cozy.tv

MaxTriggers

I'm Dreaming Of A White Christmas
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
every cozy streamer:



Maybe this is the angle we should pursue to get the entirety of AF to stop eating toxic goyfeed for every single meal... accurately point out that it’s horrendously low class to still be eating like children well into their 20’s (and 30’s in Baked’s case).

That's a perfect, low effort way to help poor people... leading by example.

It makes excellent talking points as well.

We can send 50 billion dollars to Ukraine but we can't help our kids eat healthy food?

How much money would it cost to put a greenhouse on school property and teach the kids how to grow healthy, sustainable food?

I don't understand why people are conflating helping the poor with giving them free shit and giving rides to junkies so they can steal from your glovebox.

In my mind helping a junkie means 2 years in an internment camp where he kicks dope, learns a trade, and is given a second chance under strict guidelines.

Many things could be discussed.

1656957374785.jpeg
 

PotstickerSwatstika

β€’Dissident πŸ™ŒπŸ» Dumplingβ€’
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒ
Escaped True Master
Destructive Ceremonious Master

 

Andrew Anglin

🐁 πŸŽ€ π“‚π’Άπ“ˆπ“‰π‘’π“‡ 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝑒𝒻 πŸŽ€ 🐁
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
This is a semi to moderately holiday buzzed rant I wrote in the Marilyn Manson thread and decided to post here instead. It's sort of the "three drinks later" sequel to an actual article I wrote about mass shootings to be published in a couple hours. I think it is on topic here, because Nick has lately talked about utilitarianism as the underlying value system of secular society and how this ultimately leads to fear (the mind-killer) and then satanism. Also, I mention the Steve Franssen attacks on me (in an understanding way).

Manson had great vocals and stage presence, but it was Trent Reznor who produced his best albums and if you listen to the base and guitar riffs you can hear that it's material left-over from Broken and other outakes. Perfectionist Trent always produced a ton more audio than he could fit on CDs.

Manson got bigger than him and ditched the label, leading to some more agnsty NIN songs about how you can't trust anyone. I respect his artistry though., like how he destroyed a local metal club and then paid everyone to replace all the sound equipment and rehab the building. It was all for money and there's no actual substance there.

NIN was just too depressing. Marilyn Manson wanted to do poppy schlock and put on edgy vaudeville shows, not be some kind of analysis of human suffering. I think Trent wanted Manson to be a serious commentary on his own personal depression and lack of purpose while Manson just wanted to be a professional showman hiding behind thin and superficial criticisms of consumerism or something.

Those first three albums are so obviously Reznor side projects that it seems fair enough Manson would want some artistic breathing room.

Anyway, I can't listen to this music anymore, so I'm not going to go back an write a review, but I think the music made after "Antichrist" was much more designed for big concert shows, with a high energy vibe. It was on Holy Wood he wrote a song called "fight song" and encouraged people in the audience to fight.

I guess there is probably something about myself I need to analyze as to how I can still respect someone who called himself "Antichrist" just because he made society mad. Probably, it's what I was just writing in a mass shooting think-piece I'll post later - that there has to be conflict in society. It's the same reason I always loved Westboro Baptist Church, and I'm sure Marilyn Manson had a lot of respect for them too.

I guess the recent revelations that Manson is a racist and woman beater proves he was not secretly pushing some kind of liberal agenda and was just purposefully trying to make people mad.

But I guess it makes me question what my own positions would be if we lived in a genuinely healthy Christian society. How can you have a society without conflict? The fascist solution to that was that you had to be at war with someone else, and I think in general, this is a good solution, or the best possible solution.

I have just come to the conclusion that life without conflict, struggle, and the suffering that comes from these things, cannot possibly have any meaning, because of the nature of the human condition. I just gave the example of Napoleon invading Russia and everyone in France being like "yeah, that's a really good idea."

And the Russians themselves weren't really outraged even, but like "oh sweet the French, lol. They about to get rekt why did they come in wintertime roflmao."

This whole thing of war and there being so much death and suffering as a result of war - I don't really think this conflicts with the Christian ideal of life being defined by suffering. The conflict with Christianity is starting the wars, not that the wars happen and people suffer and die. That is just life and where men find meaning.

I've been thinking about this in relation to why Ukrainians aren't surrendering in larger numbers, despite the fact that this war is literally nonsensical from Ukrainian perspective, and it doesn't really make sense that they could all be completely brainwashed in 8 years to believe that the Ukraine is a real country with some kind of defined "values" worth dying for.

The videos of the Chechens getting out of trucks and being like, really excited about going to war are really instructive, I think. They act like they're about to play CoD IRL. And even after combat, when they've definitely seen some of their comrades die, they maintain that energy. It's not this huge sad thing like some Vietnam movie.

I think the actual weight of death is exaggerated in the extreme in a society without rampant disease and infant/child mortality. Throughout history, I'm sure people cried when loved ones died, but it was also like, "yeah, you'll have that - everybody dies."

