Interesting take. But when did Victor Davis Hansen, Dr Carol Swain, Jeffrey Tucker, Thomas Sowell, etc. ever discuss such things? Where is Douglas looking ? How jejune of him. Rogan has his place but in the end he’s “entertainment” not who one looks to for deep analysis.
Please, everyone watch/listen to this interview. In my mind, Lawsuit Alpha is official bought and paid for by someone. Douglas Murray destroyed his own credibility with logical fallacy after logical fallacy, and Lawsuit Alpha is either too dumb to recognize that, or trying REALLY hard to cover it up.
I completely agree with you. The reason so many people believe in conspiracies is because if you do the modicum of research, most of them are true. It’s not some redneck sitting by the campfire repeating gossip as scary stories, they are based off reality and reality really is stranger than fiction. This writer just sounds like another snob that refuses to be open minded about what is really happening despite every bit of evidence to the contrary.
So, you didn't watch this at all, did you? Rogan spent a grand total of about 5 min speaking. And I guess you've missed the half dozen or so pro-Israel guests that Rogan has hosted...
Ask yourself why Rogan couldn’t conduct the interview himself?
Let’s just say you want to have a conversation with me with something we disagree on and I bring my obnoxious friend that does all the talking and I hide behind him- just popping out now again to agree-
you would say I’m a coward for bringing another person.
Nope one against one. What happened often was Murray would say something elitist and nonsensical that critiqued a former guest that wasn’t there to answer his accusations, so Rogan responded.
I also think that you’re misunderstanding the show. The two were invited on to debate each other. No one was deceived about that. I understand now why you’re being so protective. It was a debate, Murray struggled, first by criticising the host and then not debating the facts.
How often does the guest pick an argument with the host? Murray invited the response. And no, letting Murray just spout on is not better than being in a debate… it’s different. I’m sure he gave you all his greatest hits on Modern Wisdom. There’s a time for softball questions and then there’s debate. If Murray was interested in having one, instead of incessantly whining about how weird it was that “unqualified” people have opinions ( oh the irony!) he wouldn’t have crashed so hard.
How did Murray argue the vast majority of the debate? Emotionally. Btw, emotions are fine. Why else do we bother to try to get things right? But it’s always good to ally emotion with fact. Logic. Historical accuracy. Intellectual honesty. None of which were displayed by Murray on the day. When it was presented to him that the IMF recognised the Israeli blockade of Gaza, he shrugged it off and tried à rhetorical device of trying to shame Smith for not visiting the region?? While he was woefully lacking in understanding of basic facts. I’m sorry that you didn’t get the result you wanted. But too often that man has been allowed to get away with charm and eloquence substituting for ethical decency and reality.
I have seen well done ‘debates’ and also well done interviews, Douglas Murray was just interviewed by Chris Williamson, which I could highly recommend.
A moderator needs to stay neutral-which clear Rogan couldn’t and wouldn’t.
And he was unable to conduct a conversation with Murray on his own because he obviously knew that Murray will make him look bad.
Perhaps you should watch good debates and interviews instead of the mind rot of Rogan.
Again, I know what a debate looks like. Usually the debaters concentrate on the subject, not the moderator. If you actually watch the episode you’ll see that Murray broke the rules and opened the door to Rogan’s responses. Again. Facts, reality, not an emotional narrative which, like Murray, you seem unable to release.
You clearly haven’t seen all the other episodes where more than one guest has been invited to debate each other. You should check out the Graham Hancock one where another palaeontologist was invited to challenge his work. There are others. Murray was given a platform and chose to bring Rogan into the debate. You have a particular perspective that’s not accurate to the set up. But it’s yours, no problem.
Murray was stuck in giving a simple coherent reason why not visiting a place where deep controversy & conflict occurs makes your commentary seriously lacking. I'm surprised he wasn't able to articulate that. I agree with Douglas on this, do what are the reasons? Of course we're still entitled to an opinion on the matter, but there are serious reservations if one hasn't been there. So, why?
1) If one hasn't been there then you're more susceptible to propaganda, to distortions, b/c you haven't seen the actual physical terrain where certain restrictions were/are imposed.
2) Instead you use your imagination to visualize such restrictions.
3) The size of the place matters, the narrowness of streets where firefights occurred, where strafing guns were placed (above or at street level?)
