Mediaboss Marketing

In the long-running and just concluded The Last Dance, the exploits of Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls dynasty of the 1990s were well-documented by ESPN.

Yes, Jordan is the finest basketball player ever produced by the National Basketball Association. His skills and game preparation were unparalleled.

But the Bulls would not have had the success they enjoyed without a superb coach in Phil Jackson.

As he did in Los Angeles with the Lakers, Jackson was able to work through a diverse collection of egos.

Thats not an easy thing to do in todays sports, which features a bunch of overpaid prima donnas, especially in the NBA.

But the thing I liked about the show was the reference to Detroits Bad Boys of the late 1980s.

Even Jordan, while expressing his dislike of coach Chuck Dalys Pistons, gave them grudging credit.

We would have never accomplished what we did if we didnt learn how to beat them (Pistons), Jordan said.

Detroit interrupted the so-called NBA golden age (Celtics, Lakers and Bulls) with titles in 1989 and 1990.

I think with a little luck and better officiating they could won it all in 1987 and 1988 when they had better talent than the Celts and Lakers.

Make no mistake, Detroit had the horses.

Isiah Thomas and crafty Joe Dumars were as good a guard combination as has been seen.

Thomas is a legitimate Hall of Famer who should have been on the 1992 US Olympic team. That was the Dream Team comprised entirely of pro players.

Jordan played a big role in Thomas being left off the squad, even though he still denies it.

The front line combination of Bill Laimbeer, Rick Mahorn, John Salley, Mark Aguiire and others earned the Bad Boy moniker earned by the team with their rugged play.

And a young Dennis Rodman, before his wacky days, was the glue on defense.

Rodman, who later was a key member of the Bulls title teams, was a tireless competitor. He might have been the best defensive player ever.

You also have to remember the Motowners had instant offense off the bench in Vinnie Johnson.

The late Daley was a perfect coach for those teams. He knew his Xs and Os. He also knew when to push buttons.

So, while the documentary was a bit heavy on Jordan, it paid overdue homage to the Pistons.

And yes, they should have shaken hands after the 1992 playoff defeat by Chicago.

But that was the Bad Boys.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Visit link:
Peterson: Bad Boys really were that good | News, Sports, Jobs - Daily Mining Gazette

TFW No GFAlex Lee Moyers new documentary, TFW No GF, finds the sadness and alienation behind the posturing of the Internets right fringe.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLEDuring the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton delivered a speech raising alarm about Donald Trumps association with the alt-right. In Clintons telling, conspiracy theories and rank bigotry from the dark, far reaches of the Internet fueled Trumps rise. But if Clinton correctly identified a new political movement growing on the fringes of the Web, she misidentified Breitbart and Alex Jones as its ringleaders. In the strange world of 4chan and weird Twitter, the anonymous posters who took credit for memeing Trump to the presidency call the shots.

Since 2016, academics and journalists have offered alternatives to Clintons simplistic characterization of these online communities. Its no easy task: Cloaked in layers of irony and self-reference, they elude conventional analysis. The operating principle in the hodgepodge of gamers, anime fans, and reactionary ideologues that makes up the online far right is a love of chaos, as Angela Nagle points out in her book Kill All Normies. Some espouse explicitly racist and misogynistic views, others want to lash out at political correctness and identity politics, and others still do it just to get a rise out of people.

Alex Lee Moyers documentary TFW No GF is the latest attempt to explore the dark, far reaches of the internet. The film, featured in the 2020 SXSW lineup and released on Amazon Prime Video in late April, follows five members of the nebulous, overlapping subcultures labeled at various times incels (involuntary celibates), NEETs (not in employment, education or training), edgelords, Pepes, and the alt-right. Moyer borrows the lo-fi aesthetics of her subjects: The movie is a pastiche of memes, archival material, and heavily edited footage set to the music of John Maus and Ariel Pink. But while Moyers visual sensibilities evince an appreciation for her subjects, her film raises questions as to whether the online world these men inhabit offers them anything constructive or whether it simply reproduces the dynamics that drove them to seek virtual refuge in the first place.

The confessional narratives of TFW No GF translated from Internet slang, it means that feeling when [you have] no girlfriend contrast with the brash and irreverent online personas of its subjects. Against a backdrop of bleak, postindustrial locales its almost like nobodys here, says one subject of his Washington exurb the protagonists discuss their alienation, social maladjustment, and inability to attract women. They grew up in broken homes and see no entry point into conventional life. Instead of the white picket fence, theyve exiled themselves to their childhood bedrooms.

Critics have called TFW No GF a film about incels, but its more a collage of various online subcultures. Sex, the be-all and end-all of the online manosphere, is an afterthought to the films protagonists. These characters seem to harbor little of the incel rage that has fueled mass shootings and online harassment campaigns. Theyre mostly just depressed, and turn to the Internet as a substitute for community.

