Supplementary Materials 7: Guru Oneupmanship, Hard Ad Pivots, and Left Wing Populism
Added 2024-05-27 05:33:25 +0000 UTCWe curse the dark omens emerging from the Gurusphere as we consider:
The Illusion of Disciplinary Boundaries
Flint Dibble Feedback and Rays of Hope
Russell Brand and Bret Weinstein: Guru One-upmanship
Bret Weinstein loves MOINNNNK
Hard Ad Pivots and Peasants Popping out of Wells
Ken Klippenstein and Populist Rhetoric
Questioning mainstream narratives and their so-called 'experts'
QAnon Anonymous missing Left Wing Populism?
Alex O'Connor, Jordan Peterson and the costs of indulgent podcasting
Chris reaching across boundaries to Jonathan Pageau
Our only comment on the Drake and Kendrick Feud
The beautiful ballet of reaching across the aisle
Terence Howard on Rogan
Links
Comments
The world would be very different today if Hitch had lived
jss
2024-06-03 18:11:06 +0000 UTCEpisode 96 is on Ayn Rand
Josh Dowdell
2024-05-31 21:31:51 +0000 UTCI was a bit surprised to hear Philosophize This as an example of ad reads contradicting the message. I didn't think Philosophize This is endorsing the philosophies they cover, just describing them and their historical impact. No?
Josh Dowdell
2024-05-31 13:54:23 +0000 UTCI’ve been meaning to photocopy and send to Dan at Knowledge Fight for awhile. But I’m missing two volumes, which are probably buried somewhere in my Grandmothers apartment. So I want to find them first.
TheSoilWillSaveUs
2024-05-30 16:51:23 +0000 UTCThis is very funny @TheSoilWillSaveUs, I'd suggest releasing the book to the world, but you'd probably receive a whole lot of harassment.
Matt
2024-05-30 09:51:38 +0000 UTCI listen to the show pretty regularly, so it might be that I have different context to the framing than you, but that doesn't mean I'm correct in my assumption. QAA does have a pretty casual podcast-y attitude, they definitely meme-ify a lot of the ideas they cover, for better or for worse. I listened to the section of the QAA section again, 39:45-42:25. You're right, it is framed as Intercept 'covering up' the story, charitably I'd suggest this is intentionally tongue-in-cheek. Ken K does play it down, and say it's mostly OAPs "guy's at death's door", and calls it a 'glorified Elks club'. The QAA hosts also play it down, suggesting the mystique got away from it, and it's likely just a 'summer camp for old guys". The reference to 'Moloch' at the end of the section is a nod to the owl meme that another commenter mentioned, they sell a shirt on their site related to their meme about Bohemian Grove conspiracy theories. https://merch.qanonanonymous.com/products/mos-tee So, while they are treating the subject with a degree of reverence, I would still suggest that's a stand-in for the types of people they cover, and a nod to in-jokes on the subject. Anyway, sorry for diving a bit too deep into this than was necessary.
Matt
2024-05-30 09:49:59 +0000 UTCOh, that's not actually what I'm referring to at all, ha ha. It's that QAA have been spending so much time and energy trying to convince me to pay for the bonus feed for Manclan, and Spectral Voyager and their movie review shows. But again, while I won't give them extra cash for it all, I genuinely want Travis, Liv, Jake, Annie and Julian to prosper as much as possible. I think I have a real soft spot for them because (aaaaah fuck, I may be about to say something unfair, but I'm speculating here...) unlike the gang from Some More News and Behind The Bastards (who I subscribe to, dutifully, despite me often eye-rolling at their politics), they didn't come from a successful platform like CRACKED.com and then pivot over to their own thing because they had to. And that pivot came with plenty of sponsorships and ironic "Can't believe we're doing this" ad reads.
JustTheWorstEver
2024-05-30 05:02:44 +0000 UTCI think their bonus content has always been a little more political. They joke about this, especially regarding the difference between Julian, Jake, and to some extent Liv vs. Travis. But I do hear what you are saying, I think they vacillate in terms of how the view the purpose and scope of the podcast. They probably would not enjoy the comparison but I treat the political a bit like I treat the political stuff on the Fifth Column, in that I notice the skew, it sometimes frustrates but I appreciate their deep dives and critical eye.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-30 03:48:42 +0000 UTCWell your recommendation got me into them, so you have a more long-term view than I do I'm sure! I still think we've come a long way from interviewing Jon Ronson about Bohemian Grove/Alex Jones to helping a well-established journalist pimp out his new substack in the name of "Journalism for the people, without so-called experts...MAAAAANNNN." And in the last two years they've also been blowing up the feed with promotional samples of their various extra-curricular shows from the Patreon feed, to emphasize that what they're REALLY into nowadays in not the format I fell in love with. But I feel like the Q Anon phenomenon and it's connection to various international conspiracies and historical paranoias are about wrung dry for content by now, so more power to them.
