Category: Uncategorized

Darkstream: success comes through force-multiplication

From the transcript:

These are ways that we can support each other, that we can work together, and you know that’s how we not only survive but we thrive in this increasingly heated cultural war environment. And so you know, what I would encourage you to do is, in your own way, whether you’re talking about work, whether you’re talking about play, whether you’re talking about politics, is start thinking about the objective and stop worrying about your status or whether you’re getting as much credit as you feel you deserve. I’m not saying that those things are not important, I’m just saying that they are ultimately
less important then learning how to force-multiply your own efforts by working with other people.

Other people are always a force-multiplier, and that’s something it took me a long, long time to learn. You know we have a lot of volunteers now, with Castalia, with Infogalactic, with Arkhaven, and you know all of their efforts are very much appreciated, but it took me until, I think it was until three years ago, that I allowed anybody to volunteer for anything because I was always trying to do it myself. I was always trying to do it alone, and when you’re alone you are more easily isolated, obviously, you’re more easily ignored. There’s a reason why the first thing the SJWs do is to cut people out, to separate them from others, you know, freeze and isolate them as Alinsky wrote. They do that because it weakens you, they do that because it makes it easier to prevent you from having success, and so that’s why you need to be willing to give up the idea that you’re going be in charge, that you should be in charge, that you know best, etc.

If you want to be in charge of something, then you start something and people come to you, and they join you, and they force-multiply your efforts. What you cannot do, and you must not do, is to try to join somebody else’s group, and then share your wisdom with them and try to tell them what to do. You know that is always a mistake, that is always intrinsically offensive, and you should not be surprised when people don’t appreciate your efforts to help them. All right, if they ask for the help, great, but if you’re just doing it out of the goodness of your heart or something, I mean, come on, let’s be realistic with yourself, what you really want is you want the influence without the responsibility.

Don’t do that. You can only really have influence if you’re willing to take responsibility for yourself, and the person who is responsible is the person who has the skin in the game and as Talib correctly tells us – no this is not leading from the bottom it’s not about leading at all, that’s the whole point, to get over the drive to lead – if you want to lead, you have to have people who voluntarily follow you of their own free will. You need to start walking in a direction and if people follow you, then you’re the leader, but what you cannot do is try to jump in and try to hijack the microphone, hijack the group, hijack the planning, hijack the strategy, that is all wrong! You’re not helping people by doing that, you’re actually creating problems. So, before you can be a good leader, you have to learn how to be a good and reliable follower.

Gammas are not welcome here

I think it is now time to openly institute an anti-gamma policy. It’s no secret that I detest them and their behavioral patterns, but I simply don’t have the time or the patience to tolerate their antics any longer. The now-banned Pale Male’s nonsense is a good example of why they simply aren’t worth the effort required to put up with them.

You forgot the modifier:  Social science is not scientific. That’s because “social” is a modifier meaning “not”:  social science, social justice, social work…. Tell us, Vox:  have you ever taken a course in physics?  Did you pass?

This is classic gamma bullshit utilizing the four As of the gamma.

  1. Assume a superior, lecturing pose.
  2. Assert that the other party has made a mistake, and in doing so, demonstrate a complete failure to have understood what the other party said.
  3. Attack the other party instead of addressing the subject at hand.
  4. Attempt to disqualify and discredit the other party in lieu of demonstrating the errors of their position.
The whole point of the post, which was explicitly stated, was that scientistry (the scientific profession) is increasingly not utilizing scientody (the scientific method). That is what “science is not scientific” means and the observation applies to both the hard and the soft sciences, as has been chronicled here on several occasions. My having taken, or not taken, courses in physics at the high school and college levels has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of my observations concerning corruption in science. All aspects of science. After all, I haven’t taken a single course in psychology, which would theoretically be even more relevant to the subject, and yet the gamma doesn’t ask about that… because he knows perfectly well such questions aren’t relevant.