But there have always been lonely men. If TFW No GF simply documented depression, it wouldnt be especially interesting. Gogol and Dostoevsky explored male disaffection before Moyers, and offered conclusions more incisive than these guys are not happy besides. The film momentarily moves beyond misery-wallowing 30 minutes in, when a man known on Twitter as Kantbot appears on the screen. Contrasting with the industrial debris and cluttered bedrooms that form most of the films backdrop, Kantbots world Riverside Park, a Manhattan rooftop, and a Columbia Universityadjacent bookstore is sophisticated. He intermittently exhales cigarette smoke while expounding on German idealist philosophy. His urbanity and erudition, if an obvious put-on, set him apart from his fellow travelers: One of these edgelords is not like the others.

Kantbot first gained online notoriety from a viral clip in which he claimed that Donald Trump will complete the system of German idealism to a crowd of anti-Trump protesters in Manhattan. Such trolling has gained him a sizable audience and made him something of an online celebrity. And with his appearance, the film begins to explore the intellectual underpinnings of the online far right. Kantbot says his project is to solve the problem of modernity: the devolution of pure reason into nihilism, hedonism, and solipsism. He sees his tweets as aphorisms in the style of the German philosopher Friedrich Schelling. Kantbots relevance to the film stems not only from his fanbase of likeminded young men but also from his ostensible aim to provide an alternative to the disappointments of contemporary life. He is the bard to the rabble of online sh**posters.

Those edgelords who have attempted to fashion an intellectual project out of their alienation seem to have the most to say about the peculiar contours of online discourse. A more thorough sociology of Internet subcultures would have spent more time exploring these contours, through Kantbot and other pseudonymous intellectuals.

But Moyers ambitions are different. Though TFW No GF flirts with a phenomenology of edgelordism, it prioritizes the personal experiences of its subjects. And while it documents the alienation and resentment that has led some self-described incels to glorify or perpetrate murderous acts, most of the characters extricate themselves from edgelordism by the end of the film. One finds a girlfriend online, another takes to weightlifting and reading philosophy. A meme reading, Were all gonna make it marks a break from the fatalism of the films early acts. Perhaps Jordan Petersons brand of self-help has more to offer young men than posting threats against women on Twitter. Or perhaps these men were never so damaged in the first place, but merely engaged in transgressive online discourse as a distraction.

Once again, Kantbot is the exception he remains extremely online, ending the film in much the same position as when it started, except with 40,000 Twitter followers and a popular podcast. Like other self-styled gurus, Kantbot subsists on the attention of his thousands of anonymous fans, who spend more time vying for a retweet than emancipating themselves.

Thus has the attempt to create an unbounded intellectual space devolved into a replica of ordinary social spheres, with different codes and values but with the same competition for attention. The success of the online Rights minor celebrities depends on a substratum of young men languishing. Vying with the ringleaders ideas might be fruitful, but fetishizing them is not. If there is a hopeful lesson from TFW No GF, its that their followers are starting to realize that.

Excerpt from:
Inside the Internet Hate Machine - National Review

At dawn last Tuesday morning, the police took a man named Andrs from his home in northeastern Hungary. His alleged crime? Writing a Facebook post that called the countrys prime minister, Viktor Orbn, a dictator.

Andrs has a point. After winning Hungarys 2010 election, the prime minister systematically dismantled the countrys democracy undermining the basic fairness of elections, packing the courts with cronies, and taking control of more than 90 percent of the countrys media outlets. He has openly described his form of government as illiberal democracy, half of which is accurate.

Since the coronavirus, Orbns authoritarian tendencies have only grown more pronounced. His allies in parliament passed a new law giving him the power to rule by decree and creating a new crime, spreading a falsehood, punishable by up to five years in prison. The Hungarian government recently seized public funding that opposing political parties depend on; through an ally, they took financial control of one of the few remaining anti-Orbn media outlets. This month, the pro-democracy group Freedom House officially announced that it no longer considered Hungary a democracy.

Andrs was detained for hours for daring to criticize this authoritarian drift. The 64-year-old was ultimately released, but the polices official statement on the arrest noted that a malicious or ill-considered share on the internet could constitute a crime. Andrs, for one, got the message.

I told [the cops] their task had achieved its result and would probably shut me up, he told the news site 444.

Andrss arrest is an unusually naked display of what Hungary has become a cautionary tale for what a certain kind of right-wing populist will do when given unchecked political power. Yet among a certain segment of American conservatives, Orbn is not viewed as a warning.

Hes viewed as a role model.

Orbns fans in the West include notable writers at major conservative and right-leaning publications like National Review, the American Conservative, and the New York Post. Christopher Caldwell, a journalist widely respected on the right, wrote a lengthy feature praising the strongman as a leader blessed with almost every political gift.

Patrick Deneen, perhaps the most prominent conservative political theorist in America, traveled to Budapest to meet Orbn in his office, describing the Hungarian government as a model for American conservatives. Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist and right-wing cultural icon, also made a pilgrimage to the prime ministers office.

Chris DeMuth, the former head of the American Enterprise Institute, interviewed Orbn onstage at a conference, praising the prime minister in opening remarks as not only a political but an intellectual leader. The event was organized by Yoram Hazony, an Israeli intellectual widely influential on the American right and another vocal Orbn fan.

