The woke elite don't want you to know this, but Stalin shouldn't have stopped at Berlin
Anti woke comedy club
so middle aged white dudes saying the n word and complaining that college students won't date them?
I'm not sure if this is a function of how compact downtown Austin is, but Google Maps is showing eight divorce lawyers' offices within a mile of the club. :thinking-about-it:
The radical left forced my boss to fire me and my wife to take the kids after I sent nudes to the intern on my work email
Interesting to see how he keeps a comedy club going when all you have is one joke.
I think the best career path for a lazy person like me outside of podcast host/twitch streamer is canceled comedian, you have places lining up to pay you to keep telling the same story over and over again for why liberals are bad for calling you out on racism.
There's definite mileage in this - you don't even need a rep as a comic, you can just say you have been cancelled and you'll get gigs. Your routine can just be '...what's the deal with (insert minority here)...' and then the goons slap and clap like seals.
That's why we gotta work together. Safety in numbers, everyone open carries.
The Party must control the gun; the gun must never be allowed to control the Party
A Stalin impersonator prop comic and his signature gag involves a giant spoon
yeah recreational drugs are just for fun they aren't the gateway to the truths of the universe
Just try micro dosing. Try just being a little high every day all day to get through life!
To be fair, the entire history of fascist pseudophilosophers is proof of this.
I always wondered how the hell anti war hippies elected :freedom-and-democracy: .
To be fair, I think Land's predilection was more for amphetamines and related substances rather than psychedelics.
Or Ernst Jünger. Psychedelic means "mind-manifesting", not mind-altering. They bring out what's inside a person, and even that is a ton of work post-trip if you want to get anything more than vibes and memories of funny colors out of it.
Real comedy is when you pepper slurs into your material like you're writing a Tarantino movie.
Opening night will just be the Michael Richards :freeze-gamer: word performance.
Every gig playing there will be reading off Youtube comments and expecting a laugh every time.
And the audience will laugh every time because hearing horrible shit you agree with is funny.
I'm going to start using 'woke' as much as conservatives do. Woke Joe Rogan's woke anti-woke comedy club attracting woke comedians and woke patrons to say woke racial slurs.
im like 90% sure they've started posting on the trueanon subreddit
@ BlackMoldFutures and probably various alts and/or copycats
Back to back to back communists, every time one of them pulls a Bill Burr and finishes their set through the boos, the next one immediately comes onstage and starts continuing their point.
Genuine question because I'm too lazy to do the research myself:
Is Rogan actually an ideological fascist or is he just not too sharp with it and keeps inviting fascists on his show out of liberal solidarity with their right to say heinous shit?
Okay that was more or less my impression.
Maybe that explains why he's so insanely popular? Because in that sense he reflects the ideological incoherence of most young men?
Goddamn the stoner (step) brother fanbase seems to be a big proportion ngl
Joe Rogan is the friend a lot of American men wish they had. But they don't.
So they have to make do with a parasocial relationship that will never, ever be reciprocated. LOL.
:forever alone:
I guess that meme is too old for this site
Sure in the sense that he's clearly playing a real material role in fascisation of young men (and women - I know someone's whose sister is into him and been getting into it because she's a terf and apparently he's her source of info on the cultural debates about it, so mainly wot the fash are sayin bout it), but there are still politically important differences between the beliefs and behavior of a milquetoast garden liberal and a atom waffen fanatic. Don't think we should blur the difference even though we know that 'scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds', but that means that liberalism always contains the possibility of fascism, because liberalism exists as an ideological support for capitalism and so can be radicalized towards into fascism. I dunno seems to me like saying that the soil is the same thing as the weed.
I'm reading Dante's Inferno, and the first people Dante meets in hell are the fence-sitters. Fascists and liberals didn't exist in medieval Florence since they come with the capitalist mode of production rather than the feudal one used by Italian city-states (fight me on this one motherfuckers I dare ya!), but when I read that I was like, damn, it's easy to tell that Dante was heavily involved in politics because it's the fence-sitters (an extremely loose and unscientific definition for libs) who drive everybody else completely nuts. In the Global South, communists and liberals can team up to take on fascists and compradors, but in the imperial core the difference between liberals and fascists seems to be purely aesthetic. It is exceptionally rare, these days, for libs to "get things done," so long as those things are unrelated to the maintenance of the status quo.
