This reaction to the recent Voxiversity video is a beautiful example of its kind. It really has to be read in full to be appreciated. Thanks to the more than 500 comments on the video, it has become abundantly clear that Jordan Peterson is little more than a short-term philosophical drug for life’s losers that makes them feel a little better about themselves for a while; they respond to criticism of him rather like a crackhead being denied a desperately-needed hit.
Largesse1000
This is a very cringeworthy video. The editing is quite shocking, and totally distracts from any points you choose to make. Yes, some of his many fans are deluded and seeking leadership, and he is frequently obscure, however, he has more than proved himself worthy of his current position. It is simply not true to say his elevation has been born through adulation. He has been made in opposition to great criticism. A lesser person, you for instance, would have crumpled after a few months. He has balls. That’s the first thing. Next, for his simple referencing of Solzenhitsyn, Frankl and Dostoevsky to a new generation he is to be greatly commended. No, Aristotle and other greats are not mentioned, so fucking what? He was not writing a treatise on Western thought, just a string of ideas. Finally, his central message is very simple, namely life is hard if you live it and suffering is always present. This is a core idea of Christianity and Buddhism and exists because it is true. This is liberating to many who have been told that perfection is a goal, happiness is achievable and self worth is defined by how many bucket list items you tick off. He has simply reinstated a core experience of life and articulated in a way that people can understand. It has transformed people’s lives, whether you find him phoney or not. No one has managed to do this for about 70 years, no one. Therapists, gurus, and even traditions religion has failed in this, and it took an obscure professor from Canada to do this. You have been accused of jealously, and that accusation stands. The hatchet job here is quite pathetic, since you just pick away at trivia. I have stated clear arguments above, which demonstrate very simply that he has done a good thing, by introducing just a few core ideas (complexity of life, suffering, personal responsibility and the importance of the individual to the West). To criticise this is pure madness, and articulate as you are, your words are completely hollow. I suggest, without respect, you shut the fuck up, or actually comment on the positive contributions of this man over the last three years. I will now watch your channel and comment increasingly if I deem it fit. Some may read my thoughts. Some of us are sick of opinionated little clever shits, who do fuck all in the real world while assuming some sort of superiority in the digital. Ultimately it has no meaning. Peterson has let it all hang out, he has demonstrated integrity and seeks the good. He is not perfect, will be ephemeral, and will be followed by some sheep. However, give the man his due. You are jealous, and it is a very unpleasant character trait. I gained nothing from this video, accept the urge to come around your house and smash your fucking PC up. Now be a good chap, go and have a wank and take your hot chocolate.
Category: Uncategorized
The Crazy Christ’s cultists are unhappy
In less than 24 hours, there have already been over ten thousand views of the latest Voxiversity video. One early commenter correctly anticipated the calm and measured response of Jordan Peterson’s fans to it.
David. D
Great video Vox, now let’s wait for all the Peterson fanboys to tell us how jealous and bitter you are, without providing any good arguments to refute what you defend in the video.
He was not disappointed. Nor was he incorrect about their near-complete inability to even begin dealing with the substantive issues raised about Peterson’s lack of courage, character, and intellectual integrity. A representative collection of their comments follows the break:
Andris Falks
Cheap ad hominum attacks on people who have done in few years more to help wide variety of people then you will in your entire life is the low of your life Vox. Nobody is perfect, nobody can know everything that is written, what matters are results and JBP has some amazing results – he has helped possibly MILLIONS of people to get out of nihilism, postmodernism and find at least some resemblance of meaning in life. It seems to me you are in fact envious of JBP and feel deeply unappreciated in comparison to him. And trust me, there are many reasons for that and no cheap ad hominum attack videos will help you.
Tigerairlines
I don’t care if you agree with him or not, for a man who never tries to attack someone’s character, the editing and insulting takes down any real argument you have, regardless of religion being flat out baseless and without logic, when it comes to god isn’t it the Christian way to let people believe in what they believe in their own way, or do you need to be as authoritarian as possible, and before you call me some leftist soy boy or cuckservative I’m a centrist, with a long history of reading about the idea of religion and god, and while I don’t agree with everything Peterson says, he conducts himself with remarkable civility, try to learn about that.