You forgot that using the Stanford prison experiment to conclude anything whatsoever about physics is a non sequitur. Completely different people, methods, standards of evidence, reproducibility (institutional review boards would no doubt prohibit it today), everything.

I didn’t forget anything. I’m literally the individual who coined the sarcastic expression “You can trust biologists. Because physicists get amazingly accurate results.” As I pointed out in my response, that is like saying that because Charles Ponzi was a completely different person living at a completely different time and using completely different methods than Bernie Madoff, and operating under very different regulatory standards, it is a non sequitur to use his actions to conclude anything about Madoff’s.

Physicists are people, subject to the same incentives and motives and character flaws as psychologists. They are corrupted in the same way and for the same reasons. And we already possess considerable evidence that some of them are behaving in exactly the same way, despite their various differences. Just ask Stickwick about how intellectually and scientifically pure academic physicists are these days.

Tell us, Vox: have you ever taken a course in physics? Did you pass? Your own rule: 2… If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner… I’d bet 10:1 I know the answer but I want it straight from you.

Notice that he is posturing as if he is confident, and yet he doesn’t commit himself publicly to a position, for fear that he will be proven wrong. This is textbook gamma posturing. And he is still trying to make the subject about me, rather than about the big news concerning the scientific fraud underlying one of the most famous studies in social science, while trying to use my own rules against me.

Of course, being careless and obsessive like all gammas, he stopped reading once he found what he was looking for and failed to read the whole thing.

29. These Rules may in no case be interpreted contrary to the purposes and principles of Vox Day, as solely determined by Vox Day.

I’m still waiting for him to tell us if he’s actually gone there in physics, and how far.

Notice how he’s “still waiting” for an answer to a question he never even asked. That’s because this is not a relevant question, it is an attempt to “win” the discussion through discrediting and disqualification; he’s begun to fear that I have taken a course in physics and is preemptively laying the groundwork for moving the goalposts. Which, of course, is why I ignored the question in the first place. Whenever you successfully answer a gamma’s initial attempt to discredit and disqualify you, he will simply respond with another question intended to do the same. This process never ends until a) you kick him out, b) he finally manages to come up with a question that allows him to say HA!, c) you have such impeccable credentials that he falls silent in embarrassment, or d) you ignore him so long that he finally gives up and goes away.

I wasn’t the only one who noticed the flashing neon signs saying “warning: gamma at work ahead”.

In what way is Vox’s educational history relevant to the question? Are you always this dishonest, or only when challenged? This is a sneering, gamma-ish, and obviously false assertion of the appeal to authority, and you should know this.

And notice how the gamma always eventually brings the discussion back around to himself. Every single time. Note that literally no one asked about his credentials, his degrees, or what subjects he studied, but that didn’t prevent him from telling everyone anyhow.

I stopped my formal study of chemistry in my freshman year of college, but I’m still working on it.  Autodidact, check.  I’m sketching hardware to do practical applications. 

After initially trying to ignore his antics to no avail, I opted for Option A and kicked Pale Male out. He’s now banned from commenting on the blog, and I plan to similarly ban every single gamma who acts up and subjects us to similar antics. From now on, if anyone even addresses me in a personally challenging or passive-aggressive manner, I’m just going to delete their comments. I have learned over 15 years of daily blogging that it is always a waste of time to even answer such commenters; they add nothing to the discourse, they inevitably attempt to derail the discussion, they try to snarkily disqualify everyone who disagrees with them, and they inevitably start to talk about themselves instead of the subject at hand.

This is not a place for gammas to show the whole world what smart boys they are. This is not a place for anyone to attempt to work out their psychological issues. And above all, this is not a place to waste my time. Everyone is welcome to express THEIR OWN opinion about THE SUBJECT BEING DISCUSSED, they are not permitted to attempt to hijack the microphone or try to elevate their perceived status at my, or anyone else’s, expense. If I tell you that you are wrong, you are welcome to try to prove that you were actually correct, but any attempt to attack, disqualify, or discredit me in lieu of an actual defense of your assertions will be nuked on sight.