JustTheWorstEver
2024-05-30 03:39:31 +0000 UTCYeah, you're right. A rare misfire on their part.
Eddy Wyn
2024-05-30 03:21:30 +0000 UTCMatt that does not seem to me to reflect the way the reveal of the list is being framed in the episode or by Klippenstein. Wasn't he referencing it as a story that the elites were trying to bury? They are making fun of the members but also treating the release of the list as a genuine important story... and I don't really get why, if the narrative is that the group is just a silly rich person club.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-30 02:18:39 +0000 UTCI thought this was somewhat in line with their content. They occasionally have episodes that are a bit like this.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-30 02:16:04 +0000 UTCYeah, but this is being billed as an expose story. What should make this news is how the conspiracy community will react to it, but that is not what is presented. What is presented is that elites are trying to prevent the release of the list, and it will be broke by another journalist soon.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-30 02:15:19 +0000 UTCSo, one of my grandfather’s was a member. So I can confirm your point, at least from what I remember. The Grove was just a place he went every summer to get fucked up with his buddies and do naked Shakespeare productions. The idea that it was anything more important than that has always seemed somewhat odd. I actually think I have an old members roll somewhere in his copy of “The History of the Bohemian Club”.
TheSoilWillSaveUs
2024-05-29 23:03:21 +0000 UTCGood point on them giving Ken K a bit of a pass though, esp that ending question. Time will tell.
Matt
2024-05-29 19:26:14 +0000 UTCThe reason QAA are interested in Bohemian Grove is because they have covered the conspiratorial communities 'theories' on it extensively. It was one of the earliest things they covered, there has been a 'memeification' of aspects of the theories within the QAA community, and amongst the hosts themselves. It is not because they are interested in who's involved because it will 'lift the lid' on some great conspiracy. If anything it's interest in who would be lame enough to join such a lame group of rich people dicking about in the woods. From Klippenstein's comments it sounds a lot like the Garrick Club. Mens only space for those who can afford the ticket in terms of credit and cultural capital. Fairly innocuous, but it's still a bunch of influential people getting together. Not that they wouldn't be doing that anyway.
Matt
2024-05-29 19:03:29 +0000 UTCI love the QAA crew, but I worry that this new episode with KK is a yet another signal that their content is moving on into directions I'm not going to follow.
JustTheWorstEver
2024-05-29 14:53:03 +0000 UTCTrue. But don't they regularly feature recent developments/news regarding the lore they cover?
Eddy Wyn
2024-05-28 16:19:25 +0000 UTCAgain, it’s not guaranteed that he’ll become a clout chasing guru, but the framing of “now I’m my own boss, so I can do anything” is not quite right. There’s financial and social pressure from being paid directly by the audience.
Ben Godek
2024-05-28 15:19:30 +0000 UTCAt this stage Jordan would stay far away from an interview with Hitchens. I think the most similar person he’s talked to is Matt Dillahunty, and that went famously badly for him.
Ben Godek
2024-05-28 15:06:39 +0000 UTCHaha no, she is part of the "force the vote" crowd along with Jimmy Dore, which lost her a lot of credibility in my eyes. But yes that is also possible for Klippenstein.
David Noble
2024-05-28 14:27:51 +0000 UTCI'm not finding that much on his SubStack that would be particularly surprising. It seems pretty much in line with what I would expect from a left wing journalist who worked at the Intercept.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-28 08:30:18 +0000 UTCI agree with your assessment of Klippenstein's rhetoric but I'm inclined to give him a pass on this one because that introductory post is in effect an advert. He has left his job and wants to make an appeal to get people to subscribe to him. I think most of his reporting is sincere if this is the last self aggrandizing post he makes them I don't think it's a big deal.
Subodh Kafle
2024-05-28 07:13:25 +0000 UTCIdk I think a huge part of Ken's appeal is that he writes stuff his readers don't even realise they wanted to read. People like him because they feel like he finds stuff they would never ordinarily know about.