ATurquoise Bolo
I don’t really agree with you here. I don’t think you’ve actually listened to him on his purpose or intentions. It would be like me saying this video is disingenuous on the basis that you’re jealous of his success and the ear he’s gained of the general public. He’s trying to teach people to think for themselves and doesn’t encourage blind faith in what he’s said and what he thinks. Honestly he’s the first psychologist I’ve found any helpful advice from when I watched his lectures prior to his incredible fame. His goal is really to come up with an alternative to the corrupt universities. I don’t think he’s ever said anything about not being a nationalist, and he literally stood up against infringement on freedom of speech, and he talks about the errors of Marxism and how he took the perspective of Orwell on them when he met more than just the leaders as a young man. He wants to help people who genuinely need it, and he doesn’t want people to try to change the world without having an actual goal and the ability to manage their own lives. He’s trying to get rid of mindless activists and mindless Marxists. I’ve read his books, I’ve enjoyed them, and whether you understand it or not, my generation didn’t get the why of certain behaviors let alone the how. Perhaps you’ve been out of the United States education system too long. Whatever you may say, you didn’t give him a fair shake and it appears it’s only motivated by your need for a 100{de0369dfe3e4b53b642ec4c59899fbdd53f4c1f0d4d3d5766811416432dc2910} Christian who also wants to organize a fight against globalism. Ironically, he agrees with you on Christianity being integral to western victimization and appears to want people to act as if God is real. Believe it or not, that’s why I’m a Christian: because it is psychologically and empirically more beneficial to both myself and my family. Believe it or not, that journey has been traveled by many before and after they listened to Peterson. If you don’t like him justifying common sense through evidence and reason in his book then just read his essay on writing an essay and you might grasp some of the reasons he’s lecturing and touring. But telling people that he’s like Soros simply because he’s taking his message international and asking people to think for themselves first and foremost is reprehensible and shows that you’re catering to an audience unwilling to hear anyone out after they’ve been ” discredited” by you. If you watch his class lectures you’ll see him do exactly the same thing while communicating with his students, yet his years of lectures also communicate the same message, slightly changing over time to respond to current events. Is it because you aren’t as smart or is it because your ideology doesn’t allow you to move and respond outside of a framework? But more importantly, do you fail to understand the one flaw in his efforts that I agree with his lefty detractors on? His ideas can be used for nationalism if it becomes a necessity. He tells people to do what they can to improve their home, their community, their state, their country. How does that stop them from being nationalist, and even identitarian in the end? It doesn’t, it just tells them how to be better at it, and more thoughtful in their aims.
w reed
Pathetic attempt to spear Dr. Peterson. Sure he is a bit old school but at least he is honest. You sir are not honest and you know it!
TheHarperbow
Let me guess, your actually just upset he doesn’t believe in your dogmatic Christian beliefs? Therefore, he’s deserving of whatever pseudo-intellectual smear you can throw his way. You claim “Most of his fans haven’t even read his stuff, but I have.” Also, you’re bitterness and snarky undertone in your passive aggressive rhetoric shines light on the fact that your simply offended he has strong arguments which threaten your own. You can disagree with Peterson without vilifying him. However, your video is a reflection of your inability to recognize this fact as well as a manifestation of your insecurity of your own beliefs. In other words, your simply not as intelligent as you seem to think you are.
jonathan spencer
I understand Peterson’s ideas quite well. I understand his conception of God/divinity and truth. I think the Jungian approach, which,at least partially, describes his metaphysics is extremely coherent and needs to be contended with by serious thinkers. This video is simplistic, disingenuous and is high on rhetoric. It takes Petersons output out of context. Chooses a few low hanging fruit and puts all its energies into discrediting Peterson. It’s pulp. It’s uses ad hominem tactics (a bankrupt tactic of the left ).Many ideas JP has aren’t from the man himself, they’re based on deep wells of truth which we don’t understand very well now. It’s easy to get him and his ideas all wrong. The truth is all this JP aversion is pure politics, and from the far left that means the truth is irrelevant, it’s all about using any trick in the book to win the day. For a student of ideas, it’s just boring. But it’s a necessary fight unfortunately. When people like Peterson are called Nazis, I guess real Nazis must be thin on the ground.
