I am sure of this.

Really I'm surprised we don't see more feedback on it here.

We can't afford to be siloed, either way.

That's what I wanted to hear!

Hey.

One, frankly, I am glad you stand by your statement. (I think) it shows you are willing to stand by what you believe, and think. That's as it should be.

Two, I'm curious about how much you've watched (any) badlands content/podcasts. Just curious, because that surely would be a factor in the conclusions you came to (?).

In my case, I began tuning in to Badlands in July 2022, with the Devolved (Burning Bright and Just Human) podcast. The value they brought was so outstanding that I stuck with them until they stopped the series. Meanwhile, I had begun tuning primarily into Devolution Power Hour, the Wednesday edition of which had both Burning Bright and Just Human, and sometimes the Sat DPH edition, which had both Chris Paul and Patrick Gunnels.

Since tuning into Q in December of 2017, I've tuned in to so many podcasts, so many personalities. Many of them seem great for a while, but then I tune out. They were good at the time, but either they turned out to be quite dodgy (for example, InTheMatrix, who I listened to for a good stint, and Bards of War, who I also liked a lot, but both of these revealed themselves as dodgy when ITM began to bash General Flynn and showed themselves to be part of the Lin Woods operation (imo), and Bards of War began encouraging his listeners to not vote in the elections in which Trump was running, etc.). Dave at X22 and Praying Medic were staples during a lot of the Q drop period (2017 ~ 2020), but particularly as things moved on, I stopped tuning in to Dave, not because he's not OK, but I felt like I outgrew him.

In any case, I've been through a LOT. I have a folder with the ripped audio of the podcasts I've listened to (always via ripped audio). I have some 2100+ audio files from the past 8 years.

My point is, I've been through many, many people, many of them delivering reasonable and good content, BUT my experience with Badlands including Herold's content eclipses the quality of all of them. I've stuck with BL content - devolved and then DPH, for longer than I have with any of the podcasters I've seen come and go over the past 8 years. And while content that specifically tuned in to the Q drops was extremely relevant at the time, nothing comes close to the quality and level of either research, reasoning, discussion and thinking that I've found at badlands. So, for me, that's a big factor in how I view Herold.

And, yes, I've tuned into Cates on and off over the years. I first saw his drawandstrike twitter account when I was a newbie Qtard in early 2018, and I thought for a moment that this account WAS Jeff Sessions... Bwahahaha. One day.

The crap disinfo agents are pretty easy to spot most of the time. Lin Woods, Fred Ward, Stew Peters, and lots of others. I still follow Cates part time via telegram, but don't tune in to him that much.

In any case, prior to the (current) controversy at BL you could say that I was a complete BL loyalist, for the reasons stated above: quality of thinking, research, discussion, etc.

Just making that clear.

Brian's X post that you link is from Sept 3. DG17's post likewise. Patrick's post is from Oct 20.

Cates did another post (I could only find 2 using search, your link and this one): https://x.com/drawandstrike/status/1979663359164473434 on Oct 20, after Herold spoke to the public (his audience) about what was happening and what had been happening behind the scenes. It appears that Cates makes no other references to Herold on his X account...

I don't know if you've done it, but reading through the various replies to these people's posts will reveal that some people are completely supportive of <the Kate group> and others of Herold.

In particular, of that second Cates post, he's copping a lot of backlash. Of course, majority thought does not necessarily equal right thought, but I do suggest you read through the comments there.

In response to Patrick Gunnel's post, Brad Zerbo replied thus: https://x.com/Brad_CGZ/status/1980048225890603259

Again, the responses and replies are telling, I think.

Yes, there is a lot of acrimony, much of it from the Kate crowd (Kate supporters), and, at the end of the day, it comes down to who you find more credible.

In any case, if you haven't watched this video, I think you should.

https://rumble.com/v70ezi8-meagan-kate-brenner-v.-badlands-media-llc.html

Posted October 17.

In it, Herold outlines why he hasn't spoken about this publicly until now, why he IS doing so now, and then he shares 'the receipts' up to an extent that his lawyer has allowed him. Personally, I think he brings it.

And, as Burning Bright says, comparing the situation to The Dark Knight where one of the Wayne employees figures out that Wayne is using Wayne enterpises R&D and is in fact Batman, and then approach the Morgan Freeman character and essentially tries to blackmail Wayne through him. Freemon's response? So let me get this straight. You think that your boss is secretly using Wayne technology to roam the streets as a vigilante, fight crime and beat up mob bosses and your idea is to try to blackmail him?

