It doesn’t even matter what you do or what you say, the narrative is already written, the story has already been laid out. All they’re doing now when they talk to you is getting kill quotes and getting words that they can then spin to claim that they’ve given you a fair shake. You see, when they contact you, what they tell you is that they want to give you your chance to tell your side of the story, and the thing is, the clear implication is already there! You know, they’re already signalling what they’re going to do to you because the other side of the story, the story that is not your side of the story, is the narrative.
The way they portray it is, well, so-and-so has said something about you, or there is this belief that X or Y or Z is true about you, what’s your version of that? And what they want you to do is they want you to play defense to their prosecuting attorney. That’s the whole idea! You are there to be the subject of the interrogation and they are the stars who are prosecuting you. Now, of course that’s why they want to talk to you! They don’t need you to verify any facts, they will completely ignore anything that you say if you manage to somehow miraculously defang and conclusively disprove an assertion that was part of their narrative.
At most what they will do is simply omit that part. They will never make the false charge and then allow you to disprove it, so it’s a situation where you literally cannot win because the deck is stacked. You’re in a courtroom of public opinion where the arresting officer, the judge, the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney are all the same person, they’re all the reporter.
And here’s the other thing that you need to understand: it usually isn’t the reporter who dictates the narrative… so the best way that you can defang them, the best way that you control them, is to simply not talk to them! Because they need content, they need your comments, and the stories that they are writing do not do not work without your participation, that’s why they’re always looking for your participation.
I like to keep things believable even if we’re dealing with superpowers, even if we’re dealing with things that are beyond the ordinary. I think that stories are much more interesting when they have some connection to the real world as we experience it. You know, the world of Alt-Hero is not our world but there are similarities because people are people and comics are a really good way of exploring some of those issues in an interesting and innovative fashion. So for those who were expecting political preaching, you’re not going to find it. For those who are expecting the right-wing equivalent of SJW lecturing, you’re not going to find it.
It was interesting because some people are commenting that they found it difficult to tell exactly who are supposed to be the good guys and who are supposed to be the bad guys. Well, if you know my perspective, then you know who I think the good guys are, but what I always try to do in my novels, and what I’m trying to do in the comics, is I want both the heroes and the villains to be true to their perspectives. You know, I’m not interested in writing bad guys who are just cardboard characters.
Now you might think that those those antifa thugs are just cardboard characters, and maybe they’ll turn out to be that way, maybe they won’t, but the point is is that within the context of that particular scene, their behavior is consistent with the way that real people in those situations tend to behave.
Now we’re getting fancy, with videos within videos! I also take a series of questions at the end. From the transcript.
For Peterson to say that it is honorable and the least self-deceptive to simply accept the mass invasion of over 100 million people, to address the largest invasion in all of human history by being noble, and individual, and leading a meaningful life, is such obvious nonsense that it almost defies description.
You know I am getting very, very tired of people talking about Peterson as if he’s some sort of sage, or prophet, or even a reasonably intelligent man. This guy is a nutcase, this guy is objectively stupid, this guy is an embarrassment to the very concept of an intellectual academic. I mean, imagine if he had given that advice to the people of Poland, imagine that he had given that advice to George Washington, or Cincinnatus, or Julius Caesar, or any other great man of history! Literally every one of any note in history rejected the concept of going down to noble individual defeat. Jesus Christ himself summoned 12 disciples, there is even the Buddha, who rejected,the world and saw it all as maya, illusion, even he had his closest and dearest companions who helped him with his life’s work as he pursued his search for nirvana.
So what Peterson is saying is absolute and utter nonsense, and to sum up my response to him, I have a single quote from a man who understood identity politics much better than anyone, and that was this man, the founder of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew. He masterfully managed a very difficult situation with a small civic polity that was surrounded and dominated by much larger, more powerful neighbors, and was in a difficult position with different competing religious and ethnic groups, and the way that he addressed identity politics was forthright, it was based on reality, and it was absolutely true.
He said, “in multiracial societies you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion” and that is exactly what we have seen ever since non-Anglo immigrants began entering the United States of America. The Irish voted for what they believed was good for the Irish, the Jews voted for what was good for the Jews, the Catholics did exactly the same thing, and now we’re seeing the Muslims do it. Obviously we’ve been seeing the blacks do it; all these different groups vote in accordance with their race and their religion, and that is not just a response to Jordan Peterson, that is a rebuke and that is a comprehensive rebuttal from a man, who, unlike Jordan Peterson, actually knows and understands history.
Now I’m going to show you another video because this is going to demonstrate the fact that Jordan Peterson is, intellectually speaking, a joke. The guy is not that intelligent, the guy is totally unable to even deal with a very easy question when it’s presented to him by a comedian. This guy is such a joke that he is not even able to deal with a very, very simple question or to stand up and support the rights of free association even though he claims to value the individual.
UPDATE: Sweet Saint Jung, but Peterson fans are remarkably stupid.
I stopped watching Vox for several months due to his constant attacks on Peterson. Vox is correct that Peterson acts like a cuck, but what he doesn’t realise is that Peterson uses philosophy and psychology better than anyone to liberate both left and right brainwashed sheep, and as a result stays above politics.