It's of course hard to analyze this as an observer without looking like some kind of death cultist who just thinks death is meaningless and funny. I think that's what Steve Franssen was accusing me of. As far as I could tell. I said I wasn't going to talk about that anymore (I think what I actually said is that I'm not going to respond to his attacks anymore). But it's fair to say: if he misunderstood the fact that I don't think death is a big deal (everybody does it!) as a celebration of death, then his criticism was probably valid in his own mind. This site is an art project and it is not meant to be entirely straightforward.

I think the obsession with the fear of death and the saccharine manner in which people mourn the deaths of people they don't even know should be mocked because it is all so absurd that trying to logically deconstruct it is more than any normal person would be able to grasp. The obsession with fetishizing death is a modernist value, and you end up with coronavirus "we will kill everyone if it will save even one life" logic.

But who knows - there's obviously something wrong with me. I remember when I was 16 and my friend called and woke me up at 11 AM and said "we're under attack!" and I was like "what?" and he said "turn on the TV!" and I saw the smoking WTC towers and started laughing. I never understood any of the emotional hysteria. This doesn't mean that I want people to suffer and die, but I don't know that this difference is something very many people would understand, because everyone is locked into this idea that death is this terrible horrible very bad thing that has to be avoided at all costs, despite the fact that everyone knows that it happens to everyone.

And it's a hoax also - whether you're religious or an atheist, it doesn't matter to the dead person if they die after they're dead. So it's self-indulgence that leads to this obsession with not wanting people to ever die, because it is the living that suffer after someone dies. The dead person is dead.

In 2021, my childhood best friend died from fentanyl and my grandma died from the vax, and I viewed both as primarily political rather than personal. There didn't seem to be any purpose in being sad about people who were already dead. What would me being sad about it be, other than self-indulgence? If there is an emotion, it should be outrage over the causes, which is actually socially useful.

Then we should view our own deaths the same way. If we understand that mourning our own deaths is as ridiculous as mourning other people's deaths, maybe we will stop being so afraid of death. I don't mean immediate fear, like if you're the victim of a negro home invasion and you enter fight or flight mode. Someone who wouldn't have fear of death in that situation would have a serious psychological problem. I mean this underlying fear of death that people base their life decisions around. I'm not trying to act like I'm some badass who wants to go into a war acting like a Chechen, but if I was told I had a rare brain cancer that's going to kill me in a week, I'd go to the store and get crates of cigarettes, vodka, and various cheeses and hams, and start typing on my computer like I had a week to live, trying to compose everything I've learned in life into a succinct whole (while taking breaks only to pray and do push-ups). I don't even know if I would bother calling my family and telling them. I probably wouldn't as I can't think of any purpose it would serve. I think I'd just leave them each letters to be read after I was gone.

Everyone dies. If we didn't die, life wouldn't have any meaning. I saw a Red Letter Media review of the 80s vampire movie "Near Dark" and wanted to rewatch it - this was the theme. The vampires' lives didn't have any meaning at all, and it was just this endless grind. So if we're able to establish that death is effectively what creates meaning in life, we're probably able to view it differently.

And of course, this all ties back to atheism - if someone is afraid to die, it's like "what did you do? why don't you repent and stop worrying about it?" There is also this "utilitarian" pleasure-pain ideology that death (or aging) literally can't fit into at all, which has led us to this point of a bunch of freaks thinking they're going to turn themselves into immortal cyborgs.

Bottom line: you can't understand anything without having first principles, and if you accept any single liberal/Jewish premise, you no longer have first principles, and you can't make sense of anything at all.
 
Last edited:

Andrew Anglin

🐁 πŸŽ€ π“‚π’Άπ“ˆπ“‰π‘’π“‡ 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝑒𝒻 πŸŽ€ 🐁
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
This is a semi to moderately holiday buzzed rant I wrote in the Marilyn Manson thread and decided to post here instead. It's sort of the "three drinks later" sequel to an actual article I wrote about mass shootings to be published in a couple hours. I think it is on topic here, because Nick has lately talked about utilitarianism as the underlying value system of secular society and how this ultimately leads to fear (the mind-killer) and then satanism. Also, I mention the Steve Franssen attacks on me (in an understanding way).



NIN was just too depressing. Marilyn Manson wanted to do poppy schlock and put on edgy vaudeville shows, not be some kind of analysis of human suffering. I think Trent wanted Manson to be a serious commentary on his own personal depression and lack of purpose while Manson just wanted to be a professional showman hiding behind thin and superficial criticisms of consumerism or something.

Those first three albums are so obviously Reznor side projects that it seems fair enough Manson would want some artistic breathing room.

Anyway, I can't listen to this music anymore, so I'm not going to go back an write a review, but I think the music made after "Antichrist" was much more designed for big concert shows, with a high energy vibe. It was on Holy Wood he wrote a song called "fight song" and encouraged people in the audience to fight.