Fair Discussion
I think you have a wall of ignorance to pass. I think you’re too smart for you’re own good. If I could, I’d suggest getting much deeper into the study of ‘intelligence capacity’, and ‘evolutionary psychology’. I think some of the concepts might open your mind. Jordan isn’t a god among men, nor a prophet of some form. He never claims to be. What he claims to be, is someone who is attempting to progress humanity altruistically. Now whilst you might have a problem yourself coming to grips the fact in purity that multiple forms of ultimate realities are reprovingly correct. Quantum Physics. ‘Historical’ Jesus. Sub-Consciousness. Undoubtedly, you don’t have to see him as a god, to see how hard he works to actually create progress. He is one of the most widely known names right now, because he worked for it, he spent time educating himself, challenging and conditioning himself, and then marketing himself. To be ignorant of that, is to be ignorant of one of the greatest attempts to progress humanity, whether wrong or not, how about you help, instead of create tension, and ignorance for others? You’re obviously smart enough to understand the concept, that a YouTube video will inspire some to think something out of trust. You are very well educated, and versed in philosophy and rhetoric, that is obvious. Though I’d like to ask you to step out of that mindset before making such large accusations against someone whom is just trying to make the world better. If you really care, reach out to him, have a discussion. Help progress this world together. Let me tell you though, as much as it is an opinion. Watching such intelligent people attack each other is becoming more disgusting to watch. Speak to each other, work for the progress of humanity. Stop doubting, and criticizing one another, then wondering why the world is progressing in such a slow manner. Every body has to talk about someone else’s ignorance. Get involved in the larger picture, not your own picture.
Greg Gustin
This video is mostly false statements. Not tiny incorrect statements, but false statements that are 180 degrees off. I don’t know what could be worse, the fact that someone did this video in good faith, but had an IQ that was so low they completely mis-characterized everything out of sheer stupidity, or that they were malicious enough to put this together as a hit piece to target the most brilliant man many of us have had the pleasure to listen to. Either way, shame on you, this is garbage!
YT19890151
This video really exposes its author as a charlatan. If you are going to attempt to expose one of the worlds leading intellectuals, with thousands of hours of lectures online, 2 published, bestselling books and (if my memory serves me well) over 700 citations on published Psychology papers, in the top 0.1 percentile of clinical psychologists on the planet you’re gonna need more than a 14 minute video :’) You talk like he’s just some dipshit with absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. That requires a comical level of arrogance :’)
Steve Eaton
A video which sets out to expose hypocrisy and poor arguments turns out to be hypocritical and poorly argued. Leaving aside the ridiculous childish voice and video changing tools – firstly, at 4:13 you say that Peterson’s thoughts “are not too advanced for ordinary people to follow”. That’s precisely why he’s so popular. If your definition of genius is someone you don’t understand, then go interact with the intellectually disabled, because they, too, can make little sense. Does this make them genius? I’m also not sure how you can say someone with two Bachelor degrees, a PhD, and who has authored over a hundred academic papers is poorly educated. By definition Peterson is well-educated, whether you agree with him or not.
5:15 – why does he need to have read the whole bible before talking about it? You can’t talk about one episode in a box set before the entire season is finished?
5:23 – ‘The readily observable fact is…’ Readily observable? What kind of phrase is that? How is the reading habits of Peterson’s fans observable by just about anyone? What makes this statement – that Peterson’s fans haven’t read his work, a fact? You never actually say.
5:47 – Why does Maps of Meaning have to reference the people you decide it should reference? A book isn’t credible unless it references specific philosophers according to an anonymous vlogger?
