We all have people who put out content that we like and we have them whom we don’t like. And our opinions about them or their content can shift over time. It also can lead to people joining hands and people walking away as they so please. This year we have already seen a lot of these schisms; the John Adams saga, the Miles Mathis drama and the Faykeopedia failure, to name just three obvious ones.
As probably a lot of readers here I also like listening to AAMorris’s podcasts “A Proper Gander at Propaganda”, that started on March 5th this year.
I want to focus on two recent episodes of that series, number 221 and the one of today, 225.
The ones in between I still have to hear, but different from his earlier work, where he repeatedly has mentioned “I don’t care about different opinions, if you like my research fine, if not also fine”, a position I wholeheartedly agree with, he now went on a “killing spree” of fellow (non)-researchers in this environment.
The problem with this proper gander series I have is that AAMorris, who has always (rightly) stressed the importance of logic and rationality in deconstructing the peculiar plots fed to us, again much to my agreement, becomes completely irrational.
It looks like the formerly rational AAMorris has “lost it”. Or at least more than he “gained it”.
He takes on some people I have engaged with this year and people who are linked here at POM as well; Crazy Dave (DaveJ or Dave Johnson), John Le Bon (JLB), John Adams, Chris Kendall (both Hoaxbusters Call – HBC) and some people I have heard about but never listened to; Markus Allen and Jay Dyer.
One point AAMorris keeps stressing in his latest episode is “I don’t debate, because debate is silly/useless”. That is a fallacy. Silly or useless debate is silly/useless, but you cannot project the part (pars) to the whole (toto). What good debate does, is sharpening your mind, as you get feedback from others who may have different points of view than you (corrective) or the same points but new information (constructive). I understand it is much safer to sit behind your computer and not engage in debate, but it makes you somewhat of a coward, unable to address counterarguments by others.
AAMorris shares this with Miles Mathis by the way.
Many of his observations about especially Crazy Dave (who indeed is a complete lunatic, embraced by Ab the Fakeologist and JLB alike), JLB (childish, small repertoire, arrogant, little idea about the real world) and Chris Kendall (who foolishly pulled a gun on screen in a useless Vegan debate he had with some kids, agreed that such behavior is unacceptable) are valid. But, he mixes that with irrational behavior:
- he keeps making the same silly childish joke ‘literally’ 100 times (I didn’t count, but around that number) in a 2 hour episode
- he calls for JLB “to take a break from the internet” because “he is living online”, but this comes from a guy who has 225 2 hour audios produced in just 200 days! A reasonable estimate for the 2 hour audio in editing is like another 2 hours, so 4, and for the vast research in the back you need between 10 and 20 hours per podcast too; which makes a 14-24 hour “work day” for more than 6 months straight. It gets a bit thick to accuse (right or wrong) others of “spending too much time online” if you have such an output
- he goes into the personal lives of the people he addresses a lot, calls people “losers” many times and even makes a hit at someone’s mental condition. Unprofessional or immature at least, for a 49 year old man
In his episode 225 he contradicts a lot of what he himself said in ep 221;
- the “shill paranoia” he registered in ep 221 has turned into he himself being paranoid about shills (and praising Unreal, whose credibility I seriously question) in ep 225
- related to this is that he says about JLB: “he calls me paranoid, I am not paranoid, JLB is the paranoid guy here” – another fallacy, Mr. Logical Morris. It is not an argument. JLB can be paranoid, but you can be too. One being paranoid does not exclude the possibility of the other being paranoid. It’s a non sequitur; the one doesn’t follow from the other.
- in ep 221 he calls journalists (which he himself was, working for Bloomberg FFS) “dupes” and in ep 225 he calls them “liars” (or something along those lines, I paraphrase from memory now) and says “journalism shouldn’t be a degree”. What is it? Are they tricked into the peculiar plots because they simply funnel down AP feeds without criticizing them (yes, most of them) or are they evil liars trying to spread propaganda (only the top ones)?
- he says “Dave J is obsessed with the death of a 6 year old girl” (JonBenét Ramsey). But AAMorris, aren’t you “obsessed” with a variety of people online by producing 10 hours of podcasts about it?
Why am I writing this post? For one I know AAMorris reads here, so he can be glad he gets feedback, as he has shut himself off of that option through no participation in Discord chats or blog participation. Secondly I think it is important to share observations, others can see much more than I do, and I want to bring it to your attention. I simply share my observations about stories, audios, videos and other content online.
I do not think he is a “shill” or a “spook” or something like that, but what I observed is a lot of military terms in his ranting. He uses the word “frame” a lot of times in just 2 hours. Most normal people don’t think in terms of framing.
And above all he literally says “I have infiltrated Fakeologist and HBC, so they like me and I bit my tongue for a while so now I can criticize”. Right there, he just admits he is an infiltraitor (no typo). One can thank him for his openness but at the same time question him about someone’s motives for doing such a thing.
Listen for yourselves and please share your comments here, in the “Iconoclasts” series, I think it fits rather well:
PS: I hope at least someone spotted the tongue-in-cheek semi-fallacy in the title of this post; in my understanding of the English language a “glance” is “a quick look”. “Proper” usually means “thorough”, “detailed”, “in depth”. A “Proper Glance” therefore would be at least paradoxal and at most contradictory. But as I only review 2 podcasts out of 225, not even 1% I think “glance” certainly is justified here; so it’s a paradox; an apparent contradiction.