I guess there is probably something about myself I need to analyze as to how I can still respect someone who called himself "Antichrist" just because he made society mad. Probably, it's what I was just writing in a mass shooting think-piece I'll post later - that there has to be conflict in society. It's the same reason I always loved Westboro Baptist Church, and I'm sure Marilyn Manson had a lot of respect for them too.

I guess the recent revelations that Manson is a racist and woman beater proves he was not secretly pushing some kind of liberal agenda and was just purposefully trying to make people mad.

But I guess it makes me question what my own positions would be if we lived in a genuinely healthy Christian society. How can you have a society without conflict? The fascist solution to that was that you had to be at war with someone else, and I think in general, this is a good solution, or the best possible solution.

I have just come to the conclusion that life without conflict, struggle, and the suffering that comes from these things, cannot possibly have any meaning, because of the nature of the human condition. I just gave the example of Napoleon invading Russia and everyone in France being like "yeah, that's a really good idea."

And the Russians themselves weren't really outraged even, but like "oh sweet the French, lol. They about to get rekt why did they come in wintertime roflmao."

This whole thing of war and there being so much death and suffering as a result of war - I don't really think this conflicts with the Christian ideal of life being defined by suffering. The conflict with Christianity is starting the wars, not that the wars happen and people suffer and die. That is just life and where men find meaning.

I've been thinking about this in relation to why Ukrainians aren't surrendering in larger numbers, despite the fact that this war is literally nonsensical from Ukrainian perspective, and it doesn't really make sense that they could all be completely brainwashed in 8 years to believe that the Ukraine is a real country with some kind of defined "values" worth dying for.

The videos of the Chechens getting out of trucks and being like, really excited about going to war are really instructive, I think. They act like they're about to play CoD IRL. And even after combat, when they've definitely seen some of their comrades die, they maintain that energy. It's not this huge sad thing like some Vietnam movie.

I think the actual weight of death is exaggerated in the extreme in a society without rampant disease and infant/child mortality. Throughout history, I'm sure people cried when loved ones died, but it was also like, "yeah, you'll have that - everybody dies."

It's of course hard to analyze this as an observer without looking like some kind of death cultist who just thinks death is meaningless and funny. I think that's what Steve Franssen was accusing me of. As far as I could tell. I said I wasn't going to talk about that anymore (I think what I actually said is that I'm not going to respond to his attacks anymore). But it's fair to say: if he misunderstood the fact that I don't think death is a big deal (everybody does it!) as a celebration of death, then his criticism was probably valid in his own mind. This site is an art project and it is not meant to be entirely straightforward.

I think the obsession with the fear of death and the saccharine manner in which people mourn the deaths of people they don't even know should be mocked because it is all so absurd that trying to logically deconstruct it is more than any normal person would be able to grasp. The obsession with fetishizing death is a modernist value, and you end up with coronavirus "we will kill everyone if it will save even one life" logic.

But who knows - there's obviously something wrong with me. I remember when I was 16 and my friend called and woke me up at 11 AM and said "we're under attack!" and I was like "what?" and he said "turn on the TV!" and I saw the smoking WTC towers and started laughing. I never understood any of the emotional hysteria. This doesn't mean that I want people to suffer and die, but I don't know that this difference is something very many people would understand, because everyone is locked into this idea that death is this terrible horrible very bad thing that has to be avoided at all costs, despite the fact that everyone knows that it happens to everyone.

And it's a hoax also - whether you're religious or an atheist, it doesn't matter to the dead person if they die after they're dead. So it's self-indulgence that leads to this obsession with not wanting people to ever die, because it is the living that suffer after someone dies. The dead person is dead.

In 2021, my childhood best friend died from fentanyl and my grandma died from the vax, and I viewed both as primarily political rather than personal. There didn't seem to be any purpose in being sad about people who were already dead. What would me being sad about it be, other than self-indulgence? If there is an emotion, it should be outrage over the causes, which is actually socially useful.

Then we should view our own deaths the same way. If we understand that mourning our own deaths is as ridiculous as mourning other people's deaths, maybe we will stop being so afraid of death. I don't mean immediate fear, like if you're the victim of a negro home invasion and you enter fight or flight mode. Someone who wouldn't have fear of death in that situation would have a serious psychological problem. I mean this underlying fear of death that people base their life decisions around. I'm not trying to act like I'm some badass who wants to go into a war acting like a Chechen, but if I was told I had a rare brain cancer that's going to kill me in a week, I'd go to the store and get crates of cigarettes, vodka, and various cheeses and hams, and start typing on my computer like I had a week to live, trying to compose everything I've learned in life into a succinct whole (while taking breaks only to pray and do push-ups). I don't even know if I would bother calling my family and telling them. I probably wouldn't as I can't think of any purpose it would serve. I think I'd just leave them each letters to be read after I was gone.

Everyone dies. If we didn't die, life wouldn't have any meaning. I saw a Red Letter Media review of the 80s vampire movie "Near Dark" and wanted to rewatch it - this was the theme. The vampires' lives didn't have any meaning at all, and it was just this endless grind. So if we're able to establish that death is effectively what creates meaning in life, we're probably able to view it differently.