I could continue ripping your little video to shreds, half minute by half minute, but it should be obvious to all that you’re using Peterson’s name to bring people in so you can increase your viewing figures and brag to people you’ll never meet. You’ve read these books, clearly Peterson hasn’t. You’ve read Peterson’s books, clearly Peterson’s fans haven’t. Yeah, yeah, well aren’t you a special little boy oh learned one. If you don’t like Peterson it’s interesting you’d dedicate so much of your time to reading his work. Since you’re okay to post character assassinations online, here’s one for you – this post was fueled by your jealousy; you desperately want the world to consider you intelligent (which they don’t) and struggle with the notion that despite the hours you’ve spent holding philosophy books in coffee shops, hoping in vain that people are actually noticing you and your reading matter even though the book is open at an arbitrary page carrying text you can’t understand, nobody thinks you’re anything special. You’re the kind of wannabe intellectual that makes people groan inwardly when you enter a room. You probably make a big deal about being an atheist or, even better, an agnostic. That way you can always start a dire debate with someone. Bore off. Let me ask you this – If you’re so smart, why haven’t you figured out that if you don’t like Peterson’s perspectives, you can just ignore him?
Phil Kesler
Disagree with Peterson on religion and morality, as well as his redefining of ‘truth’, but this video is pure propaganda. Mostly out of context quotes followed by vague strawman’s and manipulative editing. The video creator fails to contend with Peterson’s arguments in any substantive manner while demonstrating a lack of intelligence.
Freddie de Giles
This might have been interesting, but all the flashy editing and mocking of JP leads me to assume you’re arguments have no solid content. Because if they did, you’d just have used solid arguments, instead of trying razzle dazzle us. What was the purpose of the slowed down voices, images of him crying etc.?
On a roll
Dark Legion Comics is pleased to announce the release of the digital edition of Gun Ghoul #2 by Will Caligan.
In their search for the mysterious killer who is wreaking havoc on the crime lords of Chicago, Agent Justice of the FBI and Detective Callahan of the Chicago Police Department recreate a gun battle that took place at a restaurant in Chinatown. What they learn leads them to the killer’s next target, where they find themselves face-to-face with the ruthless, relentless being itself.
Will they survive the encounter? And is it possible there is more to the story than a simple revenge tale?
Gun Ghoul: Raising the Dead is a furiously action-packed graphic novel by military veteran Will Caligan.
From the reviews of Gun Ghoul #1:
- Great right out of the gate! This new title by Will Caligan grabs your attention right away, and keeps it from start to finish. The characters seem compelling and the plot is engaging, a mix that is sure to keep people turning Gun Ghouls pages. On a scale of Squirrel Girl to 10, I’d rate the artwork and coloring pretty high, definitely no less than 8.
- Very intriguing comic. The main character is a suitably terrifying visage of death and justice. There’s a lot of intrigue as well as a lot of action. I wholeheartedly recommend it.
- Punisher meets Ghost Rider. This comic was like a fun throwback to comics that I read in the 90’s as a kid. The premise is cool and promises a lot of intrigue to come. Just a good old fashioned romp all around. Congratulations to Will Caligan for getting it off the ground.
- This comic reads like the first stage of a timed 3-Gun match. Over all too quickly after the adrenaline rush of pumping rounds downrange in a flurry and a hurry. Great start.
- A rousing start to what looks to be a great series. Opens strong and goes up from there. Highly recommended.
In other Arkhaven news, we are very close to finishing Alt-Hero #4: The War in Paris. We will probably release it the first week of September. We have also decided to produce premium editions of all the Alt-Hero comics for the comic book stores, which will retail for $4.99, feature alternate covers, be printed on heavier 70-pound paper, and have a larger, more conventional 10×7 store-friendly form factor. The premium editions will be available from Arkhaven Direct as well. The first alternate cover has been commissioned, will feature Dynamique in Paris, and is being drawn by one of our new Alt-Hero artists.
Castalia reader opinion poll: if you could have one Castalia-published title or series turned into a graphic novel series, which would it be? Moth & Cobweb is not in the running, since we’re already doing Swan Knight Saga, and we’re not ready to contemplate tackling Arts of Dark and Light yet. Nothing is definite, I’m just interested in getting people’s opinions now that we’ve got a number of very good artists interested in working with us.
Men are not intimidated
I never bought into the “men reject me because they are intimidated by my awesome wonderfulness” line to which so many feminist old maids resort. And if a recent study is to be believed, it turns out that when smart, highly educated women are being rejected en masse by men, it’s not their intimidating intelligence that is the problem. In fact, when they blame men for being intimidated by intelligence, it turns out that they’re probably just projecting their own feelings onto their male counterparts.
