Author: VD

What is So Hard to Understand?

What part of “don’t talk to the media” is so hard to understand? When even experienced and highly successful members of the media regularly find themselves publicly impaled by their colleagues, how do you think that you, a totally inexperienced member of the public who has never, ever even spoken with a member of the mainstream media before, are going to fare?

On Thursday, Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy broadcasted a livestream presser to pick apart Business Insider‘s recent report on him.

Last week, Insider released a report — behind its paywall — that describes purported violent sexual encounters between Portnoy, 44, and two women in their early 20s. In essence, Insider accuses Portnoy of raping women, which Portnoy has denied.

Portnoy begins the broadcast by showing a screenshot of the initial email Julia Black, the author of the Insider story, sent him eight months ago. In it, Black claims the original story idea didn’t have an angle or agenda, that the outlet simply planned to focus on Portnoy’s career.

Here’s a look at the email Black sent Portnoy:

Portnoy says that Black and Business Insider then quickly shifted away from a look into Portnoy’s career to another, more explosive story idea that would incite reader interest and still protect the publication itself in court since Portnoy could win a lawsuit only if he could prove malice. The new idea? That Portnoy had raped young women. Portnoy says the outlet purposely implies rape throughout the story without using the exact term so as to avoid libel charges.

“As I’ve come to learn, this was Julia covering her tracks to write a hit piece,” Portnoy says. “They knew what [they were] writing from the beginning. But if I could prove that [they were] always out to make me look like a sexual monster deviant, then I can sue [them]. This is like ‘No, no, we had good intentions.’ Yeah, right.”

Portnoy also says immediately following the release of the article, an Insider staffer contacted Barstool’s advertisers asking whether they stand by Portnoy. According to Portnoy, Insider was not seeking comment about the story but rather reactions from sponsors after the story was already published, presumably to pressure them into parting ways with Barstool.

I can’t tell you how many times the morons who are practically wetting their pants over the fact that the media actually wants to talk to them for the first time in their otherwise-unremarkable lives tell me the same thing in order to justify their attention-seeking desire to see their name in print:

  • No, it’s okay, they just want to hear my side of the story.
  • No, it’s okay, it’s just a story about X.
  • No, it’s okay, the reporter was really friendly.
  • No, it’s okay, the reporter was really nice.
  • No, it’s okay, I think the reporter is really on our side.
  • No, it’s okay, the reporter promised it wouldn’t be a hit piece.
  • No, it’s okay, I’m going to record the interview myself.

It never works. It NEVER works. FFS, look at how Portnoy, who has a very large media megaphone himself and is now attempting to use it in self-defense, got completely hornswoggled by thinking the story was about his career – which wasn’t at all implausible – when the reporter was actually setting him up for a hit piece alleging that he is a rapist intended to serve as the basis for a deplatforming campaign targeting his organization’s advertisers.

Never, ever talk to the media. Just don’t do it. You’re not too smart for them. You’re not too clever for them. They know what they are doing. They are very experienced at using people just like you. They’ve done it HUNDREDS of times to people who thought exactly the same thing as you and learned to regret it. There is no point whatsoever, because if you somehow manage to avoid giving them what they want to support the hit piece, they simply won’t run the story.

Now it is true that I do, very occasionally, talk to personal acquaintances, authors that we publish, and organizations that sell our products. If you are a three-time nationally syndicated columnist who has been on the board of a news organization and runs a publishing operation, then perhaps you can justify the occasional exception when you actually know the individuals involved well enough to accurately discern their true intentions. But note that even with that caveat, I still never talk to anyone in the mainstream media, not even to individuals I have known for decades.

As a side note, the Portnoy situation is why we never seek advertisers or accept advertising offers. We rely solely upon sales and subscriptions, because doing so eliminates an entire line of attack against us.

DISCUSS ON SG

Pfizer Faked the Trials Too

It wasn’t just Moderna faking the clinical trials. A group of Swedish scientists points out that the Pfizer clinical trials did not produce reliable results concerning the genetic therapy’s safety.

A Pfizer subcontractor is being accused of falsifying data, unblinding patients, hiring inadequately trained vaccinators, and failing to follow up on reported adverse reactions during the company’s Covid-19 vaccine trials.