Subodh Kafle
2024-05-28 07:11:05 +0000 UTCThe thing that everyone like Klippenstein misses is that their oversight isn’t gone, it’s been handed over to the audience directly. The “editorial” pressure will now be to write about topics that keep/gain subscribers. You become kind of like Konstantin Kisin when he noticed “Hey when I say nice things about religion, my audience grows” and then leaning into that.
Ben Godek
2024-05-28 05:28:56 +0000 UTCI hope every supplemtary materials contains a 1 minute closing clip of that Terrance Howard interview.
Adam Sher
2024-05-28 04:32:49 +0000 UTCJust finished the episode. Another great one lads. Laughed at Chris thinking his one sentence meant he couldn't say goodbye 🤣. On the Alex and JBP point. You know who was able to keep up the energy, and occasionally even gain friends among his opponents without sacrificing his integrity for popularity. Christopher Hitchens. He is missed more than ever. I'd love to have seen him come across the likes JBP and call a spade a spade.
Kyle
2024-05-28 04:29:03 +0000 UTCI didn't know anything about the journalist prior to this episode so maybe that was a good thing because hearing the rhetoric it was very clear what the issues are. Might have to set our watches to check in on him in future to see what road he went down.
Kyle
2024-05-28 02:32:52 +0000 UTCI totally agree it is significant for those of us who pay attention to this stuff but I think probably most in Peterson's audience would have thought he said something like this before.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-28 01:03:34 +0000 UTCThat’s fair enough. I do wish his climate change and medical views, in particular, would be challenged more. It’s obvious these podcast personalities are scared of the sheer scale of his audience and influence. I do still think you’re underestimating that line about the resurrection. It was the first time I saw someone break through his impenetrable word salad and intentional obfuscation like that. I’m hopeful it sowed doubt for some regarding his other views as well. However, I will concede I am quite steeped in Peterson lore and online guru personality nonsense, in general. Anyways, thanks for another enjoyable listen.
Matt C
2024-05-28 00:49:14 +0000 UTCIt would not have extracted that sentence because he would have become too combative before that, but I feel like that’s kinda my point. Alex needed to treat Peterson with kid gloves and indulge him for hours to be able to extract one line in which he admits he does probably think the resurrection happened. I do think that’s an achievement… but I also think it’s fairly meaningless for 99% of people not deep in Peterson lore. So he’s reluctantly half endorsed the resurrection… this is fairly on brand given how much he obsesses over Christianity and the Bible. I’m glad Alex did the interview and extracted that sentence but I also think to do so he had to avoid discussing contentious issues, like vaccines and conspiracies (or see the edited section on doing science meaning you are religious). Alex probably doesn’t want to focus on that anyway but I think most criticism of JBP isn’t because he half believes in the resurrection.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-28 00:43:37 +0000 UTCProbably not, but I’m glad his imperfect approach was able to elicit a response from Peterson that countless other interviewers and interlocutors failed to do. It may not make a difference to those that were already firmly in the anti JBP camp, but I think that it was very important for those still on the fence about JBPs religious views to hear that. I think an approach like one would expect from someone interviewing Alex Jones may have been too heavy handed and bore no fruit whatsoever.
Matt C
2024-05-28 00:32:02 +0000 UTCYes, I was totally unaware of him until I listened to the episode today and read the Substack piece you referred to. I don’t know anything about his prior journalism. I agree that his positioning himself as the lone warrior for truth is suspect and should make one wary.
Linda Sears
2024-05-28 00:22:03 +0000 UTCThanks!
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-28 00:20:36 +0000 UTCAnd David I would expect more like Briahna Joy Gray, but maybe you like her?
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-28 00:19:19 +0000 UTCMaybe check out the Hayek Episode #139. Oh oops. Yeah, what Zack said. Actually, I'd be curious if you tried to decode Stephen West. He's the least guru-y kind of guy I can imagine. He just loves philosophy and is grateful that he makes a living talking about it on his Podcast. He had a hard childhood and used to work in a grocery store from what I remember of earlier episodes where he would sometimes reveal more about himself.
brianshmrian
2024-05-28 00:19:10 +0000 UTCExactly Monica, Ken might very well do great work and there are plenty of legitimate things to critique but that doesn’t mean he isn’t styling himself as Bret Weinstein. We listen to a lot of gurus… and I could have taken whole paragraphs from his substack and put them in the worst gurus content and it would fit nicely. Plus he failed to hit the soft ball that QAnon Anonymous threw him at the end of the interview… which is worrying.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-28 00:17:54 +0000 UTCBut in covering the Grove, they haven’t been teasing breaking news… they’ve been talking critically about how it features into conspiracy lore. The interviews with Jon Ronson for example do discuss the nature of the group but they weren’t billed as exposes.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-28 00:15:19 +0000 UTCI thought I mentioned on the episode that Alex’s approach bore some fruit with Peterson? But the flip side of this is the conversation with Pageau. Alex did a good job of getting Peterson to admit in one qualified sentence that he thinks the resurrection happened. Do you think Alex ever has a conversation with Peterson about his Alex Jones level conspiracy theories?