And of course, this all ties back to atheism - if someone is afraid to die, it's like "what did you do? why don't you repent and stop worrying about it?" There is also this "utilitarian" pleasure-pain ideology that death (or aging) literally can't fit into at all, which has led us to this point of a bunch of freaks thinking they're going to turn themselves into immortal cyborgs.

Bottom line: you can't understand anything without having first principles, and if you accept any single liberal/Jewish premise, you no longer have first principles, and you can't make sense of anything at all.
In a rare reply to myself, I would like to add that what I just did here was further analyze and expand on the deeper meaning behind things I already believe. I would just like to take a moment to compare this to the laziness of the former "Alt-Right" deciding to create entirely new beliefs in order to come up with new "hot takes."

People wrote Christian philosophy for over a thousand years, and were coming up with novel analysis of things they already knew to be true, and it was interesting and provided intellectual stimulation to people who believed that Jesus Christ died on a cross to cleanse us of the legacy of Adam's poor decision making (simping, frankly) which is hardwired into our DNA. There is no shortage of meaningful introspection from a Christian perspective, and in a million years or a trillion years we could still be looking into ourselves and finding parts of who we are and elaborating on it in a satisfying way.

The Alt-Right saying "I'm bored with this and now I'm a communist because that is a platform for new angles of superficial analysis of inane social phenomenon" is the most intellectually bankrupt mind-games I've ever witnessed.

If we are made in God's image, then infinity exists inside of each of us, because that is what God is, and introspection is a bottomless pit of golden nuggets.

In the brain cancer scenario, with the week to live, I would publish a confessions, of course. There is a darkness inside of me, and inside every single child of Eve, that whore, that only people with a week to live would have the fortitude to dare to mine for content.

My instinct is that the week-long brain disease piece, which would be 100,000 words, would be called "My Mother the Whore." But that title is going to need to be reworked, because I don't want it to be a reference to my birth mother, but my grandmother, Eve.

I've never done anything especially evil, in relative terms, but this woman, this grandmother the whore, has loomed over me, and the darkness she embraced has remained lodged at the base of my spine, whispering into my consciousness, and my entire being is defined by a war between my own self, my own nature as an embodiment of the image of God, and Grandma Eve daring me to eat these bad fruits.

"You will surely not die."

I just want to be alone, in a dark room, with vodka and cigarettes and a statue of Mother Mary, with candles, and my computer.

Someone wrote about Mary as the anti-Eve, I'm sure. I don't know who and I've never read it.

 

PotstickerSwatstika

β€’Dissident πŸ™ŒπŸ» Dumplingβ€’
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒ
Escaped True Master
Destructive Ceremonious Master



Nick

My new twitter banned after 19 hours!! Some people can ban evade for months or years and accumulate tens or hundreds of thousands of followers. I can’t make it a full day anymore…

That’ll just make it more satisfying when Elon brings us back
 

PotstickerSwatstika

β€’Dissident πŸ™ŒπŸ» Dumplingβ€’
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒ
Escaped True Master
Destructive Ceremonious Master
@Andrew Anglin



Potsticker buggin’ the Boss Man while he’s hung over...? πŸ’―
 

LittleGuinea

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“
I think Trent wanted Manson to be a serious commentary on his own personal depression and lack of purpose while Manson just wanted to be a professional showman hiding behind thin and superficial criticisms of consumerism or something.
Maybe, I suspect it was more about money though. Reznor has this thing where all NIN songs have to be deep personal statements so I think he was happy to make some music without his name on it.
I remember when I was 16 and my friend called and woke me up at 11 AM and said "we're under attack!" and I was like "what?" and he said "turn on the TV!" and I saw the smoking WTC towers and started laughing.
I had that response also for some reason, it was just such an incredible moment in time I found it hilarious. Death seriously affects me still though, but usually it comes during the services for the departed. I also tear up when I hear about babies getting born, it's all just life man!
 

Paul Harrell

"It's about the McLorean"
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
Escaped True Master
Baked Alaska did a fun interview with Ethan Ralph yesterday. They got swatted around the 33 minute mark
1657037046749.png

At the same time, Wurzelroot was investigating the social media of the mass shooter,
1657037694800.png

Paul Town has been streaming his classics for 11 hours now, it's still live
1657037362902.png
 

Paul Harrell

"It's about the McLorean"
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
Escaped True Master

PotstickerSwatstika

β€’Dissident πŸ™ŒπŸ» Dumplingβ€’
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒ
Escaped True Master
Destructive Ceremonious Master
Baked Alaska did a fun interview with Ethan Ralph yesterday. They got swatted around the 33 minute mark
View attachment 108185

At the same time, Wurzelroot was investigating the social media of the mass shooter,
View attachment 108187

Paul Town has been streaming his classics for 11 hours now, it's still live
View attachment 108186
As if that wasn't enough content, Ethan Ralph is now LIVE from the YobaHouse
#ContentRenaissance #2022EnergyIsReal #BestThread
 

Andrew Anglin

🐁 πŸŽ€ π“‚π’Άπ“ˆπ“‰π‘’π“‡ 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝑒𝒻 πŸŽ€ 🐁
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
Maybe, I suspect it was more about money though. Reznor has this thing where all NIN songs have to be deep personal statements so I think he was happy to make some music without his name on it.
Would you want to work for Trent Reznor if you didn't have to?

