Paul Joseph Watson thread

worldwidetraveler

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Aurini said:
I recently figured something out that PJW and Sargon figured out years ago (they must be much smarter than I). They're neither cowards nor shills - they're entertainers.

A common saying in some groups of marketers goes something like this...

"Give the people what they want while sneaking in what they need."

I don't watch a lot of these types of videos. I have no idea if this guy is good or bad. I do know that grabbing attention is the most important skill you need online. Too much information is passing our eyeballs on a minute by minute basis. That is where the entertainers come into play. You need to be able to keep their attention otherwise you lose those eyeballs incredibly fast. Entertain them while sneaking in bits of information that they think you need.

Also, that meme thing he used throughout the video helps keeps you from drifting off. Breaks up the monotone of the speech and shocks the senses with the music. Though I do think overuse can turn people off.
 

kel

 
Banned
Agreed that people like PJW are acceptable as infotainers distilling the edgier parts of the internet into a normie-digestible form. To me, that's valuable, even though I don't agree with a lot of what they might say. Effectiveness is important. Unless you think they're a 4d-chess psyop, I can't imagine why anyone anywhere to the right of the far left would waste their time railing against PJW or Candace Owens or whoever in a world where CNN exists. Well, actually, I do know why, but it's not smart.
 

Genghis Khan

 
Banned
I guess what I look for is efficacy. The same argument was brought up with JBP - he would red pill people just enough (90%) and then people could figure out the rest themselves. Ultimately, I've seen no evidence of this being true, either for JBP, Watson, or anyone else. It does not appear that their followers actually get red-pilled further on their own and discover what Jews are up to.

From what I can tell, the majority of people only learn as far as the commentators let them. If these dudes never bring up (((them))), most people will never question (((them))), they won't go beyond what Peterson or Watson or Cernovich or whomever talk about. The left isn't the only side with massive amounts of NPCs.
 

911

Peacock
Catholic
Gold Member
Genghis Khan said:
I guess what I look for is efficacy. The same argument was brought up with JBP - he would red pill people just enough (90%) and then people could figure out the rest themselves. Ultimately, I've seen no evidence of this being true, either for JBP, Watson, or anyone else. It does not appear that their followers actually get red-pilled further on their own and discover what Jews are up to.

From what I can tell, the majority of people only learn as far as the commentators let them. If these dudes never bring up (((them))), most people will never question (((them))), they won't go beyond what Peterson or Watson or Cernovich or whomever talk about. The left isn't the only side with massive amounts of NPCs.

Yes, JPW's role is to make right-wing NPC feel edgy, while presenting a fairly mild alt-light/zionationalist perspective. Much like Peterson, they are the guardians of the purgatory. Both know exactly what not to mention. JPW is worse than Peterson though, because he's not a leftie globalist, he was redpilled on most issues in his early days as a pundit, but now he holds back and gatekeeps, whereas Peterson is more true to his system of beliefs.

JPW is fairly skilled in choosing his sweet spot, sometimes going a few inches beyond the double yellow line, just enough to develop an edgy veneer, but never really upsetting the cart.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Aurini said:
...

I recently figured something out that PJW and Sargon figured out years ago (they must be much smarter than I). They're neither cowards nor shills - they're entertainers.
...

There's not a lot of things more obnoxious than an entertainer pretending to be a culture warrior.

Especially if they believe their own hype.
 
Explained this to a culture war geeker today, his heart is in the right place but I could see that dropping too many truths would be painful for him to experience, so I just started with what to look for in a gatekeeper. Alex Jones, Molyneux, Rogan, Pewdiepie, Crowder, PJW, they all knew the setup when they were independent, but the larger they get, the easier and more co-opted they become to the tentacles of the octopus. All money is corrupt after a certain value, it stops becoming money you earn and starts becoming money they lend you to be their marionette. Nick Fuentes may be in the beginning of his compromising stages now. Roosh, I know you may read this, but you are one of the few uncompromising individuals out there left with a public presence and weight behind your words. Then there are wild cards like owen benjamin, I don't think he's a shill 100% or the other, but I have known guys who end up like him questioning every little tidbit of information with an acute lens who are so fruity and batty it seems the sheer weight of reality has driven them mad.
 

worldwidetraveler

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Anon guys with no skin in the game: That guy is a shill for not talking about the jews.