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-28 00:13:35 +0000 UTCBari Weiss has editors… and no Klippenstein’s rhetoric was thick.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-28 00:01:36 +0000 UTCI think they are both primarily self promotional narcissists. That doesn’t mean they can’t report on things that are true or deserve criticism. I also think, in general, it’s good to pay attention if you find people ‘good’ when talking about something that you agree with them on.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-27 23:58:04 +0000 UTCI thought that by far the more interesting thing to come out of the Alex/JBP interview was JBP admitting that he believes in the biblical resurrection in a literal sense. I thought Alex did a good job pushing back on JP's beliefs in a way that was most likely to get JBP to reveal the absurdness of his beliefs, which he ultimately did. I was surprised at the snippet that was covered instead.
Matt C
2024-05-27 23:27:41 +0000 UTCHey guys. I truly can’t figure out how I feel about Greenwald. His constant banging on the left and rarely about the right is definitely annoying. But his willingness to call out Israel and his seemingly consistent free speech views keep me listening to him. Is there something I’m missing? Admittedly that would be something I could easily be doing given that I barely made it out of high school. Kind of the same with Taibbi but I can’t listen to him anyway cuz he creeps me out for some inexplicable deep seated psychological problem I probably have.
Rod Hodges
2024-05-27 22:56:06 +0000 UTCI heard that too in the qaa episode and felt a little heartened. We’ll see though…
Monica B.
2024-05-27 22:55:49 +0000 UTCActually, the Bohemian Grove segment of this episode was the only part of it that was not incongruous for QAA. They have an entire episode dedicated to Bohemian Grove and how it figures into the QAnon universe. (Their owl merch is related to this.) It was the only part of the episode I found relevant to QAA's general interest and scope (and ultimately disappointing). My guess is that's the real reason they had him on. They were hoping he would reveal more on The Grove story.
Eddy Wyn
2024-05-27 22:55:05 +0000 UTCI have gotten a lot from Klippenstein’s reporting in the past, and am here for his exposing the grossness of US military general-to-board-member-and-talking-head norms, so I subscribed to his substack fairly early…but at the free level because his aggrieved ‘I’m your voice now’ schtick was seriously rubbing me the wrong way, and I totally saw the greenwald/weiss/taibbi etc. similarities. Shudder. I can critique capitalist media with the best of ‘em, and it’s a real issue, but I also really like the presence of regulations and institutional checks and balances and editors and fact checkers and even the occasional lawyer ; ) Super appreciated your framing of it!
Monica B.
2024-05-27 22:54:58 +0000 UTCYeah Weiss was very self-aggrandising in her resignation from the Times(?). But we know that because we can compare her words to her work. Same goes for every journalist, who I take as default aspire to be brave truth-tellers unless they're some comfortable columnist grumbling about kids these days. If Klippenstein ends up on Tucker Carlson or Jimmy Dore then you can rub it in.
David Noble
2024-05-27 22:27:27 +0000 UTCIn the qaa episode Ken k did say he was bringing sn editor with him. Might not be the same as a whole editorial department or legal staff but are we getting too sceptical?
Swilly
2024-05-27 22:08:46 +0000 UTCYes there is even marketing departments at big media organisations. But this is a little different than the personalised self promotion. Compare Bari Weiss to the Guardian.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-27 21:44:09 +0000 UTCI think my argument is better put this way: What journalistic outfit DOESN'T say they are going to pursue the truth and hold the powerful to account? "Here at the Telegraph we will be pandering to the comfortably wealthy and conservative!"
David Noble
2024-05-27 21:39:09 +0000 UTCIf I remember correctly, he started off as a conservative growing up, I listened to every episode through like 160 on release but it’s been a minute. The Austrians and Marx episode might be good. It’s literally been like 7 years since I’ve listened to it though. An Adam Smith episode could be good too or when he covers Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. Nozick as a response to Rawls is also probably helpful.