These shocking revelations were reported in a paper published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), revealing that the company, called Ventavia Research Group, heavily manipulated the phase III study for Pfizer’s covid vaccine during the autumn of 2020, just months before it was rushed into production and distribution.

This incriminating information was sent to the BMJ by a company whistle-blower, which in turn prompted a group of 16 Swedish doctors and researchers to circulate a petition calling on the Pfizer vaccine to no longer be administered in the Nordic country.

Sputnik News reported: “The staff who performed quality checks were reportedly overwhelmed by the amount of problems they discovered. The BMJ (study) concluded that the trial raised questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight.”

The 16 signatories of the petition called the revelations “extremely serious,” adding that the adverse reactions associated with Pfizer’s jabs are “gigantic.”

“For instance, in Sweden alone during the ten months that vaccination has taken place wholly 83,744 suspected side effects have been reported – which is more than ten times more than all side effects reported for all drugs and vaccines per year in the immediately preceding years, for a total of about 25,000 substances, the authors emphasised,” Sputnik explained.

The 16 Swedish researchers say that it is clear that Pfizer’s phase III clinical trial was “not performed in a scientifically acceptable manner.” This also means that its results “cannot be considered reliable:

We knew from the very start that the safety data would be faked and that the unsafe, ineffective gene therapies would be approved by complicit government agencies. But now the hard data is coming in to conclusively prove that was exactly what happened.

The so-called “Covid vaccines” are the biggest fraud since global warming carbon credits were invented. And isn’t it fascinating, and entirely predictable, to see how the “trust the science” crowd refuses to believe anything actual scientists doing actual science say about the gene therapies these days?

And speaking of the Swedes and trusting science, a large scientific study there has determined AZ and Pfizer !vaxxes lose their effectiveness after 2 months and have none at all after 4 months (AZ) and 7 months (Pf).

DISCUSS ON SG

The Mystery Continues

A very health-conscious chef dies “suddenly” for no reason at all:

A celebrity chef who claimed to have invented the ‘world’s healthiest meal’ has died of a heart attack, aged 45.

Gurpareet Bains, whose fans included Hollywood star Gwyneth Paltrow, penned several superfood cookbooks.

The co-founder of Vedge Snacks, who lived in Enfield, London, was hospitalised following a heart attack last Thursday, his management have confirmed.

While he regained consciousness a day later, his kidneys failed to restart and he passed away earlier this week as a result of heart and kidney complications, his spokesman confirmed.

We don’t know for certain that it’s the vaxx… but it’s the vaxx.

UPDATE: And a 35-year-old female pop-wannabe too. Because it’s so common for women in their thirties to have heart attacks.

X Factor’s Katie Waissel, 35, in hospital after suspected heart attack

DISCUSS ON SG

The 4th Ideology

Very, very few in the West will understand the significance of the historic resolution passed by the CPC at its most recent plenary session:

The Chinese Communist Party has passed a “historical resolution”, cementing Xi Jinping’s status in political history.

The document, a summary of the party’s 100-year history, addresses its key achievements and future directions.

It is only the third of its kind since the founding of the party – the first was passed by Mao Zedong in 1945 and the second by Deng Xiaoping in 1981.

It was passed on Thursday at the sixth plenary session, one of China’s most important political meetings.

As only the third Chinese leader to have issued such a resolution, the move aims to establish Mr Xi as an equal to party founder Mao and his successor Deng.

“Just like the previous two resolutions, [this resolution] will play an important role in helping to unite the theory, will and action of the party – to achieve future progress and in realising the second centenary goal and the great Chinese dream of rejuvenation,” senior party official Qu Qingshan said at a press conference on Friday.

What this action signifies is that China’s ideology, which has not been Maoist since 1978, is officially no longer Dengist either. This third adaptation marks the triumph of the brilliant Wang Huning, China’s chief ideologist and the architect of the new Xiist ideology that rejects the Western-influenced Dengist economics-first approach that has been the official party line since Mao’s successor rejected doctrinaire Marxist-Leninism and publicly declared “to get rich is glorious” in 1978.

The CPC has historically recognized three political cultures:

  • Traditional Confucianism
  • Marxist-Leninism as interpreted by Mao
  • Communo-Corporatism as interpreted by Deng

The globalists of the neo-liberal world order loved Dengism and were intimately involved in its formation. Consider how George Soros described his own involvement with “the bold reform agenda” and Deng’s conception of “China’s place in the world.”