And while you’re welcome to try to correct me if you think I am wrong, you had damn well better cross your t’s, dot your i’s, and get all of your ducks in a row while you make your case for it, because there are few things I despise more than one of my intellectual inferiors wasting my time by erroneously attempting to “correct” me, especially by citing orthodox information with which I am obviously already familiar. If all you’ve got is a snarky passive-aggressive statement of opinion that is a prelude to the usual routine, just go away and don’t come back. Or at the very least, keep it to yourself. I’m not even remotely interested in playing stupid gamma games.

The Swamp still protecting itself

Does Inspector General Michael Horowitz think he’s been employed as a defense attorney or something?

A bombshell report released Thursday by the Justice Department’s inspector general includes new evidence that an FBI agent and an agency lawyer who were having an affair in 2016 were also plotting to keep President Donald Trump from winning the election.

In an email on August 8, 2016, Special Agent Peter Strzok reassured Page that she needn’t worry about Trump winning the White House.

Trump is ‘not ever going to become president, right? Right?!’ Page texted Strzok. 

‘No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it,’ he responded.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote that ‘[s]everal FBI employees who played critical roles in the investigation sent political messages,’ but concluded that ‘the conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation.’

He declared that the IG’s office ‘did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.’

The 500-page report also found that then-FBI Director James Comey ‘deviated’ from the standard practices of his agency when dealing with the probe into Hillary Clinton’s classified emails.

But IG Michael Horowitz emphasized that Comey was more knuckleheaded than malicious.

‘While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice,’ the report reads.

I’m beginning to notice a certain pattern to the Swamp’s ability to excuse itself from any and all culpability for criminal activity. Even when a crime has been committed, it’s excused because the perpetrator didn’t mean to commit it, they’re just one of a bunch of knuckleheads who mean well and are good boys and are gwan to go to college.

It’s remarkable how this so-called investigator sounds like a old black community activist lamenting how a few gang-banging knuckleheads ruin it for everyone.

Science is not scientific

And as a result, it’s mostly fake. That’s the only conclusion that can be honestly reached in light of the fact that the single most famous experiment in social science turns out to have been a fraud:

One of the most famous and influential psychology studies of all time was based on lies and fakery, a new exposé reveals.

The Stanford prison experiment purported to show we are all naturally inclined to abuse positions of power – after volunteers randomly assigned to act as prison guards began abusing volunteer inmates in a mock prison.

But now a report from author and scientist Dr Ben Blum claims the research was all a sham. It points to recordings found in archives at Stanford University which show the study’s author Professor Philip Zimbardo encouraged guards to treat inmates poorly.

Also, one volunteer prisoner has now admitted to faking a fit of madness that the study reported was driven by the prison’s brutal conditions.

The revelations have sent scientists into uproar, with some calling for the experiment and its findings to be wiped from psychology textbooks worldwide.

We certainly live in interesting times. I knew that most “scientific” economics was a fraud, and I’d concluded that all “scientific” evolution was a fraud, but it is clear that the rot begins in physics and goes all the way down through the softest social sciences.

The central problem is simple enough, as it is the result of the gap between the theory of scientody and the reality of scientistry. Scientistry doesn’t incentivize or require replication, so no one even bothers trying to replicate the vast majority of studies and experiments.

Mailvox: righteousness and virtue

A reader asks about a distinction:

I have recently been reading Aristotle to get my head around many of the arguments you make against Jordan Peterson. As such, I am curious about what you see being the difference between acting righteously and virtuously, or are they one and the same to you.

Acting righteously: acting in accordance with God’s Will. Only God can determine this, Man can only make the attempt without full knowledge of whether he is doing so successfully or not.

Acting virtuously: acting in accordance with a specified virtue. These are mostly defined and determined by Man, so one can behave virtuously and know that one is doing so, except in the cases where virtue and righteousness happen to overlap. But one can act in a virtuous manner that is unrighteous; not all Satanists are cowardly and even a murderous thief can be charitable with his ill-gotten gains.