Zack Katopodis
2024-05-27 21:28:26 +0000 UTCI’d bet you a pint of Guinness he’s not an advocate for capitalism 😉. But I’m interested in how that plays out. I found the Marcuse and Frankfurt episodes easily enough, do you have any episodes you would recommend for him representing a philosopher who is pro-capitalist or something like it? Ayn Rand maybe?
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-27 21:09:47 +0000 UTCRight… but my point here is people simply doing work you like/respect/agree with doesn’t mean they are not capable of becoming self promotional guru types. There are many prominent examples of this occurring. So pointing to someone doing work you respect, I don’t think should be the criteria you use to notice if someone is engaging in self serving populist rhetoric. 🤷🏻♂️ But as long as people aren’t basing that on whether the person politically agrees with their views, I think it’s 👍.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-27 20:59:58 +0000 UTCOooh ooh! Instead of the "I am very intelligent" meme, I think the dril tweet meme applies here: "the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron""
David Noble
2024-05-27 20:37:25 +0000 UTCI'm not going to jump to conclusions based on some similar rhetoric. Past work is all I can really go on when it comes to trust in journalists or politicians. Greenwald and Taibbi earned a measure of respect from their past work which they threw away, so it goes.
David Noble
2024-05-27 20:30:31 +0000 UTCThis happened to me as well - both the amusing juxtaposition listening to that episode of Philosophize This, and also wondering if something had gone wrong with my player while this listening to this supplemental materials episode. As for Stephen West, I've never been able to figure out his personal views. It's as Zack says. Stephen West just presents each topic as clearly as he can. I think it's a big selling point of his podcast.
brianshmrian
2024-05-27 20:25:13 +0000 UTCThere certainly can be corporate/management meddling in journalism (and academia). The whole premise of the Drop the Dead Donkey series from the 90s is based on lampooning that, so it’s certainly not an unknown thing. But the legitimacy of Ken’s complaints are I think a separate issue from whether he is engaging in self-serving populist rhetoric, which I would say he absolutely is. I think it’s reasonable to be critical of corporate/management meddling AND self serving populist rhetoric.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-27 20:15:29 +0000 UTCI think the legitimacy of his criticisms and the left wing populist rhetoric are two separate issues. You can be addressing real problems and doing real work and behave like a guru. Everyone assures me Matt Taibbi did great work on the financial crisis.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-27 20:09:14 +0000 UTCI should add that I found his questioning of experts problematic as well since I would think journalists shouldn’t be dismissive of expertise. And I definitely agree with your point that it is best to listen to different media sources.
Linda Sears
2024-05-27 20:04:49 +0000 UTCYeah I get it but was listening to the Philosophize This episodes and had the same whiplash experience that Matt did. I know he’s presenting Zizek’s position but from the framing I’d guess he’s as critical of capitalism as most contemporary philosophers. In any case, people’s standards vary, lots of people don’t see any issue with Hasan’s Ideologie line either.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-27 19:53:46 +0000 UTCDid you like Glenn Greenwald’s work in the past or Matt Taibbi? I think this level of populist rhetoric is a warning flag. That doesn’t mean someone hasn’t done good journalism.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-05-27 19:49:58 +0000 UTCi am glad to hear the QAA episode, you really reframed it for me! i am a longtime fan of them, and i still like them, but it’s a good reminder to be Wary. i didn’t read the sub stack post, which when I did, I think was.. less nuanced than I thought it would be. that’s egg on my face. but as someone who works in a large institution, and sometimes beat my hands bloody against the same like.. HR department-heavy organisation, I understand the frustration he has, which makes me empathetic to it.
Syster
2024-05-27 18:46:27 +0000 UTCWhen it comes to Ken Klippenstein's rhetoric, I'm not too fussed about its similarity to the gurus as long as he actually lives up to his rhetoric. The big problem with gurus is that they make big claims about standing up against powerful institutions but then lead their followers astray with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. But there are genuinely problematic institutions that good journalists DO investigate and try to hold to account. Focusing only on rhetoric isn't very useful, you need to look at their output. Klippenstein has done good work in the past, I can't say the same for the gurus.