Mr. Xi came to power in 2013, but he was the beneficiary of the bold reform agenda of his predecessor Deng Xiaoping, who had a very different concept of China’s place in the world. Deng realized that the West was much more developed and China had much to learn from it. Far from being diametrically opposed to the Western-dominated global system, Deng wanted China to rise within it. His approach worked wonders. China was accepted as a member of the World Trade Organization in 2001 with the privileges that come with the status of a less-developed country. China embarked on a period of unprecedented growth. It even dealt with the global financial crisis of 2007-08 better than the developed world.

Xi’s Dictatorship Threatens the Chinese State, George Soros, 14 August 2021

However, the highly influential Wang pointed out the flaws inherent to the third political culture in his famous text known as The Structure of China’s Changing Political Culture:

The bourgeois revolution in the West promoted the basic values of freedom, equality, fraternity, and democracy, and on this basis a political culture evolved over the succeeding centuries. The ancient Chinese core values emphasizing the respective roles and duties of ruler, subject, father, and son similarly dominated the political culture at that time. But there are no core values in China’s most recent structure. This lack has multiple meanings: it may mean that the value itself has yet to evolve; it may mean that the value exists but has not universally entered political culture; and it may mean that we do not have vehicles to carry out the transmission of values. Since 1949, we have criticized the core values of the classical and modern structures, but have not paid enough attention to shaping our own core values. In and of itself, Marxism transcended the Western rule-based worldview, but in China, which never possessed that worldview, the results of the adoption of Marxism were not always positive. Therefore, to forge core values today means grasping the overall process of transformation from a culturally oriented political culture to an institutionally oriented political culture, and to choose core values conducive to this transformation.

The Structure of China’s Changing Political Culture, Wang Hunin

What the elevation of Xiism – Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, to be specific – to equal status with Maoism (Mao Zedong Thought) and Dengism (Deng Xiaoping Theory) signifies is the complete rejection of what presently passes for “democracy” as well as the neo-liberal world order. That is why the international corporations are fleeing China, why the chief executives of major Chinese corporations are stepping down in disgrace, and why globalist figures are furiously denouncing Xi as the latest “new Hitler”. Like Vladimir Putin, and unlike Donald Trump, Xi Jinping has successfully overcome the agents of the neo-liberal world order in defense of his nation.

This official declaration marks the completion of the rejection of the globalists that first became apparent in 2015, when Xi publicly declined to provide what was intended to be a symbol of Sino-Globo unity by giving the offspring of Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg an honorary Chinese name.

Nationalism is rising, in China as elsewhere, and this is a development to be celebrated by nationalists everywhere. While the Christian West is not China, and while China is not necessarily a friend to the Christian West, neither is China an enemy. To the contrary, China is now the most formidable enemy of the ancient evil that has subjugated the Christian West. And what is the enemy of one’s enemy, if not a friend?

DISCUSS ON SG

A Glimpse of the Spy Game

The local Stasi in Scottsdale, Arizona accidentally outs itself:

The president of the Scottsdale, Arizona Unified School District has come under fire for keeping a Google Drive full of private information on parents who oppose mask mandates and critical race theory.

The existence of the drive, which contained information on divorce filings, bankruptcies, phone numbers, and partial social security numbers, was discovered after a parent received an email from School Board President Jann-Michael Greenburg which included a screenshot of the URL, according to the Daily Caller.

Mother Kim Stafford uncovered a Google Drive link when school board President Jann-Michael Greenberg sent her an email accusing her of “anti-Semitic” comments against billionaire George Soros. Greenburg sent Stafford a screenshot of his desktop, which included a since-deleted Google Drive URL reviewed by the Daily Caller. The drive was available to anyone who had the link.

Stafford shared the link with her friends, including mother Amanda Wray who told the Daily Caller she was “disgusted” when she saw that the drive included pictures of her 8 and 10-year-old daughters. -DC

The Google drive has been dubbed by some parents as an “online dossier.”

Folders on the now-deleted drive included the names “SUSD Wackos,” “Press Conference Psychos,” and “Anti Mask Lunatics.” Contained within the “Press Conference Psychos” folder was a video of parents peacefully protesting Critical Race Theory – holding signs that read “CRT is Racist” and “SUSD We Demand Transparency.”