Paul Joseph Watson: The jews did it.

Gets deplatformed.
No more payment processing.
Can't get job because of past videos.
Goes bankrupt and can't support family.

Anon guys with no skin in the game: Man that is terrible he got deplatformed. Oh well, time to get back to work where anon guys never mention their views so they don't lose their jobs.
 

Genghis Khan

 
Banned
Sigh, if you want to be a culture war hero, you're going to get held to a higher standard than the average person. That much should be obvious. Men get status based on their courage (just as women do based on their chastity).

If you don't have the balls for it. Fine, not everyone is made to be a hero. I don't hate on people for not being a hero. But at least step aside and don't be a distraction.

What's the old Christian saying? There's a special place in hell for false prophets or something?

Also, I'm not fully aware of everything that goes on with getting deplatformed, but doesn't E Michael Jones talk publicly about Jews? And as far as I know, he hasn't been deplatformed.

What it really comes down: people want the fame, money and any other positives that come with being a cultural hero, but not the actual sacrifice and risk that comes with it. It just makes you a bullshitter.

There are non-bullshitters out there. Zman comes to mind. Note how he doesn't make money off his platform, nor uses his real name. That's the right way to do it if you're scared for your livelihood.

Gets deplatformed.
No more payment processing.
Can't get job because of past videos.
Goes bankrupt and can't support family.

When you look at real heroes and not bullshitters, you'll find money isn't a concern for them.

Ralph Nader called out the auto industry hard. He (and his mother!) got death threats, didn't stop him.

Jesus got literally crucified.

When I see guys like Watson and Peterson, I don't see heroes. I don't see guys who will risk their lives for their community. I see greedy fucks who will be just edgy enough to feed their Patreon accounts.

I now understand why Nassim Taleb called Peterson out on his Patreon funding.

If you're worried about feeding/supporting your family, stay at home. Have a stable job. No one will hate or give you shit for it.

But step aside for the real heroes like Ralph Nader who actually had the balls to risk life and limb for what he believed in.

Taleb incidentally had a great article on what makes for a hero:

https://medium.com/incerto/the-skin-of-others-in-your-game-3f51d8ccc3fb

It's worth a read in its entirety, but here are some excerpts:

Society likes saints and moral heroes to be celibate so they do not have family pressures and be forced into dilemmas of needing to compromise their sense of ethics to feed their children. The entire human race, something rather abstract, becomes their family. Some martyrs, such as Socrates, had young children (although he was in his seventies), and overcame the dilemma at their expense.[1] Many can’t.

It is no secret that large corporations prefer people with a family; those with downside risk are easier to own, particularly when they are choking under a large mortgage.

To make ethical choices you cannot have dilemmas between the particular (friends, family) and the general.
 

911

Peacock
Catholic
Gold Member
That's a good post, but Nassim is sbowing his naivety here with regards to the homoglobo agenda, large corporations prefer single women and homosexuals:

It is no secret that large corporations prefer people with a family; those with downside risk are easier to own, particularly when they are choking under a large mortgage.
 

kel

 
Banned
Yeah, that family part hasn't been true for several decades, at least. Corporations figured out that single, working people will continue to buy shit to fill the hole and have disposable income to do it. See that recent article about what a boon it'll be for Chipotle that in however many years single women will be the dominant demographic in the workplace.
 

worldwidetraveler

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Genghis Khan said:
Sigh, if you want to be a culture war hero, you're going to get held to a higher standard than the average person. That much should be obvious. Men get status based on their courage (just as women do based on their chastity).

If you don't have the balls for it. Fine, not everyone is made to be a hero. I don't hate on people for not being a hero. But at least step aside and don't be a distraction.

What's the old Christian saying? There's a special place in hell for false prophets or something?


Did these guys claim to be heroes or prophets? If they haven't then you and others are assigning those definitions. Which is kind of strange for adults to look at someone and think "heroes". How is this any different to people worshiping sports athletes, Hollywood actors or reality tv stars?