A study by researchers at the University of Western Australia found that women did not want exceptionally clever or handsome men. But the same did not hold true for men – who are not put off by extreme levels of intelligence or good looks, they found.
Researchers asked hundreds of people what they found attractive in a potential romantic partner. Participants rated four qualities – good looks, cleverness, kindness and being easy-going.
They were asked to say how attracted they would be to potential partners who were, for example, kinder than 1 per cent of the population. They were then asked the same for 10 per cent, 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent, 90 per cent and 99 per cent of the population. For each percentage, participants rated the partners on a six-point scale from ‘extremely unattracted’ to ‘extremely attracted’.
The results showed that the more the quality was present, the more attractive the person was as a partner – most of the time. But for females, partners lost their appeal at the top of the scale for some traits.
Women said a partner would be more attractive if they were more intelligent than 90 per cent of the population. However, attractiveness decreased if the person was more intelligent than 99 per cent of the population. The same drop-off was seen for physical attractiveness and being easy-going, according to the findings published in the British Journal of Psychology.
Being in the top one percent of intelligence myself, and having been friends with a male Calvin Klein model, I can attest that as far as women are concerned, there can definitely be too much of a good thing. I remember one very attractive girl who was – to my point of view, inexplicably – focusing her attention on me rather on than my much better-looking friend explaining that she wanted to be the pretty one in the relationship.
This may help explain why so many very handsome men wind up with women who are relatively plain by comparison, although the fact that very good-looking men tend to be lazy and prefer being pursued by moderately attractive women to exerting any effort competing for their beauty peers also plays a role. And actually, if they are at a disadvantage, that laziness is probably justified. I found it interesting that my model friend usually dated girls who were not all that pretty and wound up marrying a woman who is cute, but not particularly striking.
The thing about intelligence is that it’s very hard to ascertain by those who aren’t within a standard deviation or so. Most people can’t do much better than “pretty sure he is smarter than me” and midwits can’t even manage that. So, men with IQs over 137 will only tend to disattract women whose IQs are above 130 or so, which is not even two percent of the female population.
Voxiversity 2.0
Voxiversity is back with a vengeance. The production team and I are pleased to announce Voxiversity Episode 007, THE MADNESS OF JORDAN PETERSON.
The bestselling author of THE IRRATIONAL ATHEIST and ON THE EXISTENCE OF GODS exposes Dr. Jordan Peterson as an intellectual charlatan, an anti-Christian globalist, and a mentally unstable defender of the neo-liberal world order by extensively quoting Peterson’s own incoherencies and inconsistencies in context.
We’re also sending out an email today to all the Voxiversity backers to let them know it is possible to support Voxiversity again through direct monthly subscriptions. If you wish to join them, you can do so now via the Castalia House Store. Based on my improved understanding of how the video audience-building process works, we’ve integrated the Darkstream with the Voxiversity. By supporting one or the other, you will be supporting both. This is also more cost-efficient than going through a Patreon-style service. Please note these are all MONTHLY subscriptions.
- Darkstream Subscription
- Darkstream Silver
- Darkstream Gold
- Voxiversity Silver
- Voxiversity Gold
- Voxiversity Foundation
Note that site registration is required for recurring subscriptions. We’ll put a site up on Oneway to keep track of the number of backers and so forth, but there is no need to sign up through that. The revised idea is to use the regular Darkstreams to address the various issues brought up by the backers faster and on a more regular basis, while utilizing the Voxiversity episodes to address the deeper issues more substantively.
Thanks to all the backers for your patience as we dealt with the various obstacles presented, and special thanks in particular to the Foundation members, who stepped in and maintained their support for the program even through the two-month hiatus.
Are you a liberal?
James Burnham devised a test to distinguish liberal-progressives from conservative-reactionaries in 1965. See how you do; you will very likely be surprised to see where you land in light of how much the Overton Window has moved to the Left in the last 53 years.
IT IS NOT TOO DIFFICULT TO DEVISE a fairly accurate diagnostic test for liberalism. In individual and group experiments over the past several years I have often used, for example, the following set of thirty-nine sentences. The patient is merely asked whether he agrees or disagrees with each sentence—agrees or disagrees by and large, without worrying over fine points.