Before I get hit up for off-topicing the thread: this is a thing with any creative/perfectionist (it's sort of the same thing, because if you actually have a creative vision, you're attempting to bring it into the world from your mind, which can't ever be done perfectly).

I bring it up regularly: I don't have enough money to pay a staff to tolerate my abuse. Apple's current status as a company aside, Steve Jobs was absolutely a creative genius, and everyone who worked for him hated him. He would make people cry on purpose in front of other staff members. But he paid them so much it was worth it.

So on-topicing it: these people whining about how Nick was abusive to them when he worked for them, it's like "oh? ya don't say?" Of course he's an abusive control freak in a professional setting. If he wasn't, he would not be the kind of person who is successful in creative work.

I think Jobs was an actually angry person, which I don't support. But there is no way to run a creative project with employees and not be abusive and controlling.

Also, Manson was a unique case in that he had his own creative vision. Most people who work for other creatives as subordinates don't really have the ability to put forward a creative vision, which is why Jayden [sic] and Simon or Patrick Casey are not pumping out the jams. Some people (like say, drummers except Phil Collins) want to be creative in the confines of someone else's creative project, these are ideal people who are going to get the least abuse. However, creative projects are also open to people who just want to leech, which is what Nick has been plagued with.

That is Nick's fault, by the way. There's a learning curve, and dealing with human resources is very difficult, but he allowed these people to leech for a long time, when they didn't even have any real loyalty, because despite being an abusive control freak, he's also much too nice. Steve Jobs would have fired all these people within a few hours of hiring them.

Nick is an actual prodigy, so we sometimes forget how young he actually was when he started this. Human resources stuff is not intuitive, and the only way to learn it is to fail at it, but Nick needs to at the very least require total ride or die take a bullet for my nigga loyalty from inner-circle people. They're hard to find, but Beardson and Vince are examples of it. I really do not like Kai or Franssen publicly questioning Nick. Obviously, he has to be open to private interrogation, but I'm sure he is that 100%. So the public stuff is really inexcusable.

Kai seems like a nice guy, but after the Jayden thing when he said "there are some things Nick needs to answer for," I almost punched my computer screen. If he thinks Nick needs to answer for something, he should be able to call him and say whatever the hell he wants to Nick, uninterrupted. But he should not be able to go out in public and say "Nick needs to answer these wild accusations from this Klinefelted ginger pervert."

I would have told him: "you can say anything you want to me in private, and I will listen to you for as long as you need me to, but if you ever go out there and question me in public again, we will no longer be working together."

The dynamics are generally complicated now that he's running cozy and apparently the sole decider of who streams. As I said before: if he bans anyone who criticizes him it looks bad and if he allows people to criticize him on his own platform (where he decides who streams) it looks bad. He needs to figure out some kind of shell board or something, because there is no solution to him leading a movement and running an semi-open platform where he decides who streams. Frankly, banning anyone who says anything against him would be better than allowing people to say things against him, but moving that decision process to some other party solves the problem. He needs to be able to say "I'm not making these decisions." The way it is now is only going to become more obviously problematic the larger the platform gets and the more people he allows on. People are going to shit-talk him. He looks weak if he allows them to do it, he looks like a control freak if he bans them for it.

It's a complex problem, but the veneer of someone else making the decisions is necessary.

Secondarily and moreover, he has more important things to do than figure out who streams. This is a completely unnecessary stress. He should make Vince or Dalton the head of a completely opaque "Trust and Safety Board." Either that, or just allow anyone to stream if they can meet certain criteria (worse option but better than now).

I would say he should just do what Jeff Bezos did with Amazon and appoint some puppet as CEO (because it is not really reasonable that he manage a streaming company while also hosting a show and doing his political events), but I keep thinking of these RT interviews where he is magnificently introduced as "The CEO of cozy."

Anyway, the point being: I don't know how close he is with Kai, but in this current dynamic, I would tell him if he ever questions me in public again he's banned from the site. If there is some "Trust and Safety Board" however, he wouldn't have to go that hard.

One time Hitler denounced Alfred Rosenberg's book in a speech where he was talking about Christianity, and I always picture Rosenberg in the audience like "hey, come on, dude." But this is the nature of the structure of hierarchy: Rosenberg could be an official in the Nazi party while his book was publicly denounced by Hitler, while all Rosenberg could do was try to say "I agree with everything Hitler says, of course, I just want to share this thing I made."

Hitler was a practicing Catholic (who had more support from Protestants than from Catholics, actually), but he allowed non-Christians (Rosenberg specifically, despite rumors, Himmler was a Christian) to be in the party as ranking officials. So Rosenberg disagreed with Hitler technically, but didn't say "this is where I disagree with the leader..."

