while it may be the "clift note comic book version" of what we know, it is still a start, and everyone starts somewhere.
It can also just as often be an end.
It's very obvious that whatever information is passed through AJ, whether accurate or disinfo, feeds into and is filtered by a very specific temperament that AJ seeks to impose upon his audience: histrionic Manichean view of the world "us" (middle class normal folk sheep) vs "them" (a monolithic elite class with seemingly limitless power and purely self interested oppressors of "us"). The problem is that is not how reality bears out. There is no single monolithic "deep state" cabal with top tier administrators and singular purpose.
And I'm guessing AJ is not big on discussing the topic of how often and easily big names in the alternative media space are funded by, controlled by, or surreptiously guided by the very same entities or sympathetic entities that are the target of these media personalities' vitriol.
So no that is NOT a good start because its entraining people who are "waking up" how NOT to critically think, but rather accept the most emotionally convincing alternative narratives out there that give them meaning and directs their anxiety and outrage to pre-determined targets. This is still potentially another version of mass formation psychosis.
And the Hegelian historical dialectic rolls on and on and on ...
All your points valid friend, however I made no reference to good or bad just "a start"
it is still a start, and everyone starts somewhere.
But it begs to question, are bad starts better than no starts at all ?
I've listened to and or read AJ since the early 2000s when few were "going there".
And what is even more concerning to me, Mike Adams who being a food nutritionist, having read and reference his stuff about GMOs and glyphosates for at least 15 years.
In both cases the bulk of their information has proven to be useful, and more importantly a spring board to dig deeper (hence the clift notes).
Is there a preferred pedigree of intellectual evolution, perhaps, but lots of us mutts and mongrels happily coexist out here as well. I for one believe there may be many paths to the summit's plateau.
The emotional manipulation aspect is disturbing, and a useful marketing tool at the same time. No one can argue they are not playing the audience, the only question, to what end?
I do chuckle when I see the "trigger warnings" applied to AJs or Adams links, are we too so fragile we need our "safe spaces" ?
Without question you have presented compelling considerations for all to ponder, thank you.
It can also just as often be an end.
It's very obvious that whatever information is passed through AJ, whether accurate or disinfo, feeds into and is filtered by a very specific temperament that AJ seeks to impose upon his audience: histrionic Manichean view of the world "us" (middle class normal folk sheep) vs "them" (a monolithic elite class with seemingly limitless power and purely self interested oppressors of "us"). The problem is that is not how reality bears out. There is no single monolithic "deep state" cabal with top tier administrators and singular purpose.
And I'm guessing AJ is not big on discussing the topic of how often and easily big names in the alternative media space are funded by, controlled by, or surreptiously guided by the very same entities or sympathetic entities that are the target of these media personalities' vitriol.
So no that is NOT a good start because its entraining people who are "waking up" how NOT to critically think, but rather accept the most emotionally convincing alternative narratives out there that give them meaning and directs their anxiety and outrage to pre-determined targets. This is still potentially another version of mass formation psychosis.
And the Hegelian historical dialectic rolls on and on and on ...
All your points valid friend, however I made no reference to good or bad just "a start"
But it begs to question, are bad starts better than no starts at all ?
I've listened to and or read AJ since the early 2000s when few were "going there".
And what is even more concerning to me, Mike Adams who being a food nutritionist, having read and reference his stuff about GMOs and glyphosates for at least 15 years.
In both cases the bulk of their information has proven to be useful, and more importantly a spring board to dig deeper (hence the clift notes).
Is there a preferred pedigree of intellectual evolution, perhaps, but lots of us mutts and mongrels happily coexist out here as well. I for one believe there may be many paths to the summit's plateau.
The emotional manipulation aspect is disturbing, and a useful marketing tool at the same time. No one can argue they are not playing the audience, the only question, to what end?
I do chuckle when I see the "trigger warnings" applied to AJs or Adams links, are we too so fragile we need our "safe spaces" ?
Without question you have presented compelling considerations for all to ponder, thank you.