Media training

This is an excerpt from a member of a very large organization that is often the subject of media attention and has the need to train all its members on how to deal with the media.

1. Always be polite and smile.
2. Simply don’t return calls, or if they get your number, say no thank you and hang up.
3. If you are rude, shout at them, be a smart ass, or are anything but polite, they now have their story about you.
4. Their final attempt may be an ambush where walking out of your home where you are harrassed with a microphone in your face. If this happens, ask who they are, where they work, and what they want. Then repeat while smiling, “You seem very nice, but I can’t talk right now as I have to get to an appointment. I have your number and will call you later. Thank you. You seem nice.” Walk backwards a little, keep saying how nice the journalist is. Then leave and never speak to them again.

NEVER say “No Comment”. No Comment = guilty.

NEVER yell at them. They will play that clip 1000 times a day.

NEVER be rude. They will let the world know.

Tell them how nice and wonderful they are and they have NO STORY. The goal is for them to have NO STORY.

They will simply make up a story anyhow, but they will have to do so without any quotes or an interview. It will therefore be limited in its effectiveness.

Coming out strong

“If you’re looking at the expansion of the market, we keep on seeing new companies being introduced every day.  They seem to be coming out with a much stronger amount of content, right coming out of the gate. It’s not a slow buildup, these guys are coming out on the ground running.”
– DC Comics Publisher Dan DiDio

This is what he’s talking about.

If you haven’t caught the Arkstream yet, you may want to check it out to see what’s coming next. And don’t miss our latest releases: Alt-Hero #3 from Arkhaven and Rebel Dead Revenge #3 from Dark Legion.

Delete your Facebook account NOW

Forget the thought policing. Forget the Infowars ban. Facebook is going to get a LOT worse very soon.

The social-media giant has asked large U.S. banks to share detailed financial information about their customers, including card transactions and checking-account balances, as part of an effort to offer new services to users.

Facebook increasingly wants to be a platform where people buy and sell goods and services, besides connecting with friends. The company over the past year asked JPMorgan Chase JPM 0.03{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9} & Co., Wells Fargo WFC 0.10{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9} & Co., Citigroup Inc. C 0.01{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9} and U.S. Bancorp USB 0.04{00e165f4fa25eece8620911fb25595762b8a82f0e9f17ab7d11d67b2fdd0d1a9} to discuss potential offerings it could host for bank customers on Facebook Messenger, said people familiar with the matter.

At this point, if you’re still on Facebook, you’re not merely putting your children’s privacy at risk and aiding and abetting your would-be destroyer, you’re downright stupid. I’ve never been banned from Facebook, I used it sparingly at best, and I got rid of my account anyhow. The ability to indirectly exchange pictures with your extended family or cyberstalk your high school boyfriend just isn’t worth it.

If you need to have group communications, get on Idka. If you want more conventional social media, try Oneway. Or go radio dark if that suits you. But regardless, at the very least, deactivate your Facebook account and encourage your friends and family to do the same. It’s not going to get better.

Don’t ever talk to the media

No matter WHO you are, no matter WHERE you live. And definitely don’t permit them to visit your home and get “an in-depth idea of your circumstances”. They will use it against you and publicize it in the hope that it will somehow harm you.

When the Vice reporter came in January 2018, I showed them around Shenzhen for three days. During this visit, I brought the reporter to my home, long enough for the reporter to get an in-depth idea of my circumstances. In my home, I worked on an automated bartender project I had built for a friends bar- to address with the best possible evidence the ongoing Internet smear campaign against me that only a White man could do work like mine. All this was apparently not juicy enough for Vice. Frankly, it’s very rare I get accused of not being click-baity enough just being myself.

The Vice reporter returned home to NYC and in the following week began to ask the questions about my personal life it had been agreed were off limits. I was given the “opportunity” to address anonymous 4chan/Reddit speculation about my personal life from the ongoing harassment campaign against me- or look guilty in silence. This is not professional, this is not journalism:

Even the most basic level of professionalism was too much to ask of Vice- and yet they want to hide behind the title of “journalists” and claim to be above any accountability, when they are nothing of the kind.

The media and mainstream journalists are, without question, the enemy of the people. The God-Emperor should take a page from the People’s Republic of China and simply start arresting them en masse… as we are informed he will be doing shortly, and with good cause.

