This week I felt both devastated and yet also hopeful at the same time (more or less). Actually, the devastation came first: Buzzkill died (see “Life is a scam” [ https://obit.news.blog/2026/07/26/life-is-a-scam ] ).
I can’t really explain my very strong emotional reaction. The “NoAgenda Show” has existed for a very long time and seemed to be very rewarding and also fulfilling for John. I did not disagree with John and Adam’s perspectives on “mainstream media” and I have quoted them quite often here (see e.g. “Mainstream Milieus“, which could be a page out of one of John’s books — except as far as I know it isn’t; it is a page out of my book, even though after I published it John actually referred himself as “the man behind the curtain” — see The Blurt — The No Agenda Show Episode 1736 [ https://noagenda.clipgenie.com/episode/1736-the-blurt?q=man+behind+curtain&t=1%3A43%3A32 ] ). Yet I did beg to differ — and perhaps that is something John did indeed resent.
I choose my own views, and I have a hunch John had a problem (or an “issue”?) with that — especially since I also choose to express them (and I do believe: effectively). Let me explain this a little more.
I had contacted Adam and John with what I thought about their plan to end the NoAgenda Show soon — I can’t remember what I wrote exactly (well, I guess I can, but maybe I simply don’t want [or need] to) … and this was the first (and only) time John sent me an email. I guess I was not only honored but also tried to take it to heart — but I now feel (and think I realize) that I apparently failed to (at that time). Looking back, I now feel as though I (more or less) “shrugged it off”. I realize this now, because I am able to read exactly what John wrote (and indeed also what I had written in the first place, which prompted his reply).
I now feel his reply was spot on, excellent, heartfelt and indeed: constructive criticism. He accused me of “pedantry“. I say accused because I feel today people only use this term in situations in which they wish to express their own experience of disgust. Otherwise — for example in situations in which they wish to express praise (or something similarly “positive”), people tend to use other terms. I feel this is very much in line with the way Wittgenstein in his later years emphasized the way contexts (and such) essentially belong to the definitions of terms (or concepts or whatever). I personally also feel that, strictly speaking: situations, environments, contexts, etc. do not repeat … but maybe they rhyme (more or less)?
I now think I am beginning to understand that when I say something like that without anyone asking me to express my own feelings, this may very well come across as pedantic.
And I also wish to speculate a little more along this tangent. I think perhaps that people with expertise in something are expected to reserve their expert opinions to situations in which they are appropriately remunerated. [1]
In my (speculative) view [2], there is an analog distinction to be made according to the “rational media” vs. “irrational media” concept. Indigenous people (or intelligence — indigena) decide(s) what is meaningful to us. This may or may not be meaningful to “them“. We are merely involved in managing our own language. And here is the kicker: the distinction between rational vs. irrational is the result of impedant commerce at work. “Impedant” is a new term: it means to limit, resist, impede some things [3]. In my view of impedant commerce, the meaningful terms are managed by maintaining their meaning within the contexts of indigena. In contrast: meaningless terms remain available for random (meaningless) attribution.
Socio Business blog 