13 Comments
User's avatar
Kyle Lindskog's avatar

Take all the time you need. You have accrued a vast surplus of value.

Expand full comment
Kyle Lindskog's avatar

Take all the time you need. You have accrued a vast surplus of value.

Expand full comment
Timothy Kelly's avatar

What does Q have to say about the QQ?

Expand full comment
Timothy Kelly's avatar

Can we simply refer to this issue as the QQ?

Expand full comment
RiverHollow's avatar

Welcome back. I just hate having to entertain the rigged games of foxes.

Expand full comment
Cut's avatar

Welcome back Pete

Expand full comment
PragmaticPrimate's avatar

Glad you enjoyed your trip— welcome back Pete.

Expand full comment
Sean Patrick's avatar

Glad you had a good vacation! And glad you are back!

Expand full comment
Andronikos's avatar

I hope you had a restful and enjoyable vacation. Looking forward to the TCS episode.

Expand full comment
Louis C's avatar

It was inevitable Trump was going to eat one of his own/our guy. Let’s hope the blowback gets through to him. And, welcome back.

Expand full comment
Gregory's avatar

‪Ahhhh…. I was wondering why my queue has been empty for a week… 😄‬

Expand full comment
Payload's avatar

Welcome back brother! 💪

Expand full comment
RiverHollow's avatar

This is tangential but I'd value your thoughts on this as an avowed anti-sperg. To what extent is Martyr Made with his World War II series acting as part of the ratchet of the WW2 regime itself? He frames things much more fairly than people typically would, but it often comes across, and sometimes he basically says as much, that he doesn't want to rehabilitate the conflict but put it to rest. This might be fine if it were done on our terms to some degree, but as it stands he seems to want to de-energize the matter entirely. It could be argued that's better than allowing it to continue to be a weapon for our enemies, but I wonder if they could keep using it as one even if they wanted to at this point. I simply hate whenever someone suggests that there shouldn't be consequences and redress for all the lies and deceptions which were never done in our interest but for the interest of despicable and foreign people. It just seems like giving in to peace on our enemy's terms, which is not peace.

What prompted this is his recent appearance on The New Founding Podcast. Generally the sentiments are as I've said, but particularly somewhere in the first hour he suggests that Civil Rights was "one of the good things" that came from the myths generated from WW2, saying if it weren't for these myths, something like Civil Rights might not have happened for another century. What is there value in putting the myths of WW2 away if it solidifies a framing like that?

Maybe I'm being too simple-minded and his high level chess move is to break the embargo on legitimated study into these things such that others might suggest more substantial revision to the mainstream, but something really irks me about it all.

In short, am I just being a sperg?

Expand full comment