The Hungarian government has actively cultivated support from such international conservatives. John OSullivan, an Anglo-American contributor to National Review, is currently based at the Danube Institute a think tank in Budapest that OSullivan admits receives funding from the Hungarian government.

Pro-Orbn Westerners tend to come from one of two overlapping camps in modern conservatism: religiously minded social conservatives (Deneen, for example) and conservative nationalists (Caldwell, Demuth).

Religious conservatives find Orbns social policies to be a breath of fresh air. Orbn has given significant state support to Hungarys churches, officially labeling his government a Christian democracy. He provided generous subsidies to families in an effort to get Hungarian women to stay at home and have more babies. He launched a legal assault on progressive social ideals, prohibiting the teaching of gender studies in Hungarian universities and banning transgender people from legally identifying as anything other than their biological sex at birth.

Conservative nationalists focus on the Hungarian approach to immigration and the European Union. During the 2015 migrant crisis, Orbn was the most prominent opponent of German Chancellor Angela Merkels open borders approach; he built a wall on Hungarys southern border with Serbia to keep refugees from entering. He has repeatedly denounced the influence the EU has on its member states, describing one of his governing aims as preserving Hungarys national character in the face of a globalist onslaught led by Brussels and philanthropist George Soros.

For Western conservatives of a religious and/or nationalist bent, Orbn is the leader they wish Donald Trump could be smart, politically savvy, and genuinely devoted to their ideals. Hungary is, for them, the equivalent of what Nordic countries are for the American left: proof of concept that their ideas could make the United States a better place.

Yet while the Nordic countries are among the worlds freest democracies, Hungary has fallen into a form of autocracy. This presents a problem for Hungarys Western apostles, as they do not see themselves as advocates of American authoritarianism. Their encomia to Orbn tend to either overlook his authoritarian tendencies or deny them altogether, claiming that biased Western reporters and NGOs are unfairly demonizing Budapest for its cultural and nationalist beliefs.

Hungarys leadership ... is more democratic than most of the countries that lecture Budapest about democracy, Catholic conservative Sohrab Ahmari writes in the New York Post. Hungarys leaders have had it with Western liberal condescension and tutelage.

In reality, its not the Orbn regime thats being persecuted: Its ordinary Hungarian citizens like Andrs. The Western defenders of Orbn are so preoccupied by the culture wars over gender and immigration that theyre overlooking who, exactly, theyve gotten in bed with.

Rod Dreher, a senior editor at the American Conservative, is one of a handful of influential Western writers courted by the Hungarian government. Hes met with Orbn and even had plans to take up a fellowship in Budapest before the coronavirus scrambled everyones lives.

While Dreher has a number of views that liberals find either kooky or reprehensible, hes a talented writer whos hugely influential on the religious and nationalist right. When I asked Dreher for the strongest possible version of the conservative case for Orbn, he sent me a series of lengthy and reflective notes on the subject.

I want to be clear that I dont want to be understood as approving of everything Orbn does, he told me. My approval of Orbn is general, not specific, in the same way that there are people who dont agree with everything Trump does, but who generally endorse him.

This general endorsement is rooted in a sense that the Hungarian leader challenges the liberal elite in a way few others do. In Drehers analysis, the dominant mode of thinking in the West is secular and liberal a political style that suffocates traditional religious observance and crushes specific national identities in favor of a homogenizing, cosmopolitan ideal.

He [Orbn] knew that in 2015, to allow all the Middle Eastern immigrants to settle in Hungary would have been surrendering a Hungarian future for the Hungarian people...and all the traditions and cultural memories they carry with them, Dreher told me. Broadly speaking, the ideology of globalism presumes that those traditions and those memories are obstacles to creating an ideal world. That they are problems to be solved rather than a heritage to be cherished.

This sense of persecution at the hands of secular globalist elites is at the center of the mindset held by Dreher and much of the modern intellectual right. The contemporary fusion of religious and nationalist ideas has created a unified field theory of global cultural politics, defined by a sense that cosmopolitan liberal forces are threatening the very survival of traditional Christian communities. This line of thinking animates many prominent Trump supporters and allies who are Christian conservatives, including Attorney General Bill Barr.

For people like Dreher, who has written that my politics are driven entirely by fear [of] the woke left, Orbn is Trumps more admirable twin. The American president is, as Dreher once argued, a small, ugly, godless and graceless man though one hed rather have in office than a progressive Democrat. The Hungarian leader, by contrast, is in his view both a true believer and a much more effective head of state.

What I see in Orbn is one of the few major politicians in the West who seems to understand the importance of Christianity, and the importance of culture, and who is willing to defend these things against a very rich and powerful international establishment, he tells me. I find myself saying of Orbn what I hear conservatives say when they explain why they instinctively love Trump: because he fights. The thing about Orbn is that unlike Trump, he fights, and he wins, and his victories are substantive.

What I find fascinating about Drehers take which largely typifies the pro-Orbn arguments among both religious conservatives and conservative nationalists is that the issue of democracy plays a secondary role in the conversation.

