These vacuous homogenized lamestream glove-puppets, miscellaneous gatekeepers and other IYIs that comprise their now very shaky edifice are seriously pissed off for two inextricably linked reasons: (a) it’s the independent thinkers that now dominate YouTube, much to Google’s chagrin; and (b) the traditional wanna-be public intellectual IYIs of academia now openly display a bad case of sour grapes, writing off the many personages that Douglas Murray mentions here as shallow, trite, popular, derivative, and a whole litany of now meaningless and none-too-subtle smears. They are pissed off that their cultivated priestly mystique (“expertise”) is being dissolved. Two years before the Newman moment (“THE glitch in the matrix”), one could see their arrogance after being routed in open debate (topic — campus free speech) with the usual crass tantrum-like recriminations that followed. As Eric puts it:
The evening is wrecked by having to travel to a studio where you will be given a maximum of three minutes’ airtime to correct a set of false presumptions which the presenter has already gathered against you. ‘So what you’re saying’ could be the epitaph for this form of journalism. There is no opportunity for nuance, not much opportunity for correction and very little to recommend it to anyone but the producers.
these discussions are rarely set up in the dated red-corner/blue-corner style of a BBC or Channel 4 debate
For young people in particular, who have been let down by didactic and cowardly orthodoxies, these newly discovered heroes are providing a path out of the bewildering maze that their age has created for them. It is one of the great good news tales of our time: out from the dark web, into the light.