Nassim also talks a lot about Fuck-You-Money. It's easy to be open and call others out when you don't need to worry about money. That is unless you stay anon.
 

Genghis Khan

 
Banned
Man, sometimes I forget how many people here want to nitpick over the most inconsequential points. Reminds me of Leonard's analogy of a beloved Argentinian general being killed by the Brits (in context of Soleimani being killed), only to have someone make an entire post about the reality of Argentinian generals as if that was an actual point of discussion in the Trump thread.

I quoted that bit about corporations because the argument at hand was whether Watson should mention the Jews and possibly risk bankruptcy and not being able to support his family. So yes, corporations at large will give preferential treatment to women and homos, but is it not a moot point in context of the topic at hand?

I mean, I guess I could be pedantic as well and bring up that you guys are really naive since corporations actually prefer AI and robots over humans altogether. But does that really fucking matter when it comes to the question of PJW?

But to play along:

First of all, top corporations are still hiring men for the things that actually matter. There is a reason why the "gender gap" in STEM fields still exists. Even if corporations wanted to, there aren't enough women/homos to replace the men in jobs that matter and that has always been true. Engineering, oil rig work, anything that actually matters in terms of whistle blowing, are all still dominated by men.

By the way, a while back Apple's Board rejected a proposal to focus on diversity. Push come to shove, in the jobs that matter, corporations don't actually put diversity ahead of their bottom line. I'd bet money Google's search engine and ads division(s) is the most male division at the company.

So in that context, corporations obviously would prefer married men over single men.

It's the single male programmers at Google who sometimes work 60-80 hour work weeks that actually understand algorithms who can blow the whistle about political search engine manipulation, not the purple haired freaks in HR. You think the homo in the marketing department learns how Google's proprietary search engine works?

Heterosexual men are the only ones who can play the hero anyway. Again, in that context, corporations absolutely would prefer married men over single men. James Damore was much less likely to push the envelope at work on gender differences if he was married with a $2million mortgage to pay off. Edward Snowden might not have done what he did, had he had 3 kids and college tuition to worry about.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, funny how Damore and Snowden were willing to sacrifice their careers to do the right thing, but we're suppose to give PJW a break because he might get deplatformed?

Like I said, I won't give anyone shit for not wanting to be a culturar war hero, but let's not pretend like PJW is worth praising.

By the way, I don't think Taleb is naive at all. He talks about celibacy early on in his post - a concept that only applies to single men. For women, it's called chastity. It's worth considering why Taleb only talked about celibacy and not chastity.

It's also worth considering his audience is predominantly male and so maybe he was (subconsciously) more focused on how the concept of heroism applies to men rather than to make a completely irrelevant point about homos and women. Hence why he writes corporations prefer married people.

I understand I'm coming across as pretty harsh here, but if in that entire Taleb post, you wanted to nitpick which people corporations prefer, rather than taking the overall message of what price a societal/cultural hero should pay, it's worth taking a step back. It's becoming a pet peeve of mine - to see something really insightful being written and then to have people nitpick the most inconsequential sentence. There's a time and place to talk about globohomo corporations' disdain of men and this is really not it.
 

worldwidetraveler

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Man complains about me nitpicking when I don't buy into his hero theory and then continues with a wall of text to tell me why. You guys are assigning this hero definition. Because of that, you guys think he isn't doing enough to warrant your definition and should throw away his entire future to martyr himself.

Well, I claim you guys are the real heroes. Get to work. start making those videos and show yourselves.
 

Genghis Khan

 
Banned
worldwidetraveler said:
Did these guys claim to be heroes or prophets? If they haven't then you and others are assigning those definitions. Which is kind of strange for adults to look at someone and think "heroes". How is this any different to people worshiping sports athletes, Hollywood actors or reality tv stars?

Nassim also talks a lot about Fuck-You-Money. It's easy to be open and call others out when you don't need to worry about money. That is unless you stay anon.

By your logic, girls who get paid to sleep with guys aren't prostitutes as long as they don't call themselves prostitutes.

It doesn't matter what you call yourself, it matters what role you (pretend to) play in life.

If you don't want to be called a prophet/hero, then don't play the role of one. The moment you put your face on Youtube and start making commentary on feminism/immigration/politics in order to cause social change, you put yourself in that role.
 