1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong.
2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
3. Everyone has a right to free, public education.
4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong.
5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror.
6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval.
7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves.
8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation.
9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners.
10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general.
11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction.
12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong.
13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind.
14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong.
15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in the Southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites.
16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation.
17. Communists have a right to express their opinions.
18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations.
19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong.
20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it.
21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others.
22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace.
23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong.
24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom.
25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need.
26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies.
27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong.
28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote.
29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War.
30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing.
32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression.
34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
35. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security.
37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work.
38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions.
39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
A FULL-BLOWN LIBERAL WILL mark every one, or very nearly every one, of these thirty-nine sentences, Agree. A convinced conservative will mark many or most of them, a reactionary all or nearly all of them, Disagree. By giving this test to a variety of groups, I have confirmed experimentally—what is obvious enough from ordinary discourse—that the result is seldom an even balance between Agree and Disagree. The correlations are especially stable for individuals who are prepared to identify themselves unequivocally as either “liberal” or “reactionary”: such self-defined liberals almost never drop below 85 percent of Agree answers, or self-defined reactionaries below 85 percent of Disagree; a perfect 100 percent is common. Certain types of self-styled conservatives yield almost as high a Disagree percentage as the admitted reactionaries. The answers of those who regard themselves as “moderate conservatives” or “traditional conservatives” and of the rather small number of persons who pretend to no general opinions about public matters show considerably more variation. But in general the responses to this list of thirty-nine sentences indicate that a liberal line can be drawn somewhere—even if not exactly along this salient—and that most persons fall fairly definitely (though not in equal numbers) on one side of it or the other.
These sentences were not devised arbitrarily. Many of them are taken directly or adapted from the writings of well-known liberals, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, or the liberal questionnaires that have been put out in recent years by the American Civil Liberties Union. The last eight are quoted verbatim from the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly.
Why conservatives will lose a civil war
As the prospects for actual conflict grow, more and more right-wingers are beginning to realize that conservatives cannot be relied upon to fight for anything:
Would conservatives achieve an easy victory against the left if it came down to civil war? The question seems less absurd by the day as tensions increase between the right and left. Many conservative writers seem to think the left would fold quickly and the right would triumph. One has good reason to doubt that. Consider basic issues like political bias in universities, or religious integrity. After decades of exposés and outcries from conservatives over liberal tyranny, universities are as biased as they ever were….
I am nowhere near as confident as Kurt Schlichter that the right wing could trounce the left wing in battle. We can’t even unite to keep Alex Jones on Facebook. It is true that conservatives have more guns and are probably better street fighters. But conservatives also cave in large numbers even when their most sacred cows are in danger – such as the First Amendment or Christian principles. The two latter issues sit at the core of academic bias and debates on sexuality, respectively. I have the war wounds from both battles and can attest to the repeating scenario: conservatives talk and talk about what they believe and how bad the left is. Then they give up droves when it comes time to fight.
Take the question of defending the gospel. We hear constant sermons from Christian preachers that speak of standing by God’s word even in the face of popular criticism. In anticipation of the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting, I spent months searching for people be willing to sign on to a resolution affirming Christian sexual ethics and supporting churches’ rights to offer counseling in defiance of laws like California’s “stay gay” bill. Almost sixteen million Americans claim to be Southern Baptists. I could not find a single person willing to back the resolution. When I submitted it under my own name, it was killed in committee and never brought to the floor.
If you look at the history of ideologically-based civil wars, the odds most certainly do not favor the more conservative sides. The Spanish Civil War was one of the few in which the socialists were ultimately defeated, and yet, neither Franco nor the Phalange were ever embraced by the Right throughout the West.
I’ve been reading James Burnham’s Suicide of the West, and one of the things that is particularly shocking is his 39-question poll which divides the conservatives of 1965 from liberal-progressives. I’ll post it later today, as it shows very clearly that today’s conservatives are yesterday’s progressives.
Smells like tortious interference
Soros and David Brock appear to be behind the recent social media takedowns:
A confidential, 49-page memo for defeating Trump by working with the major social-media platforms to eliminate “right wing propaganda and fake news” was presented in January 2017 by Media Matters founder David Brock at a retreat in Florida with about 100 donors, the Washington Free Beacon reported at the time.