She also reveals how the notorious New York Times racist Sarah Jeong is a lying, deceptive, and unprincipled bitch:

With the platform that journalism gave her amplifying that power, sent on behalf of the exact sort of “privileged White man” she claims to despise, she went out to destroy another Asian woman. All while knowing full well the issue was far more complex than she was pretending, the facts completely different- and simply not caring. Not then, not in the following months when it became clear to more and more people just how badly she had abused her power, her education, her profession, and her privilege.

The President of the United States is absolutely right. The media is the enemy. But as Naomi Wu’s story demonstrates, they are not just the enemy of the American people, they are the enemies of humanity. I used to think journalists were brave and heroic, but now that I have direct experience of their deceptions and dishonesties, now that I see through their self-serving self-portrayals, I’m afraid I will remain entirely dry-eyed when one or more of them are publicly sacrificed in the false flag for which the media is already preparing the anti-Q narrative.

The truth is we don’t need journalists anymore. The ubiquity of smartphones and video recording equipment renders them utterly moot, especially since they primarily serve as gatekeepers and propaganda agents, not conduits of truthful and relevant information.

Darkstream: Scott Adams and the Power of Q

From the transcript of the Darkstream.

Scott Adams was talking about how the whole Q thing was bad for MAGA. Now that sounds very cryptic, but what he’s talking about is how he is concerned, like a lot of middle-of-the-road folks and moderates, he is concerned that talking about conspiracy theory is going to turn off, confuse, and disenchant people who might otherwise be inclined to support making America great again. Now this is the conventional moderate talk, all right, moderates always think that the secret to success is appealing to the moderates. You know, they always always do this. Back when Ronald Reagan was a candidate, before he won the nomination, we heard the same sort of reasoning, if you’re going to win you need to move to the center. Okay that is the conventional wisdom, and again and again and again,  political history proves that to be wrong.

Chasing the moderates is actually the way to ensure that you, number one,  will probably lose, and, number two, if you do win you’re not going to be able to do anything. Moderates above all fear change, all moderates want is to stick with the status quo, and so you know running to the center, it’s exactly what the elder George Bush did and that was part of why he managed to lose. So when you look at any advice about politics that worries excessively about marketing, about brand,  about turning people off and all that sort of thing, you need to look at it with this very skeptical eye, because most of the time it is not coming from a rational point of political analysis,  it’s not coming from an observation and application of political history,  it’s simply coming from the moderate’s distaste for anything that normal people might look at with a skeptical eye.

Now, the reality is people follow strength. People follow truth as long as it is fearlessly and forcefully spoken. We see this all around the world and we’ve seen this all through history. Those who stand up and speak the truth tend to meet with very positive reactions because people have a tendency to recognize the truth when they hear it.

If you think about it, what has Q accomplished? What is the primary consequence of Q, has it resulted in more or less confidence in the system? Has it caused people to embrace or reject the FBI, the CIA. and the professional Deep State. Has it appealed to the mainstream media or has it frightened the mainstream media? Okay, those are the questions that are relevant. Who Q happens to be and whether everything that Q says is 100 percent accurate or not, you know, these things are not even relevant points, they’re not even relevant questions.

Review of Alt-Hero #3

Bounding Into Comics reviews AH#3: Reprisal:

Even with its slower pace, the world that’s being expanded on in Alt-Hero #3 is an interesting one and this issue, more than any before it, sends some harrowing echoes throughout its universe that will, eventually, come to an explosive head. I am thoroughly interested in seeing how this will all play out and I fully expect to see people switching sides before the end. It echoes with shades of the best parts of Marvel’s Civil War storyline (the first one, not that second one) and anyone who takes the time to invest in this new comic universe will, I believe, be as excited as I am for the future. With art that continues to improve every issue and a handful of conflicted heroes fighting for what they believe is right, Arkhaven Comics has a great thing going with Alt-Hero. Issue #3 is less exciting, but no less satisfying.

Read the whole thing there. You know Arkhaven is already beginning to make an impact because the goalposts are moving and now the fake reviews are starting to appear. It should be amusing to see how they react to our next big action, which begins very soon.