The amazing thing is that these unmitigated morons publicly assert that Peterson is “above politics” while he is literally working for the United Nations and relentlessly pushing its globalist line. One Peterson defender claims Peterson isn’t a philosopher and shouldn’t be judged by philosophical standards while the next claims he uses philosophy “better than anyone”. They are almost as incoherent as their crazy christ-figure himself.
At this point, I consider Marxists, vegans, and gamma nerds to be less delusional than Peterson fans. No wonder they consider being told to clean their rooms to be an earth-shattering new philosophical concept. One hopes that in his next 12 Rules he can tell them to shower more than once every three weeks. Peterson’s ground-breaking advice, such as it is, doesn’t even rise to the level of Flavor Flav’s back in the early 90s.
I don’t know if some of the stuff that Q is telling us is going to come to pass, but what I do know is that the world condition that he describes, this conspiracy theory of reality, is actually considerably more accurate, more realistic, and more in correspondence with genuine objective reality than the version that we are taught in school, or the version that we are presented every day by the mainstream media. I wrote a column back in 2002 and I’m going to read just a little bit of it here to you.
History speaks eloquently on the subject. In the 1,129 years of the great Byzantine empire, the average reign of an emperor was 12 years. This is a bit longer than the eight years we now allow our president, but is rather short considering that the Byzantine position ostensibly offered supreme power and lifetime tenure. But if it wasn’t unheard of for a ruler of Constantinople to die peacefully in his bed, it was also not the norm. For example, in the 135 years following Maurice’s peaceful succession of Tiberius Constantine, seven of the empire’s 12 rulers saw their reigns end in assassination or execution. Of the five who were not slain outright, two were deposed, and one, Constantine IV, was only able to keep his throne by mutilating his two fraternal rivals. Has anything changed today? On the surface, the answer is certainly yes. But is it truly reasonable to think that human nature has changed much over the 549 years that separate us from the last days of Byzantium? I submit not, especially considering that we are closer to the 11th Constantine, Dragatses, than was the first Justinian to Julius Caesar. The Marxian theory of history has been thoroughly discredited. The Great Man theory cannot explain the dichotomy between the proven conspiracies of yore and their seeming absence today. The Accident theory is a vapid ontological argument. Only the much-belittled conspiracy theory of history, which stubbornly insists that events are not always as they appear on the surface, holds together in this light when examined in a historical and logical manner.
So the point that we have to keep in mind is that there are conspiracies of the powerful Those who seek power over others always conspire in an attempt to achieve it, and it is very foolish of those of us who do not take part in those games to assume that that they are not happening simply because we don’t have the ability to perceive them or to chronicle the specific actions that lead up to the consequences that we actually see. So that’s why I pay attention to what Q is saying, because whether he is actually correct about the details is not really relevant; even the aspects that he is covering are at least causing people to look in the right direction.
It’s not an accident that globalism has come to pass in very much the same way that the crazy, end-of-the-world Christians were saying was going to take place back in the 70s and 80s. You know, it’s a lot harder to laugh at people who talked about the Mark of the Beast and people not being permitted to buy or sell now, when you’re seeing PayPal and Stripe and Visa and MasterCard refusing service, when you’re seeing people talk about implanted chips that will allow people to engage in cashless transactions and that sort of thing. Whether you like it or not, whether you understand exactly what conspiracy connects to what public action or not, the fact of the matter is that is the way the world works. That is what all these various organizations are formed to do.
You know when George Soros goes and gives five million dollars to a group of black radicals, that’s a conspiracy. The fact that we know it’s called Black Lives Matter and we know the people who are involved – at least some of them – doesn’t mean that it’s not a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy, it is a conspiracy to accomplish specific political change. You know, we might understand it better if Soros was teamed up with Donald Trump’s younger brother and they were scheming to try to make the younger brother the Emperor of the United States, but that’s a very crude and obvious form of conspiracy, it’s just it’s not the only form of it. So, I would encourage you to pay attention to what Q is saying, and the people who are paying attention to what he’s doing and who are discussing these things.
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.
My opinion had always been pretty orthodox in thinking that Hitler turned to the east and engaged in the Drang nach Osten because he couldn’t get across the English Channel. You know, here he had this war machine and they didn’t have the navy to get across to Great Britain; he’d already taken the entire continent of Europe, Western Europe, and it made sense with the whole Lebensraum and all that sort of thing so I’d never really questioned it. I’d never really thought much about it other than the fact that I always felt the idea that Hitler might have won, that Nazi Germany might have won if they had managed to take Moscow, was a really historically ignorant perspective.
When you consider that Napoleon did take Moscow, sat around waiting for the Russians to surrender, and then finally was forced to to retreat and left quite a bit of his army behind dead in the snow, you know, somebody made a comment “Hitler did nothing wrong.” Well, I always thought that was a remarkably dumb thing to say. I mean I understand the rhetoric, but invading Russia was an insanely dumb thing to do, insanely dumb….