If I was Hitler, I wouldn't have allowed Rosenberg to have a government position at all, and I think maybe this tolerance put him outside of God's favor. But the point of disagreement and dealing with disagreement from subordinates is correct. It was the exactly correct dynamic of hierarchy, where Rosenberg was allowed to disagree without directly stating that he disagreed and without criticizing.

Compare and contrast Hitler's relationship with Rosenberg with Mussolini's relationship with Evola, and list the positives and negatives of the differences in relations between the two leaders and their respective lunatic mystic-intellectuals in a three page double-spaced essay by next Monday. And don't forget to submit your five page double spaced essay on De Monarchia in relation to Hitler, Rosenberg, Mussolini, Evola, and Fuentes and Anglin by Friday - no extensions, even if your grandma died from coronavirus, you OD'd on fentanyl, your erection lasted for more than six hours, you had a lucid dream that caused a personal existential crisis, or your dog ate your laptop.
 

Andrew Anglin

🐁 πŸŽ€ π“‚π’Άπ“ˆπ“‰π‘’π“‡ 𝒸𝒽𝒾𝑒𝒻 πŸŽ€ 🐁
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
#ContentRenaissance #2022EnergyIsReal #BestThread
I'm sorry I'm ruining the thread with self-indulgent diatribes.

Potsticker, look me in the eyes: I'm sorry.

Frankly, I think this thread should keep moving, which is why I'm opposed to Harrell Iron Law. If I see a 4-5 hour timeframe without posts, it makes me nervous.

Hopefully, we will get new posters soon, following my plan, which will mean I don't have to continue to do degrading facials on this thread.
 

PraiseJesus

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½
Would you want to work for Trent Reznor if you didn't have to?

Before I get hit up for off-topicing the thread: this is a thing with any creative/perfectionist (it's sort of the same thing, because if you actually have a creative vision, you're attempting to bring it into the world from your mind, which can't ever be done perfectly).

I bring it up regularly: I don't have enough money to pay a staff to tolerate my abuse. Apple's current status as a company aside, Steve Jobs was absolutely a creative genius, and everyone who worked for him hated him. He would make people cry on purpose in front of other staff members. But he paid them so much it was worth it.

So on-topicing it: these people whining about how Nick was abusive to them when he worked for them, it's like "oh? ya don't say?" Of course he's an abusive control freak in a professional setting. If he wasn't, he would not be the kind of person who is successful in creative work.

I think Jobs was an actually angry person, which I don't support. But there is no way to run a creative project with employees and not be abusive and controlling.

Also, Manson was a unique case in that he had his own creative vision. Most people who work for other creatives as subordinates don't really have the ability to put forward a creative vision, which is why Jayden [sic] and Simon or Patrick Casey are not pumping out the jams. Some people (like say, drummers except Phil Collins) want to be creative in the confines of someone else's creative project, these are ideal people who are going to get the least abuse. However, creative projects are also open to people who just want to leech, which is what Nick has been plagued with.

That is Nick's fault, by the way. There's a learning curve, and dealing with human resources is very difficult, but he allowed these people to leech for a long time, when they didn't even have any real loyalty, because despite being an abusive control freak, he's also much too nice. Steve Jobs would have fired all these people within a few hours of hiring them.

Nick is an actual prodigy, so we sometimes forget how young he actually was when he started this. Human resources stuff is not intuitive, and the only way to learn it is to fail at it, but Nick needs to at the very least require total ride or die take a bullet for my nigga loyalty from inner-circle people. They're hard to find, but Beardson and Vince are examples of it. I really do not like Kai or Franssen publicly questioning Nick. Obviously, he has to be open to private interrogation, but I'm sure he is that 100%. So the public stuff is really inexcusable.

Kai seems like a nice guy, but after the Jayden thing when he said "there are some things Nick needs to answer for," I almost punched my computer screen. If he thinks Nick needs to answer for something, he should be able to call him and say whatever the hell he wants to Nick, uninterrupted. But he should not be able to go out in public and say "Nick needs to answer these wild accusations from this Klinefelted ginger pervert."

I would have told him: "you can say anything you want to me in private, and I will listen to you for as long as you need me to, but if you ever go out there and question me in public again, we will no longer be working together."

The dynamics are generally complicated now that he's running cozy and apparently the sole decider of who streams. As I said before: if he bans anyone who criticizes him it looks bad and if he allows people to criticize him on his own platform (where he decides who streams) it looks bad. He needs to figure out some kind of shell board or something, because there is no solution to him leading a movement and running an semi-open platform where he decides who streams. Frankly, banning anyone who says anything against him would be better than allowing people to say things against him, but moving that decision process to some other party solves the problem. He needs to be able to say "I'm not making these decisions." The way it is now is only going to become more obviously problematic the larger the platform gets and the more people he allows on. People are going to shit-talk him. He looks weak if he allows them to do it, he looks like a control freak if he bans them for it.