4) The full range of sensory input would help understand the emotions experienced by both sides at critical points.
5) If such sensory input is imagined, & the physical layout is imagined, & the violence is seen via selected & edited videos, then all your knowledge of that issue & event is based on others' interpretations & their possible bias, propaganda.
6) Going there would give a journalist a sense of connection to the place & what happened there. It might restrain you from jumping to purely ideological conclusions.
Except yoU didn’t win th gender wars, Erin Friday (et al) did. And it may truly happen that someday, if not already, Gates’ drones deliver aerosolized vaccines to the unsuspecting. Please excuse us weirdos “out there” who have cracked under th weight of Everything, because being Awake-not-Woke now assumes over caffeinated sleep deprivation.
I can see your point! Conservatives have the tailwind, don’t squander it! Now’s the time to cement their position with honest, mainstream beliefs and policies. That said, most of the conspiracy theories of a few years ago have been proven to be true! So where and when do we decide the conspiracy is a conspiracy and not a fact? Asking for a friend!
I hear you. Sometimes it can be crazy, But for the longest time critics thought the big problem was “woke” when really the problem was that people were asleep. Some of the “ craziest” conspiracy theories are actually now documented fact. I can see a lot of people with vested interests not liking that.
Did DM actually defend the Luciferian Yis-Ra-EL Cabal!? (or was he only defending his ego?) The clips were not enough to discern this.
Besides this, it is honestly an over simplification to equate Joe Rogan with all who are right and thus All who are Not beguiled "Progressive Leftist" (self hate traitorous snowflakes).
The only real dumb people are those that trust any politician! A career politician is by definition a compromised person or else Very very naive in a world DOMINATED by a cabal of Quazi JEWISH psychopaths. For the record: I have not befriended or ever met one of the Cabal, have never been in Palistine or Khazaria! However, I do not have a PhD but a Laptop and a well functioning, logical and analytical MIND.
Years ago I was a waitress then I went to uni, did a PhD and I’ve been an ‘academic’ ever since. Joe Rogan, like me and many others shifted jobs - Joe found something he’s really good at. He talks to who interests him - that’s his call. Murray thinks academics etc are ‘experts’ but most have little knowledge outside a narrow field of expertise (and even this is usually contested knowledge) and know little outside of their one of two mainstream news outlets of choice. (You should see the biased ‘lived experience’ PhDs being churned out of universities now) Rogan is a a generalist, knowledge-wise - and he has been expanding his thinking and knowledge through long-form conversations with different guests over many years. People are allowed to shift jobs, they’re allowed to develop their knowledge base, they’re allowed to focus on what interests them (except academics/experts, who should be dissuaded from research based on their lived experience and then justifying their subjectivities). most PhDs / academics aren’t smart, most are dull thinkers, ideologues, and trained to think narrowly within very narrow parameters. There were good ideas in this episode from both Murray and Smith - but Smith was more logical and he wasn’t a smug pain in the ass.
Israhell is full of Thieves and criminals just put bars around it and its the biggest prison on earth. This is the reason why they hate everyone and try to buy your sympathie for their sins.
Oh no! The NYT thoinks we are crazy rednecks, what can we do to get back in the liberal media’s good graces? I don’t know and I don’t care, pack of lying, paid off, corrupt elite. Go running back to them if their approval means so much to you.
Interesting take. But when did Victor Davis Hansen, Dr Carol Swain, Jeffrey Tucker, Thomas Sowell, etc. ever discuss such things? Where is Douglas looking ? How jejune of him. Rogan has his place but in the end he’s “entertainment” not who one looks to for deep analysis.
Please, everyone watch/listen to this interview. In my mind, Lawsuit Alpha is official bought and paid for by someone. Douglas Murray destroyed his own credibility with logical fallacy after logical fallacy, and Lawsuit Alpha is either too dumb to recognize that, or trying REALLY hard to cover it up.
I completely agree with you. The reason so many people believe in conspiracies is because if you do the modicum of research, most of them are true. It’s not some redneck sitting by the campfire repeating gossip as scary stories, they are based off reality and reality really is stranger than fiction. This writer just sounds like another snob that refuses to be open minded about what is really happening despite every bit of evidence to the contrary.
What really stood out is that Rogan needed another guy to help him talk to Douglas Murray.
Like bringing someone else in the boxing ring really.
Two against one.
Playing on their own home ground.