Like, I have a white boomer neighbor I just talked to this morning about bullet trains. This guy, who just got back from a monthlong vacation in Florida, told me he had never even heard of them. He's a Vietnam vet who basically introduced himself to my dad by talking about all the people he killed in Vietnam. He's the nicest guy. He's extremely helpful in ways that materially impact my life—far more helpful than the vast majority of libs I have ever met. Aside from that encounter with my dad, he never talks about the Vietnam War and doesn't display anything related to his military service on any of the twenty different vehicles he owns. My spouse and kids are visibly minority (I am minority but pass as white) and this guy has never said a racist word about any of us or anyone at all actually. He is a great neighbor (standards are low in the USA). But it took me such a long time to understand that liberals and even fascists can be nice to your face in one context and utterly bloodthirsty in another—when their treats get threatened. If a revolution came to where I live, the local dedicated reactionaries—the much more obvious Nazis—would either flee the area or possibly lynch me and my family because we are obviously the traitors within. Much as I like my boomer neighbor, I can't depend on him to stand with me in a situation like this. Too many times I've seen fence-sitters keep out of the way when the time came to put their bodies or jobs on the line to help me or people I know in tough situations which were still much less tough than the one I'm imagining here.
The same is true for Rogan and pretty much all so-called "normies." They will either stand aside or join the fascists when the chips are down, if you'll forgive the cliché. I (hate to) think of it like The Matrix—anyone who isn't unplugged can turn into an agent instantly. The only people you can depend on are your closest friends or family, and even then, there are plenty of stories of people like this turning out to be traitors because they thought—even unconsciously—that a few scraps from the capitalist table was better than a successful communist revolution. Aside from friends or family, all we have are comrades, and I currently know of exactly zero in my actual personal life, which is why I am actively working on getting the fuck out of here and moving to another country, but that's another story.
I'm a simple but contradictory comrade. I see references to Dante's, I upvote. Love it but damn that dude was whack.
Yeah totally agree with all the points you make. I'm also intimately familiar with these kinds of liberals and cryto-fash and the key role they play in normalizing and hiding fascism. Also, just from experience, like a third of my family are basically fash. Some of them know my opinions and don't argue with me because they know I'll either ignore them or embarass them by demonstrating how ignorant they are in front of their children, so they keep their opinions on immigrants and Muslims to themselves. Hegemonic liberal culture forgets that fascism doesn't require an army of open fanatics who believe every word of some leader they try to surrender their autonomy to. Most people who will vote for fascists probably don't think that they're fascist. Alot, maybe most, prob still think of themselves as modern, progressive individuals, and think that it is the 'Other' they dehumanize that is regressive and backward. As you note though, while they always play an active role to soome degree, including as fence-sitters, the really consciously radicalized right pose a more direct, active, existential threat. Once they are crushed the rest of the cowardly liberals will get in line and accept the dictatorship of the proletariat.
I also think its important to make the distinction for the following reason: there are many normal, working class people who are drifting towards or have incoherent but right-pseudopopulist- sympathetic views like Rogan. These people, as opposed to the conscious fascists, are more open to socialist radicalization. This comes back to a debate on here a few weeks ago in response to a Chris Hedges article where from what I gather he argues that an alliance of the left and the 'populist' far right is necessary, which I was shocked to hear from Hedges of all people honestly. On one interpretation of what that means, which seems to have been Chris's, that should be dismissed out of hand for obvious reasons (it would basically amount to pat-soc positions and would permanently harm the legitimacy of the far left; it's also ironic because Hedges accuses many people in the antifa black block of being cops, and there are some agents provocateurs, but he himself is basically suggesting something here that sounds like it was cooked up in a CIA or FBI lab to deligitimize us). But on another interpretation, namely that we are going to need, as a left, to work with and try to mobilize and organize alot of people whose views, lifestyles and actions we find reprehensible, its true. That's going to be a necessary part of the political process. The libs make a lot of classist mileage by accusing all (white) working class people of being racist, homophonic, transphobic and misogynistic. From their mouths it means nothing, but it is also unfortunately true that the far right have been waging a quite succesful propoganda war against us for the white working class, and they've done pretty well. Like or not we need the working class we're given, rather than the one we would like. Like if you're trying to organize with trade unions members, student bodies, or non-unionized workers in your workspace or others in order to carry out some action, you can't expect them all to have perfect pasts or perfect current opinions.That doesn't mean surrendering or compromising on any essential points. Many things are non-negotiable, and that is part of our strength as a left, which you note, because when the chips are down, its the real comrades that will be there.
As Ka (one of my fav rappers) says somewhere in Descendents of Cain: You never know whose loyal until you caught .
