My thoughts on Joe Rogan

For those who unaware of Joe Rogan, he is a former reality tv host,  MMA color commentator and comedian who is the principal figure behind the very successful - Joe Rogan Experience podcast. He is well known for engaging in extended discussions with guests that average around two and a half hours.  Much of his material has been well received and he now boasts a viewership that routinely dwarfs that of the mainstream media.

I have for the most part had a favourable disposition to Rogan.  Most admirably he served as a pertient avenue for freedom of speech during the Covid lockdowns, when various state actors were using the pandemic as an excuse to suppress necessary discussion on health policy. Rogan took issue with this stance providing a forum for both dissenting and established opinion.Elucidating the truth was his raison d'etre. Something I could only respect.

Rogan also helped boost the profile of Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad especially when the former was attacked by the opinion police here in Canada. Rogan's opposition to Wokeism has been relentless. The way I see it,  is that he likely peaked in 2022 (at the time of the Trucker protest in Canada) when the excesses of the global political landscape had reached peak stupidity (or so it seemed).

However soon afterward I started to notice that Rogan was shifting in focus. He was becoming more conspiratorial in nature. Sub plots around complex phenomena were highlighted with greater regularity and more time was being allotted to those voices who emphasized opaque double play invisible to us regular mortals.. 

While he still was far from the loony world of Alex Jones, Rogan seemed far less discerning with maintaining intellectual balance on his show. Outlier voices were granted more air time as Rogan pushed forward with what appeared to be his personal fight with the establishment. 

Rogan clearly relished the opportunity of taking down accepted views with hostile unsubstantiated narratives an observation that was highlighted recently  during his interview with historical podcaster and WWII revisionist Darryl Cooper.

Just as he did on the Tucker Carlson, Cooper reiterated his extreme view, based on selective fact mining and a loose interpretation of events. His central point is Winston Churchill was the war’s baddie and that Hitler has been misunderstood (a common far right position). The research and finely reviewed studies that have filled academia to the contrary be damned. Cooper had it figured out and Rogan was giving him the chance to shine.

Lacking in topic knowledge Rogan was limited in his push back, nor did he appear to want to do so. There was no need to counterbalance the Cooper take with that of a mainstream historian such Victor Davis Hanson or an Andrew Roberts. Why bother?

What mattered to Rogan and I have noticed this in his stance since then is that Cooper had stuck his finger in the eye of the MAN and that is what really mattered. For him it was good enough.

 This is where Rogan is as a person right now and Cooper had delivered.  As for the truth it can take a back seat. The medium had delivered the message.

Thoughts on History

A deference to credentialism is never a viable approach to reinforce one's argument. Nevertheless this still doesn't imply that all opinions are equally valid. They simply are not. When analyzing an event and its repercussions a theoretical interpretation must still ride on the evidence presented and the plausibility of the thinking advanced to buttress it. Primary sources count more than their secondary sources. They are less clouded by a degree of removal from the event.

While originality of thought and dissenting view should be welcomed the originality counts for nothing if it fails to adhere to the factual constraints. There is no substitution for a thoroughness of investigation. The problem with many amateurs dabbling in history is that they often fail to recognize these truisms.

 

Ten concerns that I have with the overly slick Mark Carney

1.    He has very little political experience and appears to have been vaunted into his prime minister role by a great deal of non-transparent back dealing.

2.   He is very well connected to the WEF and the Davos crowd which means that he will likely continue Trudeau’s globalist outlook. He appears to be cut from the same cloth as Macron, Starmer and Merkel.

3.   He has surrounded himself with the same incompetent politicians Joly, Friedland etc that characterized the Trudeau administration.

4.     He has a personal vision, as outlined in his book ,that is strongly rooted in with the Net Zero Environmental philosophy. When actioned such policies have been disastrous in Germany and other parts of Europe.

5.       He seems as based on his rhetoric so far that he does not personally have solid grasp of the nuances of the Arab-Israel crisis.

6.       He says almost nothing about his plans for dealing with the broken judicial and criminal enforcement system in the country.

7.       He will likely not do away with the DEI encroachment in federal government.

8.    His new found nationalism is not  believable. The Liberal party mishandled immigration and  lampooned Canadian essentialism  under Justin Trudeau. Fast forward to now and  Carney now wants us accept that his anti-Trump stance is grounded in an intrinsic pro-Canadian mantra.

9.       His supporters make him out to be an economic whiz kid even though his record at the Bank of England was sketchy at best.

10   The backtrack on the Carbon tax seems to be an election ploy. Expect this lost revenue to surface elsewhere in a tax as Carney prioritizes his Net zero vision.