Dreher doesnt admire Orbns more authoritarian tendencies; indeed, he admits that the man has made mistakes, including in Andrss case. I have no doubt that Viktor Orban is not the philosopher-king of my Christian conservative dreams, he tells me.

But whatever his concerns about threats to basic democratic principles like freedom of the press and fair elections, they dont play a primary role in his thinking. His evaluation of Orbn centers culture war issues like immigration and religion in public life, an ideologically driven view that obscures the damning democratic deficit in Hungary.

In our exchange, Dreher compared his admiration for Orbn to the way Hungarian conservatives hes met admired Trump. When he told his Hungarian acquaintances that he liked what Trump stood for in theory, but had serious issues with the man himself and the way he governs, they were incredulous: Whats not to like about someone whos so willing to stick it to the globalist liberal elites?

They read Trump through Hungarian ideological categories, not American reality and it showed.

Maybe Im seeing Orbn in the same way my Hungarian interlocutors see Trump. ... If I lived in Hungary, perhaps I would find a lot to dislike in his everyday governance, Dreher told me. But he and other European politicians like him are speaking to needs, desires, and beliefs about religion, tradition, and national identity, that the center-right politicians have ignored.

Yet when it comes to modern Hungary, the authoritarian devil is truly in the everyday details.

Orbns effort to cultivate Western intellectuals funding their work, inviting them to meet with him as honored guests in Budapest, speaking at their glitzy conferences is part of a much more ambitious ideological campaign. He describes himself as the avatar of a new political model spreading across the West, which he terms illiberal democracy or Christian democracy.

Advocates of illiberal democracy, like Trump and European far-right parties, aim to protect and deepen the specificity of each European countrys religious and ethnic makeup Hungary for the Hungarians, France for the French, and Germany for the Germans. Orbn frames this goal in precisely the culture war terms people like Dreher find so appealing.

Liberal democracy is in favor of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture, he said in a 2018 speech. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration.

This language is at once incendiary and misleading. The rejection of liberalism infuriates mainstream European and Western intellectuals, thus further convincing the right that Orbn is the enemy of their primary enemy. But by framing his struggle as a conflict between two subspecies of democracy between liberal and Christian democracy Orbn obscures the fact that his regime is not any kind of democracy at all.

This insistence on falsely referring to his authoritarian regime as a democracy is vital to both its domestic and international project.

Orbn and much of his inner circle are lawyers by training; they have used this expertise to set up a political system that looks very much like a democracy, with elections and a theoretically free press, but isnt one. This gives intellectually sympathetic Westerners some room for self-delusion. They can examine Hungary, a country whose cultural politics they admire, and see a place that looks on the surface like a functioning democracy.

When such observers travel to Budapest and see what looks like a democracy in action, it becomes easier to dismiss concerns about authoritarian drift from journalists, pro-democracy NGOs, and academic experts as mere cultural prejudice: the liberal elite smearing a right-leaning elected leader as an authoritarian because they dont like his cultural politics. Orbn isnt an authoritarian, in this view, but the avatar of what the silent majority of Americans and Europeans really want.

A staple of these arguments is to make the point that Orbns Fidesz party has won three consecutive elections.

One of the strange things about modern political rhetoric is that Viktor Orbn should so often be described as a threat to democracy, although his power had been won in free elections, Caldwell, the eminent conservative Europe reporter, writes in the Claremont Review of Books.

But after coming to power in 2010, Orbn rewrote Hungarys constitution and electoral rules to make it nigh impossible for the opposition to win power through elections. Tactics including extreme gerrymandering, rewriting campaign finance rules to give Fidesz a major leg up, appointing cronies to the countrys constitutional court and election bureaucracy, and seizing control of nearly all media outlets have combined to render elections functionally non-competitive.

The mechanisms of control here are so subtle (who outside of Hungary cares about staffing choices at its electoral administration?) that its easy for an intellectually sympathetic observer to dismiss them as overblown. In Caldwells Claremont piece, for example, he challenges concerns about press freedom by pointing to Lajos Simicska a media magnate and former Orbn right-hand man who turned on him in 2015 and campaigned against him in the 2018 election.

When Orbns friend Simicska broke with him, he used his newspaper Magyar Nemzet to attack Orbn in the most vulgar terms, comparing him to an ejaculation, Caldwell writes. Orbns powerful mandate, his two-thirds majority, gave him power to amend the countrys constitution at will. This was not the same thing as authoritarianism there arent a lot of reporters in Beijing likening Xi Jinping to an ejaculation.

There arent that many left in Hungary, either. After 2015, Orbn used his unfettered powers to demolish Simicskas business empire, cutting off government contracts not only for his old friends media holdings but also for his construction and advertising firms. Simicskas businesses shrank and his personal fortune declined; the 2018 electioneering was a last-ditch effort to challenge a system that he himself described as a dictatorship.

After Orbns unfairly won 2018 victory, Simicska told allies that it is clear that they [Fidesz] cannot be defeated through democratic elections. He shut down Magyar Nemzet; a government mouthpiece currently publishes under its name. Simicska eventually sold his entire media empire to a Fidesz ally, including the popular television station Hr TV which, after the sale, openly proclaimed it would adopting a pro-government line.