Rogan is a coward.
And a gate keeper.
And why do these people such as him and the other guy call themselves comedians, when they are not funny?
‘ oh I’m just a comedian’
Is very disingenuous.
Two home turf fake comedians against one non comedian who states factual information-
And all the numpties will say ‘oh Murray lost.’
Look at why.
No, what happened there was Rogan put two guys together that he liked who had opposite views on big issues.
Two against one.
On Rogans home turf.
Unfair.
Rogan appears as a chicken who doesn’t want to be challenged.
So, you didn't watch this at all, did you? Rogan spent a grand total of about 5 min speaking. And I guess you've missed the half dozen or so pro-Israel guests that Rogan has hosted...
Ask yourself why Rogan couldn’t conduct the interview himself?
Let’s just say you want to have a conversation with me with something we disagree on and I bring my obnoxious friend that does all the talking and I hide behind him- just popping out now again to agree-
you would say I’m a coward for bringing another person.
Because it would be two against one.
Which is unfair.
Rogan showed himself to be a coward.
Nope one against one. What happened often was Murray would say something elitist and nonsensical that critiqued a former guest that wasn’t there to answer his accusations, so Rogan responded.
Rogan controls every part of the show.
His silence.
His facial expressions.
Who gets framed in what light.
Who he wants the audience to like.
Who gets to speak.
It’s all a show dictated by Rogan.
But obviously Rogan was feeling intimidated by Murray and needed another person to apply pressure.
Otherwise he would have run the interview himself.
It’s quite telling really..
Why would Rogan have Murray in the show at all if he found him “ intimidating?”
He controls the staging for both guests.
What came out of Murray’s mouth is his own responsibility.
What are you on about?
I also think that you’re misunderstanding the show. The two were invited on to debate each other. No one was deceived about that. I understand now why you’re being so protective. It was a debate, Murray struggled, first by criticising the host and then not debating the facts.
How often does the guest pick an argument with the host? Murray invited the response. And no, letting Murray just spout on is not better than being in a debate… it’s different. I’m sure he gave you all his greatest hits on Modern Wisdom. There’s a time for softball questions and then there’s debate. If Murray was interested in having one, instead of incessantly whining about how weird it was that “unqualified” people have opinions ( oh the irony!) he wouldn’t have crashed so hard.
He’s not as smart as you clearly think he is.
Joe Rogan has never made me laugh…!
The moment the ‘ comedienne’ said - ‘don’t you care babies are dying.. both Rogan and me have babies.. don’t you care about the babies..’
It was then that sticks out as not a debate but a cowardly attack by two people who only know to argue emotionally.
You can think this was a debate but you should perhaps widen your world to include people other than Rogan and co.
How did Murray argue the vast majority of the debate? Emotionally. Btw, emotions are fine. Why else do we bother to try to get things right? But it’s always good to ally emotion with fact. Logic. Historical accuracy. Intellectual honesty. None of which were displayed by Murray on the day. When it was presented to him that the IMF recognised the Israeli blockade of Gaza, he shrugged it off and tried à rhetorical device of trying to shame Smith for not visiting the region?? While he was woefully lacking in understanding of basic facts. I’m sorry that you didn’t get the result you wanted. But too often that man has been allowed to get away with charm and eloquence substituting for ethical decency and reality.
I have seen well done ‘debates’ and also well done interviews, Douglas Murray was just interviewed by Chris Williamson, which I could highly recommend.
A moderator needs to stay neutral-which clear Rogan couldn’t and wouldn’t.
And he was unable to conduct a conversation with Murray on his own because he obviously knew that Murray will make him look bad.
Perhaps you should watch good debates and interviews instead of the mind rot of Rogan.
Then you will know the difference.
Again, I know what a debate looks like. Usually the debaters concentrate on the subject, not the moderator. If you actually watch the episode you’ll see that Murray broke the rules and opened the door to Rogan’s responses. Again. Facts, reality, not an emotional narrative which, like Murray, you seem unable to release.
You clearly haven’t seen all the other episodes where more than one guest has been invited to debate each other. You should check out the Graham Hancock one where another palaeontologist was invited to challenge his work. There are others. Murray was given a platform and chose to bring Rogan into the debate. You have a particular perspective that’s not accurate to the set up. But it’s yours, no problem.