It's a complex problem, but the veneer of someone else making the decisions is necessary.

Secondarily and moreover, he has more important things to do than figure out who streams. This is a completely unnecessary stress. He should make Vince or Dalton the head of a completely opaque "Trust and Safety Board." Either that, or just allow anyone to stream if they can meet certain criteria (worse option but better than now).

I would say he should just do what Jeff Bezos did with Amazon and appoint some puppet as CEO (because it is not really reasonable that he manage a streaming company while also hosting a show and doing his political events), but I keep thinking of these RT interviews where he is magnificently introduced as "The CEO of cozy."

Anyway, the point being: I don't know how close he is with Kai, but in this current dynamic, I would tell him if he ever questions me in public again he's banned from the site. If there is some "Trust and Safety Board" however, he wouldn't have to go that hard.

One time Hitler denounced Alfred Rosenberg's book in a speech where he was talking about Christianity, and I always picture Rosenberg in the audience like "hey, come on, dude." But this is the nature of the structure of hierarchy: Rosenberg could be an official in the Nazi party while his book was publicly denounced by Hitler, while all Rosenberg could do was try to say "I agree with everything Hitler says, of course, I just want to share this thing I made."

Hitler was a practicing Catholic (who had more support from Protestants than from Catholics, actually), but he allowed non-Christians (Rosenberg specifically, despite rumors, Himmler was a Christian) to be in the party as ranking officials. So Rosenberg disagreed with Hitler technically, but didn't say "this is where I disagree with the leader..."

If I was Hitler, I wouldn't have allowed Rosenberg to have a government position at all, and I think maybe this tolerance put him outside of God's favor. But the point of disagreement and dealing with disagreement from subordinates is correct. It was the exactly correct dynamic of hierarchy, where Rosenberg was allowed to disagree without directly stating that he disagreed and without criticizing.

Compare and contrast Hitler's relationship with Rosenberg with Mussolini's relationship with Evola, and list the positives and negatives of the differences in relations between the two leaders and their respective lunatic mystic-intellectuals in a three page double-spaced essay by next Monday. And don't forget to submit your five page double spaced essay on De Monarchia in relation to Hitler, Rosenberg, Mussolini, Evola, and Fuentes and Anglin by Friday - no extensions, even if your grandma died from coronavirus, you OD'd on fentanyl, your erection lasted for more than six hours, you had a lucid dream that caused a personal existential crisis, or your dog ate your laptop.
Kai has a bad case of not being able to shut tf up. The kid is only 19 and was probably the top guy in social circle in high school and still thinks he is as special as his mother told him he was. The best thing for Kai is a solid hazing. He is "too big for his own britches" and needs to be taken down a couple pegs. In a couple years we might look at Kai as a real leader and a solid man but first he needs to be reminded that he is nothing without Mr. Fuentes and he needs to learn how to stfu.

Franssen is on the outs with America First and he knows it. He has chosen the life of a simple rancher and refused to be part of the movement in any meaningful way. He got scared during 1/6 and took the first flight out of DC. He hasn't been to AFPAC and he will never be invited to speak at one. He is basically cashing in while he still can, watching his numbers dwindle and plotting his next move. That is why he lashes out at you. He knows you are more important to Nick personally and to the movement as a whole and he his bitter about it.

As far as the content moderation Nick should just hire Beardson and let him be in charge of deciding who is allowed to stream and who gets kicked off the platfrom. Juden claims that cozy locked him out of his account and he just can't stream on there anymore. I don't believe a known scumbag like Juden but that seems like a pretty good option for removing people. Let the offender plead their case to Beardson live on stream and then Beardson and chat can decide their fate. The first streamer up for review should be that old jewish bitch "Politically Provoked". Let her cozy tribune begin and have her explain to us why we need a jew thot streaming to young Christian boys.
 

Paul Harrell

"It's about the McLorean"
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
Escaped True Master
Also, Manson was a unique case in that he had his own creative vision. Most people who work for other creatives as subordinates don't really have the ability to put forward a creative vision, which is why Jayden [sic] and Simon or Patrick Casey are not pumping out the jams. Some people (like say, drummers except Phil Collins) want to be creative in the confines of someone else's creative project, these are ideal people who are going to get the least abuse. However, creative projects are also open to people who just want to leech, which is what Nick has been plagued with.
This is further exemplified when you look at Patrick's content during the Dlive era. Everyone remembers the awful Dark Souls streams, but overall he had some great content as a member of the AF band. Unfortunately he had this ego problem or whatever that caused him to sabotage himself, but the point is that you look at his content then vs his content now, and you can see that he was much better off with AF. Not even money or viewership wise, but just content wise his show has degraded so much since then. He's doing these D list TRS style panel streams with sleepy weirdos from twitter now.


It's a shame that he couldn't take his ass out of his head and keep growing his style within the AF sphere, instead of burning it all down in a ragequit freakout. But I guess it's a common phenomenon with any sort of creative collaborative thing.

