And don't even get Jon started about the "heroic whites beat up 60 sex-assaulting immigrants in Murmansk" hoax!
Yet fake stories about assaults by immigrants keep being made up and circulated by people who (like Paul Joseph Watson) are either stupid or evil...or both:
Jon commented to me after the show: "You know, one thing I that I really should have made more clear in that conversation was that I myself am not really any advocate of mass immigration. That is not the case at all! Frankly, my basic instincts are to be opposed to it. Certainly, I would say that, if I were some run-of-the-mill Swede or German (which I'm not...) I would almost certainly be against the very liberal immigration policies."
"However, that would not be based on thinking that the migrants are criminals or rapists or any of that. It's really just because it's very hard to see what is in it for a typical middle-class or working class European. To let all these people into their country will surely impose a lot of costs and really, hand-waving aside, where are the compensating advantages?"
"So, finally, this is one infuriating aspect of all of this Muslim Rape Epidemic narrative. Surely one can make a very solid hard-headed case against this policy without any need to make up all this nonsense about imaginary rape epidemics? An honest case based on the facts... In fact, surely, associating the anti-immigration position with these sorts of dubious narratives is very likely to backfire, I think. (But maybe that is intentional...)"
So there is the above, and also, there was another point that was tickling my brain throughout the conversation and I don't think I nailed it down in the conversation. Something like this:
"But finally, there is a bigger, overarching issue that probably gets to me even more about all of this, just the basic epistemological question for starters. I recall I used the thought experiment of people making up some synthetic narrative that Iceland is a tropical island. Now, surely, in that (intentionally far-fetched) example, establishing that the narrative is untrue should be the most basic trivial level of analysis, no? Obviously! If there really was this massive ongoing propaganda campaign to convince us that Iceland is a tropical island, the important question is most certainly not whether the story is true or not! The question is WHO is behind this narrative and WHY they are pushing this and WHAT their agenda is."
"Surely this Muslim Rape Epidemic nonsense is about the same. I get this nagging feeling that getting so bogged down talking about whether it is true or not... (Of course, there is NO MUSLIM RAPE EPIDEMIC!) So obviously, the question is WHO is pushing the story and WHY. And, assuming that, like me, you are fascinated by the propaganda matrix, there is the question of why people are so helpless against this sort of propaganda. This is the HOW question, HOW the propaganda works."
"And finally, you know, that's the question. So much of the Truth Community is so centered around just showing at the 1000% overkill level that whatever official narratives are untrue.... And then, implicitly anyway, the idea that if you show that these things aren't true, you've done your job. Except that this does not get beyond the most basic elementary level of analysis! Once you demonstrate that a propaganda narrative is false (well, shucks, of course it is!) then you have to get beyond that and ask about WHO is behind the propaganda narrative and WHY they are pushing that story."