Murray was stuck in giving a simple coherent reason why not visiting a place where deep controversy & conflict occurs makes your commentary seriously lacking. I'm surprised he wasn't able to articulate that. I agree with Douglas on this, do what are the reasons? Of course we're still entitled to an opinion on the matter, but there are serious reservations if one hasn't been there. So, why?
1) If one hasn't been there then you're more susceptible to propaganda, to distortions, b/c you haven't seen the actual physical terrain where certain restrictions were/are imposed.
2) Instead you use your imagination to visualize such restrictions.
3) The size of the place matters, the narrowness of streets where firefights occurred, where strafing guns were placed (above or at street level?)
4) The full range of sensory input would help understand the emotions experienced by both sides at critical points.
5) If such sensory input is imagined, & the physical layout is imagined, & the violence is seen via selected & edited videos, then all your knowledge of that issue & event is based on others' interpretations & their possible bias, propaganda.
6) Going there would give a journalist a sense of connection to the place & what happened there. It might restrain you from jumping to purely ideological conclusions.
Except yoU didn’t win th gender wars, Erin Friday (et al) did. And it may truly happen that someday, if not already, Gates’ drones deliver aerosolized vaccines to the unsuspecting. Please excuse us weirdos “out there” who have cracked under th weight of Everything, because being Awake-not-Woke now assumes over caffeinated sleep deprivation.
Thank you. We can't let the loons take over our side. The Democrats allowed the lunatics in their party to run things.
I can see your point! Conservatives have the tailwind, don’t squander it! Now’s the time to cement their position with honest, mainstream beliefs and policies. That said, most of the conspiracy theories of a few years ago have been proven to be true! So where and when do we decide the conspiracy is a conspiracy and not a fact? Asking for a friend!
I hear you. Sometimes it can be crazy, But for the longest time critics thought the big problem was “woke” when really the problem was that people were asleep. Some of the “ craziest” conspiracy theories are actually now documented fact. I can see a lot of people with vested interests not liking that.
Did DM actually defend the Luciferian Yis-Ra-EL Cabal!? (or was he only defending his ego?) The clips were not enough to discern this.
Besides this, it is honestly an over simplification to equate Joe Rogan with all who are right and thus All who are Not beguiled "Progressive Leftist" (self hate traitorous snowflakes).
The only real dumb people are those that trust any politician! A career politician is by definition a compromised person or else Very very naive in a world DOMINATED by a cabal of Quazi JEWISH psychopaths. For the record: I have not befriended or ever met one of the Cabal, have never been in Palistine or Khazaria! However, I do not have a PhD but a Laptop and a well functioning, logical and analytical MIND.
DM is usually the strongest intellectual in any room he’s in. Period
Years ago I was a waitress then I went to uni, did a PhD and I’ve been an ‘academic’ ever since. Joe Rogan, like me and many others shifted jobs - Joe found something he’s really good at. He talks to who interests him - that’s his call. Murray thinks academics etc are ‘experts’ but most have little knowledge outside a narrow field of expertise (and even this is usually contested knowledge) and know little outside of their one of two mainstream news outlets of choice. (You should see the biased ‘lived experience’ PhDs being churned out of universities now) Rogan is a a generalist, knowledge-wise - and he has been expanding his thinking and knowledge through long-form conversations with different guests over many years. People are allowed to shift jobs, they’re allowed to develop their knowledge base, they’re allowed to focus on what interests them (except academics/experts, who should be dissuaded from research based on their lived experience and then justifying their subjectivities). most PhDs / academics aren’t smart, most are dull thinkers, ideologues, and trained to think narrowly within very narrow parameters. There were good ideas in this episode from both Murray and Smith - but Smith was more logical and he wasn’t a smug pain in the ass.
Well spoken!
The big tell in the snippets are the questions that weren't asked.
Israhell is full of Thieves and criminals just put bars around it and its the biggest prison on earth. This is the reason why they hate everyone and try to buy your sympathie for their sins.
This is coming from the premise that the MSM is still relevant, they’re not and never will be again.
Hope that becomes reality
It became a reality long ago, they’re slowly realising it.
Oh no! The NYT thoinks we are crazy rednecks, what can we do to get back in the liberal media’s good graces? I don’t know and I don’t care, pack of lying, paid off, corrupt elite. Go running back to them if their approval means so much to you.
Nasty zionist arse fucker