Read on Twitter
Lex Fridman is a fascinating case study - and a great litmus test of a person's judgment, in a sense..
On the surface, he's the most soft, kindly, unoffensive baby-faced fellow, with the most impressive list of guests, some of whom are legitimately fascinating and worthwhile listens.
But watch closely as to the net-effects of this 'can't we all just get along and love one another' attitude and approach, and how it manifests:
He called Epstein 'just some rich guy', completely denying any larger conspiracy, even the patently obvious m05sad connections.
He repeatedly (if indirectly) defends many of the worst people on earth, seemingly denying even the possibility of corruption, conspiracy, or any happenings that are readily visible at a superficial glance.
He did more effective damage control for big pharma than perhaps anyone else in the public sphere, bringing several of these execs on and allowing them to state their case in full, relatively unchallenged and uninterrupted.
I could go on citing enough examples like this to fill a novel..
Leaving aside his intelligence/Israeli connections for a moment, and his out-of-nowhere rise to extreme prominence (reminiscent of 'h3h3' and others) practically overnight - consider for a moment that the net-effect of his approach is to both provide a platform for some of the most shamelessly and brazenly corrupt individuals and institutions in the world, while disarming the audience, and then working to reorient their framework into one of oblivious and naive trust. "Let's just give everyone the benefit of the doubt - even if they've proven time and time again to not deserve it, and the costs of being wrong here are astronomical, lets just be kind!"
By kind, he seems to mean 'permissive', 'passive'.. 'unthinking' and 'uncritical'.
For the longest time I wanted to like the guy, the nice-guy routine is superficially convincing.. yet I'd suggest it's figures like this that most powerfully work to keep us from reacting in a healthy and natural way to men like Gates, Soros, jab manufacturers, Epstein/Maxwell.
It's almost like that's his very role.
Though, if true, this would be something of a conspiracy - and Lex makes it clear that these essentially don't exist.
On the surface, he's the most soft, kindly, unoffensive baby-faced fellow, with the most impressive list of guests, some of whom are legitimately fascinating and worthwhile listens.
But watch closely as to the net-effects of this 'can't we all just get along and love one another' attitude and approach, and how it manifests:
He called Epstein 'just some rich guy', completely denying any larger conspiracy, even the patently obvious m05sad connections.
He repeatedly (if indirectly) defends many of the worst people on earth, seemingly denying even the possibility of corruption, conspiracy, or any happenings that are readily visible at a superficial glance.
He did more effective damage control for big pharma than perhaps anyone else in the public sphere, bringing several of these execs on and allowing them to state their case in full, relatively unchallenged and uninterrupted.
I could go on citing enough examples like this to fill a novel..
Leaving aside his intelligence/Israeli connections for a moment, and his out-of-nowhere rise to extreme prominence (reminiscent of 'h3h3' and others) practically overnight - consider for a moment that the net-effect of his approach is to both provide a platform for some of the most shamelessly and brazenly corrupt individuals and institutions in the world, while disarming the audience, and then working to reorient their framework into one of oblivious and naive trust. "Let's just give everyone the benefit of the doubt - even if they've proven time and time again to not deserve it, and the costs of being wrong here are astronomical, lets just be kind!"
By kind, he seems to mean 'permissive', 'passive'.. 'unthinking' and 'uncritical'.
For the longest time I wanted to like the guy, the nice-guy routine is superficially convincing.. yet I'd suggest it's figures like this that most powerfully work to keep us from reacting in a healthy and natural way to men like Gates, Soros, jab manufacturers, Epstein/Maxwell.
It's almost like that's his very role.
Though, if true, this would be something of a conspiracy - and Lex makes it clear that these essentially don't exist.
If certain forces were to manufacture a pop culture figure who would most efficiently keep people from asking the most important questions - or arriving at the most reasonable suspicions based on the totality of our context picture - I suspect it'd be an exacting duplicate of Lex
important postscript...
Many of those most hoodwinked by his approach are genuinely good people, who deserve some patience (not mockery). A reminder that many innately trustworthy people can't help but become overly trusting, as resulting side-effect..
a strength, in healthy and well-oriented and relatively homogeneous environments in which corruption isn't rampant and all-pervasive.
a weakness, in environments like our own at the present.. in which they risk being thoroughly (often effortlessly) duped, at every turn.
They're also the type that once they understand, once they're able to make that turn or shift, make for sturdy, principled, invaluable allies.
Many of those most hoodwinked by his approach are genuinely good people, who deserve some patience (not mockery). A reminder that many innately trustworthy people can't help but become overly trusting, as resulting side-effect..
a strength, in healthy and well-oriented and relatively homogeneous environments in which corruption isn't rampant and all-pervasive.
a weakness, in environments like our own at the present.. in which they risk being thoroughly (often effortlessly) duped, at every turn.
They're also the type that once they understand, once they're able to make that turn or shift, make for sturdy, principled, invaluable allies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
