, but of course. I must have learned that principle in civics class somewhere, too - or if not, surely I can find it in the … Bible (you know, that book you wish people would stop referring to). If you are attacked by an enemy and you lose it is your responsibility to go away quietly. Go jump in the sea, if you must, I suppose. And the Gazans even have a sea! Of course, it had never occurred to me - the Gazans are the guilty ones, including the little ones who weren't even born yet, for not disappearing themselves! But after listening to Luttwak, by golly I got it! I Got it!
The Bible (whoops, did it again) makes it clear that at the end of days the Jews will be slaughtered by the armies of the antichrist. Two thirds will be killed. One third will be left. The third, the remnant, will be carried away into the nations as slaves. We should not celebrate this, not for any group of people. Not for God's people. The magnitude of the slaughter should give everyone pause. We should care for the remnant. But for Mr. Luttwak, who is so proud of Israel's ability to acquire a nuclear bomb while the Iranians are still bumbling around with incomplete parts, well, this should be exactly what he would want - for the third that remain, that is. That is what a defeated peoples should do - they should remove themselves from the land which their conquerors now occupy. We should applaud the nations for carrying them off, to help them along. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Right?
This isn't offensive to you because you've got this thing going on, Hrvoje - that innocent look where you say, "Hey, I'm just a dude down here in Mexico." Don't come after me for having some guest on because I present the other side, too, you say. Is that how it works? You listen, stone-faced, making no defense, no objection, not even offering a question to suggest that something might be a bit off with Luttwak's analysis. Stone-faced.
Are you that morally tone deaf? (That's a real question, I've dropped the sarcasm here.) People of good conscience can disagree about a lot of different things, but I am not aware of anyone with a moral compass, Christian or not, who thinks that a message (unopposed) of death and displacement is neutralized by interviewing someone else with a contrary opinion. Many things are debatable. Slaughter is not. But you're just a dude with a microphone down there in Mexico, and that gives you special license to do what no other dude can do. Right?
I am revolted at the thought of what I heard. It makes me sick to my stomach, it is so offensive. Everyone who isn't tone-deaf when it comes to human communication knows that when confronted with a morally reprehensible statement, a person who has agency to intervene and remains silent is signaling assent. When you put evil on the same footing as the good, you stand with evil. That is because, although evil can accommodate the good, the good cannot accommodate evil. Poisoned water is poison, and if your podcasts are a well of dialog, then you have poisoned your well. A listener - who also has agency, although to a lesser degree, because all a listener can do is write a comment, you hear something that enters your psyche, and you can either spit it out in disgust, or it rots within you and weighs on your conscience, for becoming a person who doesn't speak out.
Start your own podcast, declares Quinones. But such ugliness requires direct disavowal - not running to say it behind someone's back. Here and now I speak from conscience. Now I understand the feedback that you and Quinones got, or were expecting. I can only surmise that others who object to Luttwak have done so for the same reasons as mine. And what do you do, Hrvoje? You insult those who speak from conscience, as I do, as they do. You offend their conscience, in direct defiance of the instructions in the Word of God. You, you and Quinones, you provide a forum for those who advocate the destruction of the innocent and tell people with a conscience to shut up.
I have seen you promote a guest who advocates for microdosing psychoactive drugs, while you hold up a vial of something or other in your own hand That is a temptation to sorcery. The internet would be a better place, not without those who object to what you do, but without you. It would also be for your own good. Because when the remnant of Israel is carried off, I would not want to answer for the words that Luttwak spoke, that you and Quinones have enabled, that have caused your listeners to speak with approval about what he has said. For the good of the Gazans, for the good of Israel itself, we must speak peace and defend the innocent - not peace as one side of a debate, not defense of the innocent as one option among many, but peace and defense of those who cannot defend themselves as the only legitimate position to take. And that, you do not do.
There are UNTOLD (empty) factories that have shut down, over the DECADES.
We do NOT need to BUILD more factories; we need to resurrect those that already exist.
(same goes for HOUSING, by the way!)
But, manufacturing will NEVER come back to the USSA!
Not with the HIGH COSTS (aka INFLATION) that is killing this country!
And that's just for starters.
There is a long list of the 'why' ANY business, in the USSA, is DOOMED to FAIL!
And it's ALL........BY DESIGN!
"YOU WILL OWN NOTHING, AND BE HAPPY!" <<< STILL the PLAN!
(who told you that is wasn't????)
Apparently, what Pete has FAILED to COMPREHEND.......is that there is NO 'left' or 'right', in the District of Criminals (D.C.).......they ARE the UNIPARTY!
They BOTH.......are ON THE SAME SIDE......and CHARGED WITH (via ORDERS from their Globalists' MASTERS) DESTROYING AMERICA! As one can LOOK BACK and SEE.......with EVERY 'D' President, and EVERY 'R' President! ALL did their part in DISMANTLING this country!
What We, The People witness, coming from the District of Criminals......is PURE THEATRE!
THEATRE, for the DUMBED-DOWN MASSES!!
TRAITOR Trump is NOT going to deport ILLEGALS.
WHY???......
Because the ILLEGALS serve the purpose of DESTROYING AMERICA!
AmeriKa/AmeriKans are to be BROUGHT DOWN to 3rd World living conditions.
And the ILLEGALS ARE A WAY TO HELP DO THIS!
"YOU WILL OWN NOTHING, AND BE HAPPY!" <<<< STILL the PLAN!
(who told you that it wasn't???)
The reason we are all so upset is because we worked hard all our life to gain some kind of retirement for ourselves. The taxes were removed at 50% if you ever got to a point where you could save any part of your income. Now, the money that remains is worthless. And to make things worse the society that we supposedly funded to bring ACTUAL JUSTICE to people who break the laws : They are completely immune to prosecution. OUr 2 tiered justice system acts as predators and parasites upon the very persons who funded it. THAT'S WHY I'M DEPRESSED.
The Via con Carney Clown car is also quite a spectacle, careening through the center ring smoking and sputtering. We hope many clowns will emerge.