Pretty Bad Stuff
By Amazon Customer on August 6, 2018
I’m not sure why this exists. It’s a bad imitation of super hero comics from the early 90s with a hefty dose of cooky right wing flavor. If you’d like to read some decent comics with a right leaning bent, I’d suggest Frank Miller or some of Alan Moore’s stuff. Their writing is not only masterful, but their politics have purpose – not just, “We miss big breasts in comics and are mad about ‘SJWs’”, which seems to be the main thrust of this series.

If you hate SJWs more than you like good comics, you’ll love this book.
By D.I .on July 29, 2018
If the fact that the name is a reference to the “alt-right” is a selling point for you then you will pick up the book and claim it is “refreshing” because the hero is a straight white male who is awesome. Fine whatever, there are totally NONE OF THOSE in comics. If you want to read something that makes you feel good about hating SJWs it’s a great book. If you want to read a good superhero comic book and don’t care about politics read literally anything else. Pick up any random trade of Superman, Batman, Spider-Man (all straight white men if it matters) and you get ten times​ better stories.


In other comics-related news, congratulations to Brandon Fiadino, whose Chicago Typewriter: The Red Ribbon was nominated for a Dragon Award in the Best Graphic Novel category!

Best Graphic Novel

  • Chicago Typewriter: The Red Ribbon by Brandon Fiadino, Djibril Morissette-Phan, and James Greatorex, Dark Legion Comics
  • Brandon Sanderson’s White Sand Volume 1 by Brandon Sanderson, Rik Hoskin, and Julius M. Gopez, Dynamite Entertainment
  • Be Prepared by Vera Brosgol
  • Monstress Vol. 2: The Blood by Marjorie M. Liu, Sana Takeda, Image Comics
  • Vision (The Vision) by Tom King, Gabriel Hernandez Walta, Marvel Comics
  • Paper Girls Volume 4 by Brian K. Vaughn and Cliff Chiang, Image Comics

What else did you expect?

I am rolling my eyes at the hysterics that have greeted the news that YouTube has banned the Infowars channel in coordination with Apple and Spotify banning its podcasts and Facebook banning its Facebook page.

Paul Joseph Watson✔@PrisonPlanet
The Alex Jones Channel has been permanently DELETED by YouTube. This is a coordinated PURGE. This is political censorship.

Paul Joseph Watson✔@PrisonPlanet
Apple, Spotify, Facebook and now Google (which owns YouTube) – all within 12 hours of each other. A coordinated purge. This is a total abuse of power.

BFD and book-freaking-hoo. When Alex asked me what the next step would be, I told him that they would be deplatforming the Right and attempting to defund it. This was not merely predictable, it was obvious. This is the exact opposite of a surprise. Complaining and crying about it will accomplish precisely nothing.

This is why we have to build our own platforms, as I have been advising for years. This is why you are shortsighted and strategically-challenged if you allow yourself to be dependent in any way on the platforms of your enemy, even if doing so maximizes your profits and is in your immediate short-term interests.

UPDATE: Before anyone starts worrying that I’ve been banned by Facebook, I deactivated my account myself. I would have deleted it, but the damned DELETE ACCOUNT page would not load no matter which browser I tried. I’ll delete it when I get the chance.

Just another skull

John Scalzi laments that the Evil Legion of Evil has shown people across the Right that there is no information value in rhetoric and that SJWs exist solely for the skull-taking:

It’s really frustrating to me that more people don’t understand that racist/alt-right people have gamified their rhetoric; they’re not interested in discussion, they’re slapping down cards from a “Debate: The Gathering” stack, and the only goal is taking heads.

They gamify their rhetoric because essentially this shit is a low-stake game for them, whereas for other people it’s their actual lives. That’s an advantage they have. If they lose, they shuffle their cards and go on to the next thing. If others lose, their life takes a hit.

And because their rhetorical strategy is essentially card-based, actual knowledge of issues is unimportant and probably a hinderance. They don’t want or need to understand the issues that affect others, they just need you to play their game so they can win.

I don’t have time anymore to diddle about with children who think other people’s lives are some sort of turn-based game, especially when all they want is to hurt other people. And it bothers me more people, especially those with power, don’t understand this shit.

I’m not going to tell people not to engage with these chuckleheads. But don’t engage with them on their terms. Engage with them on your own. One, they hate that, and two, it exposes what they’re doing as a pointless, hateful exercise, and them as awful people.