Speaking of Jaden and Patrick, it's so funny that Jaden reposting RPG and Patrick Casey. For those who weren't following it at the time, Jaden was seething, like literally shaking, about Patrick, even months before the big blow up stream (and for many months after). There's just something about the fact that there's an entire subgenre of the dissident right comprised of Nick's ex slaves, many of whom hate each other, that really makes me lol.

Kai seems like a nice guy, but after the Jayden thing when he said "there are some things Nick needs to answer for," I almost punched my computer screen. If he thinks Nick needs to answer for something, he should be able to call him and say whatever the hell he wants to Nick, uninterrupted. But he should not be able to go out in public and say "Nick needs to answer these wild accusations from this Klinefelted ginger pervert."

I would have told him: "you can say anything you want to me in private, and I will listen to you for as long as you need me to, but if you ever go out there and question me in public again, we will no longer be working together."
I agree with this

The dynamics are generally complicated now that he's running cozy and apparently the sole decider of who streams. As I said before: if he bans anyone who criticizes him it looks bad and if he allows people to criticize him on his own platform (where he decides who streams) it looks bad. He needs to figure out some kind of shell board or something, because there is no solution to him leading a movement and running an semi-open platform where he decides who streams. Frankly, banning anyone who says anything against him would be better than allowing people to say things against him, but moving that decision process to some other party solves the problem. He needs to be able to say "I'm not making these decisions." The way it is now is only going to become more obviously problematic the larger the platform gets and the more people he allows on. People are going to shit-talk him. He looks weak if he allows them to do it, he looks like a control freak if he bans them for it.
I wasn't crazy about this idea when you first floated it, and although I have warmed up to it a lot since then, it's still not my favorite. Probably it's just an emotional thing, but there's something about Nick curating the streamers that makes cozy his thing. Obviously he masterminded the idea and orchestrated all the resources that go into it (including paying for the site out of pocket), and no one can take that away. But like you said, there's just a certain ring to "Nick Fuentes, CEO of cozy dot tv". And with that, there must be a certain satisfaction for Nick knowing that all the streamers there are there by his personal choice. I don't think anyone should take that away from him.

Maybe the headache isn't worth it though, because there is a problem, especially when you have people going full anti AF. I think as the site expands, there will be a point where things will become more hands off for Nick.

I'm sorry I'm ruining the thread with self-indulgent diatribes.
Well fwiw I found the previous post to be perfectly on-topic and entertaining to read

"shout out to potsticker" -Ethan Ralph

Hopefully, we will get new posters soon, following my plan, which will mean I don't have to continue to do degrading facials on this thread.
lmao bruh
 

Paul Harrell

"It's about the McLorean"
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
Escaped True Master
The first streamer up for review should be that old jewish bitch "Politically Provoked". Let her cozy tribune begin and have her explain to us why we need a jew thot streaming to young Christian boys.
1657044612875.png
 

PotstickerSwatstika

β€’Dissident πŸ™ŒπŸ» Dumplingβ€’
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»πŸ₯©πŸ₯ƒ
Escaped True Master
Destructive Ceremonious Master
Well fwiw I found the previous post to be perfectly on-topic and entertaining to read
+1
"shout out to potsticker" -Ethan Ralph
Yeah, that was a much appreciated hat tip for my sticker submission that made it into the rotation (or so I’m told cuz I’ve never been able to see or post stickers in chat (can’t even chat at all right now, actually, since this weird browser I downloaded just to access cozy won’t let me log into Telegram (let alone lock the screen/navigate away at all and still listen to streams for more than 40 seconds before it all shuts down))).
 
Last edited:

Paul Harrell

"It's about the McLorean"
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
Escaped True Master
+1

Yeah, that was a much appreciated hat tip for my sticker submission that made it into the rotation (or so I’m told cuz I’ve never been able to seepost stickers in chat (can’t even chat at all right now, actually, since this weird browser I downloaded just to access cozy won’t let me log into Telegram (let alone lock the screen/navigate away at all and still listen to streams for more than 40 seconds before it all shuts down))).
Cozy has been a bit laggy for me lately, but it was running great after I did the hard refresh. I might try that again.
 

Paul Harrell

"It's about the McLorean"
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
Escaped True Master
Wow. 8 months, 4,000 posts, 200k thread views. Pretty big milestone ITT.
1657047168862.png

Shout out to Nick for creating cozy, and all the surrounding buzz. Shout out Ethan Ralph, for bringing the RALPHAMALE energy to cozy. Shout out all cozy streamers, for bringing us nonstop daily content. Shout out Andrew Anglin, for providing us with GU, the most cozy forum online. Shout out Potsticker for providing all of the latest news from telegram, and for always having my back. Shout out all the posters ITT, even the boomer schizos and the kpop simps.

What all started as frankly a place to chat for those of us without telegram has evolved into one of the most watched spaces in this sphere. Kind of incredible when you think of it.

Here's to another 1,000 posts πŸ₯‚
www.bitchute.com/video/ZEr5SykAL1oQ
 
Top