Today, Simicska lives in an isolated village in western Hungary. His only remaining business interest is an agricultural firm owned by his wife.

This is obviously not a story about democratic resilience in Hungary: Its an instructive tale in the precise and subtle ways Orbn uses political patronage and the powers of the state to maintain political control. The Hungarian government is a species of authoritarianism just a less coercive and more elusive version of its Chinese cousin.

Clearly, Hungary is not a democracy. But understanding why requires a nuanced understanding of the line between democracy and autocracy, Lucan Ahmad Way and Steven Levitsky, two leading academic experts on democracy, write in the Washington Post.

This subtlety is what allows his conservative fan club in the West to operate with a clean conscience. Its also what makes it so disturbing.

There are examples throughout history of people on both left and right blinding themselves to the faults of their ideological allies. The great British playwright George Bernard Shaw saw Josef Stalin as a shining example of Shaws own egalitarian values. Friedrich von Hayek, arguably the defining libertarian economist, defended Augusto Pinochets murderous dictatorship in Chile on grounds that the dictator was friendly to the free market.

Orbns crimes, of course, pale in comparison to Stalins or Pinochets. If such great thinkers in history can trick themselves into forgiving much more egregious assaults on human rights and democracy, its understandable that modern conservatives might fall prey to the same tendency to see the best in ideologically simpatico authoritarians.

But the fact that this tendency is understandable doesnt mean its excusable or without its own set of dangers.

In the United States, the Republican Party has shown a disturbing willingness to engage in Fidesz-like tactics to undermine the fairness of the political process. The two parties evolved independently, for their own domestic reasons, but seem to have converged on a similar willingness to undermine the fairness of elections behind the scenes.

Extreme gerrymandering, voter ID laws, purging nonvoters from the voting rolls, seizing power from duly elected Democratic governors, packing courts with partisan judges, creating a media propaganda network that its partisans consume to the exclusion of other sources all Republican approaches that, with some nouns changed, could easily describe Fideszs techniques for hollowing out from democracy from within.

In this respect, Hungary really is a model for America. Its not a blueprint anyone is consciously aping, but proof that a ruthless party with less-than-majority support in the public can take durable control of political institutions while still successfully maintaining a democratic veneer.

Conservative intellectuals bear a special obligation to call attention to this dangerous process. Its always easier for writers and intellectuals to criticize the opposing side precisely because its less effectual: Your targets already dont pay attention to you, and your audience already agrees with your critique. When your team is crossing lines, criticizing it is much more likely to ruffle feathers but also more likely to change minds.

The Hungary situation has been a trial in this regard, a way of assessing conservative intellectuals ability to perform this vital form of self-policing.

I find Orbans attack on trans rights and treatment of migrants reprehensible, but I dont expect those on the broader right to agree with me. I do, however, believe they ought to have a baseline commitment to democratic norms: a sense that disagreement itself is not illegitimate, and that governments that use their powers to crush their opponents can never be fundamentally admirable.

Yet thats not what has happened. Much of the conservative leadership cannot break out of their sense of victimhood; the world is a struggle between righteous conservatives and oppressive secular progressives. It does not compute, to them, that a traditionalist regime might actually be the one mistreating its opponents and attacking democracy; they come up with excuses for whatever Orbn is doing, offering misleading half-truths that at times literally echo government propaganda.

If these thinkers continue to insist that Hungary is just another democracy despite copious evidence to the contrary how can we expect them to call out the same, more embryonic process of authoritarianization happening at home? If American conservatives wont turn on a foreign countrys leadership after it crosses the line, what reason would we have to believe that theyd be capable of doing the same thing when the stakes for them are higher and the enemies more deeply hated?

The admiration for Orbn has convinced me that, no matter how far down the Fidesz path the GOP goes, many conservative intellectuals will use the same culture war uber alles logic to justify its trampling over American democracy.

Hungary is a test for these American thinkers. And they flunked it.

Support Voxs explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Voxs work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.

Follow this link:
Why Hungarys Viktor Orbn is the American rights favorite strongman - Vox.com

Meat, salt, and water. A diet more associated with yellow-teethed pirates than athletes. But one that is allegedly putting modern men in the best shape they have ever been in. Behold, The Carnivore Diet.

While humans are widely regarded as omnivores, personalities like Joe Rogan have experimented with completely eliminating everything but meat to much (anecdotal) success.

On that note: since icons like Rogan and Canadian psychologist (and self-help guru) Jordan Peterson have spruiked the controversial regime, more and more people seem to be giving it a try.

Enter: another loyal meat-eating member, rugby union star and former Wallaby, Quade Cooper, who recently made headlines for speaking out about the benefits of radically changing what he puts on his plate.

Even though some nutritionists suggest The Carnivore Diet is micronutrient-suicide, athlete Quade Cooper has joined the extreme no-carbers, telling The Daily Telegraph that it has had a hugely positive effect.