In sum: Understand what these folks are doing. Refuse to play along. And if you choose, point out to others the hollowness of their game. Because their “game” is to hurt other people, and then go on to the next target. Their game is other people’s lives.

The amusing thing about this is the complete lack of awareness McRapey shows regarding why we have no stakes in their game. We’ve already been disqualified. We’ve already been counted out. We’ve already been expelled. So we don’t give a quantum of a damn for their opinion, their rules, their careers, or their lives any more. We are coming after them, relentlessly, and it costs us absolutely nothing to do so. Indeed, we will profit by it.

We aren’t interested in discussion. We aren’t interested in debate. And we know they aren’t either. They never were. So now we seek only to expose them, to ruin them, and to take their sad little skulls as trophies. Metaphorically, of course. (whistles innocently, kicks a suspiciously round object out of view of the webcam)

It doesn’t matter how they engage with us. It doesn’t matter if they engage with us. We are winning and we are going to continue to win until they are no more. We’re not locked in here with them, they are locked in here with us. And the VFM are hungry.

UPDATE: RIP Whatever:

So, I don’t know if you know this, but next month will mark the 20th anniversary of the existence of Whatever. This is a fact that among other things is causing me both practical and existential reflection on what this place is, and what it means to me, and what is the best way to keep doing it moving forward, particularly in an age where “blogs” are not the center of online gravity that they used to be…. I’m not calling it an official hiatus mostly because I have enough going on that it doesn’t make sense to go away completely, but I also don’t want y’all to worry if you don’t see me posting a lot here between now and September.

WE. ARE. AMUSED. Everyone who remembers the old school blogosphere knows what this post means.

Why Infogalactic matters

Wikipedia, as you would expect, is whitewashing the Sarah Jeong page:

The BBC, which is generally considered a WP:RS around these parts, reports:

The New York Times has defended a new member of its editorial board who wrote racist tweets about white people.[1]
I fail to see why this would not be included in the article. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

*** @XavierItzm: I have changed your comment, since the BBC changed the article today. For anyone wondering, the BBC used to say “racist” but now says “inflammatory”. You can see somewhere below where I criticize this decision by the BBC, but if they changed it, we have to respect that. wumbolo ^^^ 16:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I’ve reverted this Orwellian change. Changing someone else’s comment on a talk page is not acceptable.2600:1012:B147:F1EA:F559:8E27:8070:B4CB (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I don’t see anyone disagreeing that the tweets are in fact racist. At the very least, we could insert a sentence that says: “Sarah Jeong become the subject of widespread criticism in the media in early August 2018 when, upon her hiring by the New York Times Editorial Board, it was discovered that she had posted a series of racist Twitter messages disparaging white people.” I don’t think any of that is disputed in any way at this point.Ikjbagl (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Support inclusion of your sentence as proposed and using the BBC as source. Remember, the page has been locked up and a condition has been imposed that consensus on the sentence and source must be reached. XavierItzm (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Whereas I still think the above contribution would have been fine, its simple one-sentence statement of fact was never greenlighted by the powers that be and instead got derailed by suggestions of having an entire paragraph. So now I support an alternate proposal below. Cheers to all. XavierItzm (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Just adding that my response here could be used to add two or three more sources to back up that the criticism was “widespread”, with no fewer than 10 major news organizations reporting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#I_think_that_the_controversy_of_Jeong’s_Tweets_should_be_mentioned{2f950ec02e67afe15e56ddb5018469898c7f7df1891e5cecbf34a80033d044ba}2E Ikjbagl (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that additional sources could be added later. However, let’s not muddy the waters and see if consensus can be reached. XavierItzm (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Support sentence proposed Conveys what occurred concisely, with the article in the BBC I think its nigh impossible to describe the event as not noteworthy. SWL36 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding noteworthiness, the story is now on the Front Page of BBC.com/news, archive link here https://web.archive.org/web/20180803003558/https://www.bbc.com/news Ikjbagl (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per the above stated reasons for waiting to decide whether this should be included at all, and if yes per the sources, then how it should be characterized. We remain WP:NOTNEWS. We look at how a group of sources deal with a topic; decide if it merits inclusion in an encyclopedic account of, in this case, the subject’s biography; then summarize the significant viewpoint or viewspoints. Reiterating the BBC’s version is what news aggregation sites do. We’re not that. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the not news point about Wikipedia, but I disagree with your characterization. All of the reputable sources linked so far deal with the subject in the same way. This single news event is more notable by Wikipedia’s own (secondary-source based) standards than the rest of this person’s career. The other secondary source mentions of her up to this point have all been in blogs, University blogs or lesser known websites (though she was cited by Forbes), and she now has an article on every major news website related to this incident. She has also had a multitude more edits to her page in the past day than she has had in her career. Waiting to see if the event “becomes” notable makes less sense when the event is already more notable than the rest of her page so far constructed. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I sure would like to work on expanding the rest of it but unfortunately I’ll have to do so by edit request for now! Meanwhile. The number of edits has no bearing, really. We don’t make decisions based on popularity. Other points: the term “racist” is definitely not being used universally; ABC, WashPost, and USNews use the expression “derogatory”. CNN calls “disparaging” and notes many people defending Jeong call them “satirical”. Who knows where it will land when the dust settles–if anywhere worth noting. Beyond word choice, your note above saying I don’t think any of that is disputed in any way at this point is just the issue: as WP:NOTNEWS, we’re not aiming to post an update “at this point” (which would be appropriate, for a news site!), we’re trying to decide if an event is rates a mention of an encyclopedic bio, which I don’t think we can see on a subject like this after one day. I’m not saying this should definitely never be addressed; I’m only saying WP:CRYSTAL applies in understanding the significance of this, or not, in the bigger picture. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Innisfree987 argues that “Reiterating the BBC’s version is what news aggregation sites do,” as if the BBC were unique in reporting these facts, as if the Beeb were somehow fringe, when in fact, up until yesterday, the BBC was considered a gold standard among WP:RS around the Wikipedia. Innisfree987 also implies that the BBC is somehow unique, when there are other WP:RSs saying the exact same thing.