On Monday, the Gateway Pundit blog noted the memo’s relationship with recent moves by Silicon Valley tech giants to “shadow ban” conservative political candidates and pundits and remove content.
The Free Beacon obtained a copy of the memo, “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action,” by attending the retreat.
The memo spells out a four-year agenda that deployed Media Matters along with American Bridge, Shareblue and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to attack Trump and Republicans. The strategies are impeachment, expanding Media Matters’ mission to combat “government misinformation,” ensuring Democratic control of the Senate in the 2018 midterm elections, filing lawsuits against the Trump administration, monetizing political advocacy, using a “digital attacker” to delegitimize Trump’s presidency and damage Republicans, and partnering with Facebook to combat “fake news.”
Quashing ‘fake news’ with ‘mathematical precision’
The Free Beacon in its January 2017 story said Brock sought to raise $40 million in 2017 for his organizations.
The document claims Media Matters and far-left groups have “access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites” so they can “systemically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”
“The earlier we can identify a fake news story, the more effectively we can quash it,” the memo states. “With this new technology at our fingertips, researchers monitoring news in real time will be able to identify the origins of a lie with mathematical precision, creating an early warning system for fake news and disinformation.”
Media Matters met with Facebook, which boasts some 2 billion members worldwide, to discuss how to crack down on fake news, according to the memo.
The social media giant was provided with “a detailed map of the constellation of right-wing Facebook pages that had been the biggest purveyors of fake news.”
Brock’s memo also says Media Matters gave Google “the information necessary to identify 40 of the worst fake new sites” so they could be banned from Google’s advertising network.
The Gateway Pundit pointed out that in 2016, Google carried out that plan on the Gateway Pundit blog and other conservative sites, including Breitbart, the Drudge Report, Infowars, Zero Hedge and Conservative Treehouse.
Facebook, meanwhile has changed its newsfeed algorithm, ostensibly to combat “fake news,” causing a precipitous decline in traffic for many conservative sites.
Relying on the left-wing big social platforms is inherently fragile. Get off Twitter and Facebook, get on Oneway for public stuff and Idka for private groups. Edit Infogalactic instead of Wikipedia. Getting anti-fragile is the key to future success. I’d rather have 10k followers on BitChute than 100k on YouTube, but a 20k email list would be better than either.
This is what victory looks like
Congratulations, Rabid Puppies! Thou hast conquered.
Last night’s Hugo Awards ceremony featured a significant first: Nora Jemisin became the first novelist in science fiction history to win three consecutive Best Novel Hugos, once for each volume in her Broken Earth trilogy (the concluding volume, The Stone Sky, won last night’s prize); in addition to the unprecedented honor, Jemisin had another first, with her acceptance speech, which may just be the best such speech in the field’s history.
Other works and creators honored last night include:
Best novella: All Systems Red, by Martha Wells (Tor.com Publishing)
Best novelette: “The Secret Life of Bots,” by Suzanne Palmer (Clarkesworld, September 2017)
Best short story: “Welcome to your Authentic Indian Experience™,” by Rebecca Roanhorse (Apex, August 2017)
Best related work: No Time to Spare: Thinking About What Matters, by Ursula K. Le Guin (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)
Best Graphic Story: Monstress, Volume 2: The Blood, written by Marjorie M. Liu, illustrated by Sana Takeda (Image Comics)
Best Editor – Short Form: Lynne M. Thomas & Michael Damian Thomas
Best Editor – Long Form: Sheila E. Gilbert
Let’s consider the best speech in the science fiction field’s history by the greatest science fiction writer of all time.