Im no expert in this field, this is my science, its what works for me, Quade said.

Ive been on the carnivore diet for eight months, before that I wasnt a full vegan but I was trying to eat healthy like that, trying to stay low on my meat and eat more veggies, no dairy, he added.

Now Ive combined this diet with pre-hab, looking after my body before I get on the field, before I leave the house, that has been a game-changer.

While in the past regimes like the Keto diet were fringe, low carb dieting and its (arguably) illogical extension, The Carnivore Diet has reached the mainstream arena.

According to Healthline, The Carnivore Diet is claimed: to aid weight loss, mood issues, and blood sugar regulation, among other health issues. Judging by Quades physique, it also helps keep you shredded.

If you plan on following Quade Coopers strict daily menu, here it is:

Before you sink your teeth into a protein party, however, wed recommend you read the following breakdown of The Carnivore Diet, along with its pros and cons.

For some, the diet follows a strict guideline of beef, salt, and water, while others consume a variety of meats like chicken or lamb and may include fish as an alternative to the red meat recipe.

The Carnivore Diet completely excludes all other foods, including fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and seeds.

While some suggest the diet to be a fibreless, scurvy inducing regime whose only benefit comes via placebo, others reckon its an energy-boosting weight loss program that can cure arthritis, anxiety, and autoimmune diseases.

Healthline states that The Carnivore Diet stems from the controversial belief that human ancestral populations ate mostly meat and fish and that high-carb diets are to blame for todays high rates of chronic disease.

Shawn Baker, the author of The Carnivore Diet and former American orthopedic doctor, cites testimonials from those undertaking the diet as proof that it has the capacity to treat mental health issues like anxiety and depression, and physical conditions like obesity and diabetes.

In terms of verified science in the form of peer-reviewed studies and the like Healthline claims no research backs The Carnivore Diets professed benefits. Quade Cooper might have something to say about that?

Until more people try it and more broad-scale studies are conducted into different body types, lifestyles, etc, it will remain an area of dispute.

Saturated fat and cholesterol levels will likely increase if you are a recipient of the diet (for the knock-on effects of that, click here). Along with a noticeable energy slump, you may be prone to explosive diarrhea (see: here).

If you do choose to join this regime, it is worth noting that the quality of your meat will drastically change the results that come from The Carnivore Diet. So the better your meat, the better the results.

However, the diet is extremely restrictive and likely unhealthy in the long term. Plus, no research backs its purported benefits, Healthline said.

This is pretty straight forward: meat. This includes but is not limited to beef, lamb, chicken, and pork. Seafood: anything from salmon to oysters to crab will do the trick. Other animal products like eggs, bone marrow, and bone broth also fit into the diet.

In small amounts, butter, and cheese also satisfies the criteria. And yes, you can have water.

There is no question that meat is a big part of many peoples lives. Whether we eat it or not, we see it everywhere we go. To be fair, we are pieces of meat. But why should you join The Carnivore Diet?

Many other high (and low) profile individuals report positive findings (once they got over the hellacious diarrhea). However, as Healthlinepoints out, youre still going out on a limb trying this diet as no long term wide-scale scientific studies have been conducted into it yet.

Nutrition is very much individual dependant though, so experimenting, with the help and guidance of a qualified nutrition, could potentially help you.

Want to learn more? Check out the following.

Link:
Quade Cooper's Carnivore Diet Could Be Your Ticket To Becoming A Shredded Beast But At What Cost? - DMARGE

Three years ago, an esteemed Canadian magazine published a fine essay entitled What Happens When Authors Are Afraid to Stand Alone?, in which author Jason Guriel noted that the idea of the writer as an individualistic outsider has acquired a layer of dust. We used to be OK with literary types asserting independent, fortified egos. Poets and novelists were almost expected to be aloof, even anti-social. But today, were too savvy to indulge such a romantic myth. The aloof rebel is nothing more than an affectation.

Anyone who has tried to produce art, or even write a half-decent essay, will recognize the almost tautological truth of Guriels argument. It is absolutely correct that there are plenty of people who write important tracts dedicated to the interests of this or that community. Those tracts are laws, press releases, pamphlets and tweets. If youre trying to write something fresh and original while also bending the knee to this or that community, on the other hand, youre certain to fail at the former, and likely the latter as well.

Long before it was co-opted by the likes of Ayn Rand, this truth was anchored within the foundations of the hell-raising Jacobin left. Jean-Jacques Rousseau himself famously announced his scandalous La Nouvelle Hlose by warning that this book is not made to circulate in society and is suitable for very few readers. As Nicole Fermon commented, Rousseau despised the society of Paris, which he judged to be almost completely vitiated by never-ending demands of self-interest or amour propre. And in adapted form, his bold individualistic spirit came to infuse every countercultural movement tilting at establishment conventions, from beat poetry to postmodern literary subcultures.