Infogalactic gives you the power to decide upon the relevant facts for yourself: Sarah Jeong. It would be nice if conservatives would simply use Infogalactic instead of constantly whining about Wikipedia doing what Wikipedia always does.

Speaking of stealth-editing, Christina Hoff Sommers notes that there’s “No mention of Sarah Jeong’s demented tweets on her Wikipedia page. Why? A little group of activist editors won’t allow it. Amazing. See them in action here.”

Why? Because the 500+ Wikipedia Admins are all SJWs and they have no intention of allowing any information on Wikipedia that will damage anyone on the Left if they can help it. Speaking of Infogalactic, we’re making some changes to the server that should increase performance considerably on certain tasks. So, if it feels faster to you, you’re not imagining it.

Alt★Hero #3: Reprisal

Alt★Hero #3: Reprisal is now on Amazon. Kindle and KU editions are available.

Michael Martel and the mysterious Immotus have freed Shiloh Summers from the UN’s Superhuman Protective Council, but now Security Director Kulkarni is determined to track them down. So when SPC agents take her mother and father into custody as official persons of interest, Shiloh and her new friends face a difficult choice: fight to free them or find another way to convince the SPC to let them go.

From the first reviews:

  • Every issue of this series is improving on the last. 
  • Been following this latest insurgency in the culture war with mild interest. But they finally got me actually hooked. Art quality has jumped up a notch or three, and the story is starting to go somewhere. 
  • Better than Civil War! Even at their best, back in the old days when Marvel and DC delved into politics and social commentary, they were not as gripping and thought-provoking as this! 
  • Story is AAA! This one was freakin’ goooooood! Best yet of the Arkhaven comics releases. Already, after a total of four issues in this universe (3 Alt-Hero, one Avalon) we’re starting to see an interconnected web. The plot is racing ahead. These characters, these stories, this setting… It is going to be big. Huge. Epic.
  • This is writing one hardly sees in comics anymore, and it’s a slice of awesome. I thought issue 2 was good, but this in many ways is better. And once again, stellar artwork.
One note for backers: the credits page of the backer editions that first went out does NOT have the correct name of the next issue. It turned out that we were considerably further along on a different issue, so the name of Issue #4 is THE WAR IN PARIS.




The inaugural ARKSTREAM also contains a quick look at some of Arkhaven’s future plans. As for Issue #3, it looks as if we’re off to a good start. Three of the top four bestsellers in the category, and four of the top ten, are from Arkhaven. Thanks for your strong support!