Aristotelian moral virtue falls somewhere in between virtue and righteousness. It is more akin to what I would describe as eucivicism, or civic virtue. Due to his philosophy being pre-Christian, I tend to be more influenced by Aristotle’s thinking on intellectual virtue than on moral virtue, although eucivicism is definitely desirable from both worldly and philosophical perspectives.

June Brainstorm

Tonight we’re having a Member’s Only Brainstorm to discuss the latest developments in Alt-Movies. Invites have been sent out. I THINK I’ve finally got the time zone thing straight, but regardless, the event will be at 7 PM Eastern time.

For those of you who are interested in the subject, we’ll be holding an event that is open to everyone interested in supporting the project next week. Tonight’s meeting is to lay the groundwork for that one, so just be patient.

Trying to create a martyr

If the UK Home Office is successful in getting Tommy Robinson killed in prison, I suspect they may be more than a little surprised at the consequences.

U.K. officials have moved political prisoner Tommy Robinson from the safety of Hull prison, where he was serving out a 13-month sentence, to Onley, near Birmingham. The move, which happened on June 12, effectively hurls Robinson into what supporters say is certain death.

Onley, a notoriously violent prison, is overrun by Muslim gangs and has a reputation for riots. A colleague of Robinson told InfoWars Robinson estimated the wing of his new cell was about 70 per cent Muslim.

InfoWars’ Paul Joseph Watson tweeted inmates were banging on Robinson’s cell all night chanting death threats. According to a press release, Robinson’s family confirms he has received numerous death threats from Muslim inmates who object to Robinson’s critique of radical Islam.

They’ve also reported he is sleeping in an unheated cell that has nothing but a thin mattress. The family believes the abrupt move, which happened without warning, was intended to disrupt a new legal appeal being put together in his defense.

This appears to be war by judiciary. If the UK authorities are willing to go this far – and the death of Kevin Creehan suggests that they may be – the British people are going to have to accept that they have entered glorious times and respond accordingly.

Comic Book Review: Alt-Hero: Crackdown

Bounding Into Comics reviews Alt★Hero #1:

The road to publication that Alt-Hero: Crackdown has traveled is well known by many who follow comics. Creator/writer Vox Day introduced us to the idea for his creation some time ago and it made an insane amount of money on the online fundraising platform, Freestartr. It was met with almost equal parts excitement and anger. Some saw it as a return to classic comics from someone other than the “Big 2,” some saw it as a natural response to the increasingly leftist slant most modern comics were developing and pushing, and some saw it as a mean-spirited jab at people with different views as them. I’m not here to talk about any of that though. This is a review and all that matters is whether the book was any good or not. So was it? Actually, yeah. It was pretty good.

The best satire is the kind that while reading it, you’re not too sure if it’s actually satire or not. Alt-Hero: Crackdown excels in this area on nearly every page. It’s nice to read a comic story directly for those of us who tire of the constant barrage of hard left-wing ideology and it’s even better that the focus is NOT on political agendas, but rather, telling a good story. Some of the bigger comic publishers should take a few notes.

Go there to see what kind of rating they gave the inaugural issue….

Shadier and shadier

Brett Kimberlin and DNC Staffer Helped Push ‘Russiagate’ to Feds

Before he went live on Twitter with this report, Lee called me to explain what he had discovered. Alexandra Chalupa was a DNC staffer who left that job in summer 2016 to focus full-time on the Trump/Russia angle. Her association with Kimberlin was reported in 2017. Yet until Lee started poking around, no one seems to have caught the significance of her Facebook post, in which she asserted that “The Protectors” (apparently an online front for Kimberlin’s tax-exempt Justice Through Music Project, and likely involving Neal Rauhauser) had “teamed up” with federal agencies to encourage investigation of the phony Russian “collusion” narrative.

This borders on pathetic. Was the local homeless guy otherwise occupied? I’m beginning to understand why Q keeps repeating “these people are stupid”.