David Noble
2024-05-27 18:44:48 +0000 UTCI have mixed feelings about your coverage of Klippenstein. I didn’t listen to the QAA episode, so I am only responding to what Chris and Matt said and the Substack piece Klippenstein wrote. I dislike the over generalizations Klippenstein made, like that all mainstream media is in the hands of elites as this seems unfair to the journalists and reporters who are doing their best and such language sounds over conspiratorial. Yet it sounds like Klippenstein could be legitimately upset by what he experienced at the Intercept based on what he wrote about in more detail than you went into (stories being cut, for example, and his editor being let go). Since he has been a working journalist, unlike Alex Jones, that makes me think that he has some expertise worth listening to at least as pertaining to the situation he was involved in. I think I’ll hold off on judging him as gurulike until he makes more bizarre claims. It was interesting that he compared his adversaries to Catholic authorities during the Reformation, which goes along with what you said about Jordan Peterson presenting himself as Luther.
Linda Sears
2024-05-27 18:42:24 +0000 UTCCharles Schwab is a great place for ordinary people to put their money! They can invest in the stock market without being rich or financial experts and without big fees. A conspiracy minded person would think this fellow wants his listeners to be ignorant about wise investing so they’ll be reliant on big government programs!
Lucy
2024-05-27 16:47:07 +0000 UTCSprinkle some of that Big Iron Ore on your slab of Moink, and you'll be 2" taller if not a foot!
Roscoe 112
2024-05-27 16:40:06 +0000 UTCYeah Schwab is one of the better ones for everyday people. I just thought that example highlighted his ignorance and I would be suspicious of any of his takes, to say nothing of his reporting
James P.
2024-05-27 16:34:47 +0000 UTCI opened up the comments as soon as he said this. Taken literally, Klippenstein is saying he does not want to write for anyone who is investing for retirement. Not to mention that the big brokerages like Schwab, despite their problems (like the robo-advisor lawsuit), have been instrumental and giving the average person access to investment vehicles with lower management and transaction fees over the decades as they compete with each other for customers.
Yoloswag42069
2024-05-27 16:28:48 +0000 UTCQAA often falls into the basic leftist monocausal critique of seemingly all modern problems as stemming from capitalism. Behind the Bastards is another show I like that does the same thing. The content they cover is usually interesting, but the higher level theorizing is relatively simple.
Brice F
2024-05-27 16:09:10 +0000 UTCGlad to hear Klippenstein’s QAA appearance discussed. Julian’s framing coupled with Ken’s hyperbolic grievance mongering was driving me insane. Was hoping Travis might offer some pushback re: the worthlessness of experts.
Kyle Wilson
2024-05-27 15:13:40 +0000 UTCAlso, I definitely do not take Stephen West as being hypocritical doing that ad read, as far as I understand, he’s not a Marxist. He just presents everyone’s ideas that he covers. It’s unclear whether that’s what you were getting at, or if that was just a funny/jarring example of ad reads.
Zack Katopodis
2024-05-27 14:02:53 +0000 UTCThe cut to the “Philosophize This!” ad read was so abrupt I thought I accidentally skipped onto my next podcast Lmfao .
Zack Katopodis
2024-05-27 13:56:22 +0000 UTCJust want to thank you both for speaking in normal speaking voices all the time and not doing the "grand presenter voice."
Randy
2024-05-27 12:36:56 +0000 UTCExcellent materials
Rufus Evans
2024-05-27 11:56:37 +0000 UTCOmg it was Bret who made the sound! https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxA65o8i4MKT6EWFuvFSbmbbRbEfSxGgef?feature=shared
DJ Wearing
2024-05-27 11:33:43 +0000 UTCQaa has dropped in quality, but this probably connected to the fall of Qanon
Tobias nilsson
2024-05-27 09:53:51 +0000 UTCLove those supplementary material episodes! Thanks guys!
Julie
2024-05-27 09:18:18 +0000 UTCI unironically enjoyed the μ-oink ad read. Who knew he could be such a whimsical un-pretentious character :D
mobitobi
2024-05-27 08:59:17 +0000 UTCClassic #Mattrix at 45:00 talking about the globalist gathering at ‘DaveOs’ where Rubin, Chapelle and Smith convene to preserve the sanctity of the ‘Dave’.
john statham
2024-05-27 08:58:47 +0000 UTC"Why are they advertising Charles Schwab? You don't go to the store and buy Charles Schwab" Charles Schwab is one of the largest retail investment firms. You don't have to be a rich elite or a business to open a brokerage account or IRA with Schwab lol. This dude is a ding dong
James P.
2024-05-27 07:50:30 +0000 UTCI haven't listened yet, but as a general election has been called in the one true country I expect this podcast to conform to the rules of impartially and mention the Green Party. (The SupMat episodes are always great, thank you :)
Ymirsdreams
2024-05-27 07:17:22 +0000 UTC