TLDR: I think we should the distinction in mind so we can track the degree of fascisation of a society and because we want to know which members of society are perhaps salvalgeable and which are not.
Unless you're right and they'll all side with the fascists, which I'm not ruling out either (even we couldn't win in Weimar Germany despite a powerful, organiazed mass movement with a history and Soviet support behind us then yeh things are looking way grimmer for my yank comrades, I'm deeply sad to say).
I think working class BIPOC are where most of the potential is. I won’t discount white workers, but I will discount vast numbers of them. I don’t think propaganda tells the whole story when it comes to their supposed vacillation. Settler colonialism and imperialism really does make a huge material difference in their everyday lives. I’m pretty nervous to bring up something like China with any of them for instance because I strongly suspect that they will immediately hit me with reactionary bullshit—even lots of people who would fully support someone like Bernie or perhaps someone even further left. That’s no accident. They know, even if they’ve barely ever thought about it before, that if China goes up, amerikkka comes down.
Also just practically, I don't see any successful revolution without a mass mobilization of the white working class.
Yh alot of them are going to need to be discounted at some point, but I think that will be unfortunately true for alot of non-white people as well.
Giving psychological-like arguments that they know, even if they've never thought about it, is always difficult and sometimes veers off into unfalsifiability imo. It's always a difficult question demonstrating the exact relationship between the material benefits even most white working class westerners benefit from to some degree, how that determines their material interests and, in turn, how that influences their behaviour and ideology more broadly. Propaganda doesn't tell the whole but it's still an integral element, essential for determining how people think by interacting with the material conditions that benefit them materially due to imperialism (and which therefore strike them as 'making sense').
Like why do they perceive certain growing, developing economies as threats and others as not, including when they have relations of neo-colonial and imperialist or client-state dominance towards them? Like if you tell a lib or even a conservative, 'country x in Africa/Asia/South America grew this year and reduced poverty by..' then they might say 'oh hwell i'll tel ya hwhat that's just fine now ain't it'. I think alot of them really don't think that what they think is supporting imperialism. Most couldn't define imperialism if they tried. The socio-economic and cultural conditions are there but I think it requires an actual intentional effort on the part of the ruling class to direct the hostility which, like you note, comes organically out of an imperialist society. A base structure still needs stabilization and direction from its superstructure. Why during the 80s was Japan the main futuristic fear? Obvs Japan's economic development was important as it struck some members of the bourgeoisie as a threat to their interests, leading to actions in the financial sector which slowed down Japan into stagnation since the 90s. A heritage of xenophobia and racism obviously plays a part. All of these were mobilized in bourgeois media, which reflects the ruling ideas of the bourgeousie, indeed whose function is necessarily to determine and ensure the hegemony of the ideas of the hegemonic class.
With China, you don't just have a clear competitor who is now openly calling into question the US's status as global hegemon and whose influence is unavoidable, but also 24/7 warmongering and 'Yellow Peril' type shit all over almost every media source.
I'm normally sympathetic but also sometimes sceptical (like, how would we confirm or falsify this?) of how strongly some arguments attribute a conscious or unconscious desire on the part of western working classes to preserve an imperialist order which, lets be honest, the vast majority of people are ignorant of. I think it can be understood more clearly as the superstructure producing ideologies, of which those that serve and benefit the capitalist base structure will be more likely to survive, because they are in, and so their conditions of reproduction are those of, an imperialist-capitalist economy, and an anti-China one is clearly aligned with the interests of the western ruling class. Ordinary people are aware of their benefits relative to the vast majority of workers on this planet, and they attribute it to their own social, cultural, or (if they are white) sometimes their racial or ethnic superiority (obvs the former can bleed into the latter). They are told that this is due to the virtues of the place they live, and this is convenient, because people don't won't to hear that their quality of life depends on, for them, unimaginable levels of exploitation.
Was Joe Rogan ever actually all that successful as a comedian? It seems like his most successful projects have been in a "host" sort of role, hosting Fear Factor, commentating UFC (I'm counting that as a type of host), hosting a podcast, etc.
I don't think I knew he had ever even done stand-up comedy until a few years after I was familiar with him through UFC and his podcast.
Even the people who like Joe Rogan don't pretend that his standup was any good.
I remember thinking his standup was awful at the time. He was on Newsradio in the 90s which gave him his TV break I think. He got big in comedy circles outside of his fan for exposing Carlos Mencia as a joke thief. UFC/Fear Factor was really what catapulted him to success, not comedy as you say
Where every night is "Kramer at the Laugh Factory" night