But now that the central fixation of salon society is an insistence on salon societys own irredeemable bigotry, Rousseaus countercultural postures have turned in on themselves like an ouroboros. And so the highest calling in literature and art now is imagined to be a retelling of the same stencil-set messages about privilege and victimhood, dogmas that have come to be enforced by a salon establishment that still masquerades as a Rousseauvian insurgency. Which is why What Happens When Authors Are Afraid to Stand Alone? attracted so much controversy, by suggesting that people should simply write what they want. In a rebuttal published in the same magazine, English professor Paul Barrett argued that Guriels putative lone genius is but the unknowing heir to an invisible community of privilege, since the history of Canadian literature is the forgery of a white Canadian definition of literary excellence. By contrast, non-white writers simply dont have the luxury of believing that there is a voice outside of community; community participation and esthetic excellence are not merely related they are politically and culturally inextricable.

Now the central fixation of salon society is an insistence on salon societys own irredeemable bigotry

Ive met Guriel, and can attest that hes almost as white as me. And based on his university webpage photo, Paul Barrett seems to have us both beat. And so I dont really expect many Indigenous and black writers and artists to be particularly interested in this lily-white forge-o-rama three-way. But for what its worth, Id say that Barrett might have things backwards: as the recent furor surrounding Cree artist Kent Monkman attests, the strictures imposed by community can, in some instances, be even more stifling when theyre applied to minority artists.

As some of my regular readers know, I often like having a bash at the government-subsidized amateurs who populate the field of Canadian arts and letters. (Its not their fault: When the government pays for something, you often get too much of it.) But Kent Monkman is very, very much not in that category. He produces big, colourful epics that dramatically mash up the visual idioms of Judeo-Christian historical tradition with Indigenous characters and narratives. He often inserts an alter ego he names Miss Chief Eagle Testickle to (as he puts it) reverse the colonial gaze to challenge received notions of history and Indigenous peoples. This all sounds rather pretentious, I realize, but art either works or it doesnt. And Monkmans works well enough that he can charge $175,000 a pop, which is approximately $175,000 more than your average art-school grad. Whats more, he is a living, breathing advertisement for the value of diversity in art by which I dont mean diversity of bloodline, which is meaningless, but diversity of perspective. No white person could have produced his masterpieces any more than Mordecai Richler could have written The Handmaids Tale.

No white person could have produced his masterpieces any more than Mordecai Richler could have written The Handmaid's Tale

Great art often is produced by outsiders as, either by choice or necessity, they are the ones who can stand back from a societys accepted conventions, and who assign themselves the most moral latitude in defining or satirizing them. This not only explains how My People took over Hollywood, but also why Rosedale hedge-fund managers are climbing over each other to plunk down the cost of an Audi R8 so that dinner-party guests can enjoy the image of if you will forgive my lapse into sophisticated gallerist parlance Justin Trudeau on all fours after taking it hard and bloody.

What I am describing here is Monkmans new painting Hanky Panky, an image of which, I am hoping, accompanies this column. (For reasons described below, certain other media outlets are treating it like those 2005-era Muhammad cartoons that were originally published in Jyllands-Posten. But I give my own National Post editors marginally more credit.) The thing is classic Monkman: violent, shocking, subversive and brutally original. It also fulfills that trite but true definition of art as that which makes you think. And much will be thunk by those who gaze upon dozens of Indigenous women laughing hysterically as sallow white patriarchs from out of Canadas past look on at the MeToo-ing of a none-too-pleased-looking Justin Trudeau.

Over time, we have become numb to the endless calls for solemnity and contrition over the legacy of Residential Schools, MMIWG, and the rest of the horrors that whites have visited upon Indigenous people. Its all become predictable and performatively morose, which is why every new commission or inquiry has to keep ramping up the genocide rhetoric to keep our attention. It takes a true artist to find new ways to shock the conscience, to elevate our focus from the tragedy of each brutalized life to the dark comedy of a confused Canadian nation that remains caught between proud old fables of Macdonald and Laurier and lacerating self-loathing. Like every country on Earth, Canada is a bolted-together gag-ball of hypocrisy and myth. And the women in the picture are absolutely right to laugh at us insofar as we are metaphorically represented by the humiliated PM and the passed-out victim in red serge. (Oh right, forgot to mention: An RCMP dude also gets the MeToo treatment.)

But of course, the first rule of social justice is Thats Not Funny. And on Canadian Twitter, fury predictably erupted. Not among progressive white Canadians alarmed at seeing their PM sexually humiliated on canvas. Rather, the hue and cry was raised in the rarified cancel-culture circles presided over by the likes of Indigenous author Alicia Elliott, the unofficial church lady of Canadian arts and letters. Before retiring in a state of claimed emotional exhaustion, Elliott declared on Twitter last weekend that Monkman took Indigenous womens laughter, which is one of the most healing sounds in the world, into a weapon he could utilize to titillate and shock white folks. I dont care if he claims the Trudeau lookalike was consenting.

She then went on, in all-caps, like some CanLit version of Donald Trump, HE USED A MMIWG2S SYMBOL THAT IS ABOUT GIVING WOMEN A VOICE AS A BUTT PLUG, THEN DISMISSED INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND 2SQ FOLKS WHO COMPLAINED. AKA SILENCED THEM. AND DOESNT UNDERSTAND THE IRONY. (Yeah, this is definitely someone we want deciding what art gets produced.)