Not a great plan.

Herold's is a document researcher and organizer par excellence, and Kate is trying to take him down by making certain claims threatening legal action. Not a great plan (imo). Herold can bring the receipts. Also, I find his explanation of why he has kept all of this quiet until not only plausible, but convincing. As you know, I'm already biased towards him, but I can't help that. That positive bias is for good reason (in my mind).

Probably, both you and I know that the so-called 'truth sphere' is awash with grifters, with swindlers, con artists and people who will do anything for a bit of $$$ or some influence, (including ripping off other people's content and presenting it as their own).

In terms of personality, what I have seen of Job and what I have seen of Kate, if it was just for vibes, I'd completely go with Jon. But, as I've outlined above, there are lots of reasons I completely believe in and support Herold here. You shall know them by their fruits, also comes to mind.

Objectivity, research, ability to acknowledge when one's opinion is just that, and not fact or not anything else, etc. Absence of spin, too.

Anyway, I hope that time will tell.

I once heard long ago that when Kate became Herold's girlfriend this was what caused the breakdown in his marriage. This was before I really had listened much to either of them. The picture that Herold's paints seems to ring pretty true to me. And, I think he leaves a LOT unsaid.

If you have watched the video, then I'd be happy to hear what your own thoughts and conclusions are. If you do not watch it, then I'd just have to assume its not important enough for you. But, to call someone doing the work (well, producing the fruits) that Herold is, a POS grifter, without listening to his side of the story, I dunno.

Either way, carry on.

And, thanks for responding and also providing those three links (which it seems that to you enough to justify the anti-Herold sentiment! although I'm hoping/guessing that you've actually dug more! )

And yes, if this is you Kate, well, don't bother replying. You know where I stand!

kek. Only got to this reply AFTER reading the first and then bashing out a very long (overly long) reply.

Off the cuff, I do not think you can say that he 'de-platformed' someone when he simply removed them from HIS platform. Which Badlands is, right? (Kek, disputed)

If he is the boss of the company, then its his duty and responsibility to remove them if they aren't in tune with it. They are still completely free and active to post, be present on the web, wherever they want. And are. They just aren't on Badlands anymore.

You cannot call that 'deplatforming' as if Badlands is a global public social media platform like Twitter, Youtube, Fluffbuk or Instaspam, etc, banning people for their political views, and thereby actually silencing them from the broder marketplace over which these entities have almost monopolistic levels of dominance.

I still like Stormy, but I've never really liked Rambo. I for one do NOT think he's on the target. Rather, when I see his stuff, it seems a little dodgy to me. Just saying.

No need for ad hominem Fractal, we are gentlemen here are we not?

Kek. Hey, you know, I've never called anyone person to person a moron on social media, let alone GAW. So, consider it a badge of honor? I think the 'POS' comment kind of caught me off guard. That's certainly ad hominem, no?

But, seriously, I wrote in response to extremely harsh (imo) opinion/judgment you threw at Herold.

Really, I eschew that sort of (very) low level of dialog all the time. Throwing epithets like 'POS' or 'moron' at people, whether in person or 3rd party, just ain't my style.

I hope you'll forgive the extremity of it, with (perhaps now) view the comment with some understanding of where I'm coming from on this issue.

Anyway, yes. We're frog bros, and even if we (end up) disagreeing on this matter, that's ok.

My conclusion: you have reasons for the view you have. I respect you for it. I disagree, and disagree strongly. And, I guess I'd conclude that maybe the info we've been exposed to is different. Plus, personal preferences, too.

But disagreement is not a bad thing. No one would ever learn or improve if everyone was simply always in 'agreement'.

I think a lot of how we interpret things like (what you quote. From who?) "diluting the brand" depends on our starting positions, sympathies, and lots of other things. Also, if we like or gravitate towards Person Y and he says bad stuff or a negative opinion of Person Z, we're more inclined to give that view weight than otherwise.

In any case, I think you can have a different opinion on the matter (or rather, the person) and it don't mean you or I or anyone is a moron.

No need for ad hominem Fractal, we are gentlemen here are we not?

A sentiment I can wholeheartedly embrace. Thank the Lord that at least one of us is (ahem, it's you?).

Take care, fren.