oh um okay so I I had started developing this whole superstition where I only went Awards if I don’t show up and my friends are texting me so I can’t read my speech stop okay all right so let me get to the speech this has been a hard year hasn’t it a hard few years a hard century for some of us things have always been hard and I wrote the broken earth trilogy to speak to that struggle and what it takes to live let alone thrive in a world that seems determined to break you a world of people who constantly question your competence your relevance your very existence I get a lot of questions about where the themes of the broken earth trilogy come from I think it’s pretty obvious that I’m drawing on the human history of structural oppression as well as my feelings about this moment in American history what may be less obvious though is how much of the story derives from my feelings about science fiction and fantasy then again science fiction and fantasy are microcosms of the wider world in no way rarified from the world’s pettiness or prejudice but another thing that I tried to touch on with the broken earth trilogy is that life in a hard world is never just the struggle life is family blood and found life is those allies who prove themselves worthy by actions and not just talk life means celebrating every victory no matter how small so if I stand here before you beneath these lights I want you to remember that 2018 is also a good year this is a year in which records have been set a year in which even the most privileged blinder of us have been forced to acknowledge that the world is broken and needs fixing and that is a good thing stop texting me and that is because acknowledging the problem is the first step towards fixing it I looked at science fiction and fantasy as the aspirational Drive of the zeitgeist we creators are the engineers of possibility and as this genre finally however grudgingly acknowledges that the dreams of the marginalized matter and that all of us have a future so will go the world soon I hope fairies and yes there will be naysayers I know that I am here on this stage accepting this award for pretty much the same reason as every previous best novel winner because I work my ass off I have poured my pain onto paper when I could not afford therapy I have studied works of literature that range widely and dig deeply to learn when I could and refine my voice I have written a million words of crap and probably a million more of me and beyond that I have smiled and nodded while well-meaning magazine editors advised me to tone down my allegories and my anger I didn’t I have gritted my teeth while an established professional writer went on a 10-minute tirade at me and basically as a proxy for all black people for mentioning under-representation in the sciences I’ve kept writing even though my first novel The Killing Moon was initially rejected on the assumption that only black people would ever possibly want to read the work of a black writer I have raised my voice to talkback over fellow panelists who tried to talk over me about my own damn life I have fought myself in the little voice inside me that constantly still whispers that I should just keep my head down and shut up and let the real writers talk but this is the year in which I get to smile at all of those naysayers every single mediocre insecure wannabe who fixes their mouth to suggest that I do not belong on this stage but people like me cannot possibly have earned such an honor and that when they win its meritocracy but when we win its identity politics I get to smile at this people and lift a massive shining rocket-shaped finger in their direction I’m understand so how many of you all saw like Panther okay probably my favorite part of it is actually Kendrick Lamar theme song all the stars the chorus of it is this maybe the night that my dreams might let me know all the stars are closer let 2018 be the year that the stars came closer for all of us the stars are ours thank you
Moving. Deeply moving. (wipes a solitary tear away) You lift that massive shining rocket-shaped finger to the sky, you inspiring token for the savagely untalented! No one can ever take away those unprecedented three consecutive Best Novel Awards from you, although they’re desperately going to want to do so once they realize just how completely they have destroyed the credibility of their own awards.
You see, my dear SF-SJWs, this is what a smoking hole looks like.
A legitimate award-winning science fiction writer, Robert Silverberg, begins to grok.
I have not read the Jemison books. Perhaps they are wonderful works of science fiction deserving of Hugos every year from now on. But in her graceless and vulgar acceptance speech last night, she insisted that she had not won because of ‘identity politics,’ and proceeded to disprove her own point by rehearsing the grievances of her people and describing her latest Hugo as a middle finger aimed at all those who had created those grievances.
But that’s what the Hugo Award is now. And that is all it is. Which is exactly what I told the Rabid Puppies would happen. Our actions could never have sufficed, but their reactions did.
South Africa schedules bad luck
This should end well for everyone in South Africa:
The South African government has begun the process of seizing land from white farmers.
Local newspaper City Press reports two game farms in the northern province of Limpopo are the first to be targeted for unilateral seizure after negotiations with the owners to purchase the properties stalled.
While the government says it intends to pay, owners Akkerland Boerdery wanted 200 million rand ($18.7 million) for the land — they’re being offered just 20 million rand ($1.87 million).
“Notice is hereby given that a terrain inspection will be held on the farms on April 5, 2018 at 10am in order to conduct an audit of the assets and a handover of the farm’s keys to the state,” a letter sent to the owners earlier this year said.
Farm seizures today, mass starvation tomorrow.
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.
– Robert Heinlein