Like every country on Earth, Canada is a bolted-together gag-ball of hypocrisy and myth

In my ideal world, Monkman would have dashed off a new painting, indicating to Elliott exactly where she could stick her complaints. But Monkman is in a tough place, as he is not only a successful artist but also a much-admired member of the Indigenous community, a community that, as he is constantly told, he must listen to and support. And so he walks a fine line.

The Globe & Mail headlined its Thursday coverage, Provocateur artist Kent Monkman apologizes for painting depicting sex assault. But thats actually not true. In a statement posted to Facebook on May 18, he did say he deeply regret(s) any harm that was caused by the work, and acknowledge(s) that the elements I had included to indicate consent are not prominent enough. But he isnt destroying or renouncing the work. I know this for a fact because I inquired about buying it, figuring that the controversy surrounding the piece might lower its price and provide me with a singular opportunity to get a real Monkman at a big discount, this being the way of My People. But this hope proved to be very much misguided. So the Hang in There! poster with the cat on the tree branch wont be coming down anytime soon.

Perhaps the surest sign that Monkman sits at the absolute pinnacle of Canadian artistic excellence is that he is now being treated to the same tall-poppy-cutting treatment as the few non-Indigenous Canadians who have risen to his level of fame and influence. In its old-stock national soul, Canada embraces a cult of mediocrity when it comes to artists and writers. Having worked (as a fraud) in the boiler room of one particular CanLit institution, I can attest that the most venerated figures among the toiling acolytes often are righteous obscurities who subsist on grants and church-basement vernissages. Once someone shows true skill and gets feted in New York and London, Canadas great and good worry that hell overshadow everyone else (take up too much space, in the Twitter parlance), and, possessing the financial means necessary to shake off the constraints imposed by funding councils, go ideologically rogue.

And so it is no coincidence that almost every Canadian whose work is culturally influential outside Canadas borders Margaret Atwood, Steven Galloway, Jordan Peterson, Joseph Boyden has at one time or another attracted a mob of pious nobodies seeking to take them down. Until now, Monkmans Indigenous identity had protected him somewhat. But no longer. Indeed, his perceived obligations to community make things more complicated, as all it takes is one slip-up to get smeared as a two-spirited Judas. According to one Indigenous poet on Twitter: Its become disturbing clear that (Monkmans) work was never for us. It was never intended to keep us safe, nor empower us. In fact, it trivializes many of our experiences with sexual assault.

Canada embraces a cult of mediocrity when it comes to artists and writers

Such critiques, widely retweeted over social media in recent days, show how a fixation on community can be just one more burden on non-white artists and writers: Despite all the dumb things Ive written over my career, never once did a white guy ever respond by tweeting that Jonathan Kays work was never for us.

Three weeks ago, well before the controversy over Hanky Panky began, Canadian Art magazine ran a scathing attack on Monkman, bitterly denouncing the installation of two of his paintings in the central interior entrance area of New Yorks Metropolitan Museum of Art. When it comes to identity politics, Canadian Art is well known to exist in a land beyond parody. But this article particularly stood out because of the absurd Jaccuse question embedded in the headline: Who is the audience for these works?

After dispensing with the pro forma bafflegab about Monkmans failure to question art-historical inequalities between settlers and Indigenous peoples, the author proceeded on a tedious brushstroke-by-brushstroke hunt for neo-colonial esthetic heresies, like an old Papist inquisitor rifling through a Portuguese merchants ledger-book for a doodled penis or boob. Only at the end did we get to the main indictment that these paintings are made for a predominantly white audience, presented in an institution historically composed of white cultural workers and displayed in harmony with, rather than in contradiction of, a colonial institution. Oh, how much more pure the world would be if Monkman had instead burned these masterpieces and focused instead on putting on culturally authentic Cree-language puppet shows outside his home in Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. Hey, maybe hed even get a grant for it.

For those whove never been to the Met, I can attest that its full of white people. A lot of museums are even, horror of horrors, right here in Canada. If you tell an Indigenous artist that he shouldnt be pitching his work to this audience, youre basically telling him to go live off charity for the rest of his life, just like all those downwardly mobile white kids churning out triptychs about their pronouns from the rec-room space over their parents Woodbridge garage.

I, too, belong to a community. Its the community of white cultural workers that Canadian Art dislikes so much (even if most of the magazines own staff resemble the standing-room section at a David Sedaris book reading). And if I may presume to speak on behalf of this community, Id like to say that Hanky Panky suits our colonial white gaze just fine. By which I mean that it makes us think about our country in a different and more honest way, and that it challenges a lot of what we think we know. These are the things that a great artist does, notwithstanding the spirit of self-interest and amour propre that suffuse the hectoring of lesser talents.

Email: jonkay@gmail.com | Twitter:

Continue reading here:
Jonathan Kay: It takes a true artist to find new ways to shock the conscience. Kent Monkman has done that - National Post