Genghis Khan

 
Banned
worldwidetraveler said:
Man complains about me nitpicking when I don't buy into his hero theory and then continues with a wall of text to tell me why. You guys are assigning this hero definition. Because of that, you guys think he isn't doing enough to warrant your definition and should throw away his entire future to martyr himself.

Well, I claim you guys are the real heroes. Get to work. start making those videos and show yourselves.

I wasn't talking about you when I posted about nitpicking.
 

worldwidetraveler

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Genghis Khan said:
By your logic, girls who get paid to sleep with guys aren't prostitutes as long as they don't call themselves prostitutes.

It doesn't matter what you call yourself, it matters what role you (pretend to) play in life.

If you don't want to be called a prophet/hero, then don't play the role of one. The moment you put your face on Youtube and start making commentary on feminism/immigration/politics in order to cause social change, you put yourself in that role.

By your logic if someone decides you're a pink elephant then you're a pink elephant and should act accordingly. Cmon man.

No, putting yourself on Youtube and making opinion videos is simply a guy making opinion videos. You guys are adding the hero stuff. You agreeing with some of his content doesn't mean he speaks for you.

Strange how many here can talk about freedom of speech and then turn around and tell a guy he shouldn't be on Youtube because he isn't saying exactly what you want him to say. He's fine if he talks about other things. The minute he talks about feminism then he needs to talk about jews.

You guys really don't see how crazy that sounds?
 

PixelFree

Kingfisher
Catholic
Leonard D Neubache said:
^This is why I'll never truly be able to grapple with the ins and outs of the decline in our civilization. Giving these e-thots money and having them merely read out your name on screen is lame enough but some of these guys do it with no recognition of their existence at all. I simply can't understand what it is they derive from this transaction.

Same here. No sense at all.

FWIW there is an small element of money laundering here, just like Go Fund Me pages (think Greens Politicians) and Book Deals (think Obama, Comey, Clapper, etc) - I call it the 'Breaking Bad' model.

Need to wash some cash? Get your teenage niece to start a Twitch stream and watch the money pour in from 'Anonymous'.

However, what % of the total 'donations' it constitutes is anybodies guess. Sadly I don’t think it would be much!
 

PixelFree

Kingfisher
Catholic
MusicForThePiano said:
He does produce good content, but what was the consensus on his personal life, is he or isn't he a finook? I can't take positive reinforcement in the culture war from a closet hanger, even if he does support all the right stuff.

It's best to focus on and discuss the idea (and truth behind it), not so much the 'who'. They are two separate things.

Attacking the 'who' to kill a good idea is what the NPC left does.

I don't care if he's a SJW transgender Muslim, or clickbait money maker, he's speaking an important truth and spreading that message to our next generation.

Side note - I've seen a couple of (provocative right wing) videos of angry Muslims leaders laughing about how we lost our fertility and Imams commanding their men to breed with European women and pop out 4-5 kids, to 'weaponise their wombs'. Now that's a red pill and a half. An extreme example of the 'who' (inbred 3rd world barbarians) vs the 'message' (valid, important).

In Australia we say 'play the ball, not the man'. Maybe it's an international saying?
 

PixelFree

Kingfisher
Catholic
If I understood correctly is it a new meme to post empty egg cartons in the comments of eGirls' posts?

If not, it needs to happen.

911 said:
Sex Ed teaches 12 year olds about fisting, gay and anal sex, but they will keep away from them (especially from girls) the vital info about the fleeting nature of their fertility.

I'd go one step further and say this is a very simple, constructive and effective piece of propaganda that anyone of us could go and post around. It's not a pleasant message but it's not malicious nor hateful. It's tough love helpful.

Maybe an empty egg carton with the numbers '30 = 10%, 40 = 3%', or one egg left in the egg carton and the text 'Age 30'.

I might do some right now...

First stop, Burning Man style festival photos where you see thousands women in their late 30's / early 40's dancing around on LSD dressed up like a 19 year old frat girl on Halloween.

Imagine what would happen if this started to spread and the penny dropped for a sizable number of 25 year olds...?
 
Top