The files took particular aim at “Community Advocacy Network” – a group of parents whose active Facebook pages were catalogued within Greenburg’s ‘dossier.’ In addition to screenshots of their Facebook comments, the folder included photos of the parents with their spouses – and in some cases, their financial records.”

This isn’t a one-off. Files like these are almost certainly kept by private parties on everyone throughout the United States. Remember, in East Germany, 1.2 percent of the population was employed by the original Stasi. That suggests as many as 3,840,000 individuals are filing reports on their friends, family, neighbors, and employees in the United States.

DISCUSS ON SG

The JFG-VD Debate

A complete transcript of my debate with JF Gariepy on the mathematical legitimacy of evolution by natural selection.

JF: “Hello everyone and welcome to the evolution debate with Vox Day. I was explaining to the crowd that, with my voice extinction, I almost want to abandon and just recognize that God did it all.”

VD: “Well, I don’t think that divine intervention is responsible for that, I doubt that, He is excessively concerned with whatever result we release tonight. But, you know my suggestion is we’re all familiar, or at least most of us are familiar, especially those of us who have read your very interesting book The Revolutionary Phenotype, we’re familiar with the orthodox argument. So what might be interesting is if I simply present to you the stuff that I’ve been putting together, and with your help explaining some of the concepts that, quite honestly are not terribly familiar to me. Perhaps we can reach some interesting conclusions.”

JF: “Absolutely, and the more you can speak the better, it helps my voice and my throat, so you can feel free to take a lot of space in the discussion. I would say that as far as I’m concerned, the Theory of Natural Selection is a mathematical truth. It is a truth that applies to anything that makes imperfect copies of itself, and one just has to realize that the life forms on earth right now, they are replicators, they are respecting the conditions for Natural Selection to apply to them.”

VD: “Well I think that it’s a fascinating choice of words there, because it’s specifically the mathematical aspect of the theory that I’m addressing. I’ll read to you my little intro in a minute here, and I would encourage anyone who’s listening to not leap to any assumptions, because some of the stuff you’re going to hear at first is going to make you conclude that I’m going to go in a certain direction, but I can promise and assure you that I’m not going in any of the places these arguments usually go.”

JF: “Alright, let’s hear it.”

VD: “Okay, well first of all, one thing that I’d like to point out is that when we address these topics that have been addressed many times before over the course of hundreds of years it’s quite normal to believe that nobody’s going to come up with anything terribly interesting new to say about that. What I’d like everybody to keep in mind is that both JF and I have in fact come up with new ways of looking at very old, very accepted theories. JF has done so with his Revolutionary Phenotype. For those of you who are not familiar with me, my background is economics, and I came up with a very effective, some would say conclusive, demolition of David Ricardo’s theory of Free Trade which is some fifty-seven years older than Evolution by Natural Selection in the Darwinian sense. So all I’m saying is that, as ridiculous as it might sound, that some of the stuff we’re going to be discussing here might not necessarily have been discussed before. Both JF and I have in the past demonstrated an ability to do this.

JF: “Absolutely.”

VD: “So, the tautological nature of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection means that it is unfalsifiable, unscientific, and entirely unable to serve as the basis of a reliable predictive model. That said, it’s not my objective to convince JF or anyone else of that, or to rehash any arguments that we’ve all encountered many times before. The case that I’m presenting tonight doesn’t have anything to do with the fossil record, it doesn’t have anything to do with Fyodor, or Chomsky, or logic in that context. What I’m addressing is the idea, what I’m proposing is the idea that Natural Selection is not just statistically improbable, but that it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE due to the way it’s directly contradicted by the relevant genetic evidence.

Now, I have to point out that I am an economist by training, not a biologist, and so I’m going to have to ask JF some questions about some of these things, and I’m not doing so in a Socratic manner. It’s not any sort of Euthyphro, trying to play it fast and loose and get him to agree to something. These are going to be honest questions about a subject that he knows much better than I do. If that’s okay with you.”

JF: “Absolutely, I’m all for it. Yeah we can see tonight’s discussion as trying to build your case against the Theory of Natural Selection.”

Continue reading “The JFG-VD Debate”