It’s very clear when you look at what Suvorov was talking about, and what’s interesting is he got interested in this when he was the equivalent of a high school senior, when he was at the special high school for for future intelligence officers and he actually did the equivalent of his senior thesis on it and he got access to some materials that had not been shown before, that people hadn’t had access to before. And what’s really remarkable is the reaction that people have had to his thesis and the way in which the critics have attempted to attack the evidence that that he’s presented, but in my opinion it’s almost irrefutable that not only was Stalin intending to attack, but I think that it is pretty persuasive that Stalin played Hitler badly, that all of World War II was a set up by Stalin in order to conquer Western Europe.
And you know, the evidence for this, like I said, is pretty overwhelming. Almost everything that you have heard about the situation with Operation Barbarossa and the situation leading up to it is completely false. I’ve heard all the stories about the outdated tanks, and the the officer purges, and all these other excuses for the poor performance of the Russian troops, and so the thing that was really interesting when you look at it was how significantly the Russian forces outnumbered the attacking German forces. The only reason that the Germans were able to be successful was because the Russians had their air bases set up right on the borders, they had all of these light tanks – they had about 6,000 light tanks which were either able to drive on highways which did not exist across the plains of the Ukraine and Russia, and not only that but they also had about 2,000 amphibious tanks -now you know, these tanks are obviously designed for a fast-moving offensive.
Not only that but they also had a tremendous amount, an incredible, incredible amount of ammunition that was stored going forward and also the aircraft that they had were predominantly air-to-ground light bombers. Now this is all stuff that you need for an attack, and this is all stuff that is relatively useless in defense, and so I thought that was really striking but the thing that convinced me more than anything else was something that I had known about, but I never really thought about before, and what that was was that only two years before, in 1939, Field Marshal Zhukov, who at the time was only a general, had used precisely these tactics and precisely the same sort of approach to destroy the Japanese Sixth Army on the other side of Russia at the Battle of Khalkin-Gol.
What’s fascinating about it, and what a lot of people don’t realize is that at the time of the German invasion in 1941, Russia had 5.3 million soldiers deployed, so they had been undergoing a full mobilization for two years. Now, you may not realize but mobilizations are predominantly offensive, you don’t mobilize just in case somebody might attack you, Now, I’m not saying that Hitler didn’t want any war but he absolutely did not want war with Russia, with the Soviet Union, and the reason that he didn’t want it is because he didn’t think he could win. So the question is, why did he attack?
Because, absolutely, he did attack, and what I realized, and what is it is pretty clear – I haven’t finished the book yet and Suvorov doesn’t come right out and say it – but it’s very clear that it was an act of desperation by Hitler and the Germans when they realized how badly that they’d been played. They realized that, and here’s the important thing to understand, Stalin was not playing for Germany, Stalin was playing for all of Western Europe!
You see, Stalin was a master of playing “lets you and him fight” and what he did what he did was set up a situation where the Brits and the French thought that in 1939 that the Soviets were going to sign some sort of alliance with them -a lot of people forget, but France and Russia were historically allies – but what Stalin did was he suckered Hitler and got him to agree to attack Poland, he basically bribed Hitler to attack Poland and the whole point of getting Hitler to attack Poland was to force Britain and France to declare war on Hitler, which they did. Now what was very clever was that Stalin was supposed to attack Poland at the same time that’s what he committed to do in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that was signed in Moscow and the fascinating thing was that the Russians didn’t do it.
The Russians did not attack when they were supposed to, when the Germans did, but what a lot of people don’t realize is that German invasion of Poland was going to fail after two weeks. They had actually run out of artillery because Hitler didn’t mobilize Germany properly until well into 1942 and so again the Soviets had to prop up the Germans by invading Poland at that point. They didn’t want to even invade Poland at all because all they really wanted to do with Poland was to trigger war between France and Britain; they were successful in doing so and they were very pleased when Hitler managed to overrun all of France and Belgium and so forth. The original plan which was really interesting was that Stalin had originally attempted to trigger a war between Germany on the one hand and France and Britain on the other in Spain but they couldn’t do it so they managed to use Poland to do so.
Stalin managed to use Poland to trigger that war and the whole reason he wanted that war dates all the way back to Lenin, and Lenin realizing that the Treaty of Versailles was so unfair and so crushing to Germany that it was likely to spawn a seriously negative reaction. So that’s why the Soviets were basically waiting from 1918 on for the opportunity to take over all of Western Europe and they finally got that chance 23 years later. One thing that you really come away with is a tremendous respect for the evil intelligence of Stalin, he was much, much brighter than Hitler.
You can buy the book to which I’m referring in the Darkstream, THE CHIEF CULPRIT by Viktor Suvorov, from Castalia Books Direct. If you have any interest in WWII or military history, I strongly recommend it. I’ll also post a response to Suvorov’s thesis from the expert on Operation Barbarossa whose books I referenced in the video later today.
First, I would like to point out that some of you are unmitigated freaks. Second, I’m not eating anything after midnight; I have worked hard to get down to my post-college fighting weight and I’m not about to blow that. Third, I gave the matter some thought, and I realized that when one is in the YouTube arena, one must do as the YouTubers do. I therefore concluded that there is one area of personal interest that coincided with what people apparently enjoy watching, and it’s something that I am entirely willing to do, nay, I regularly do anyhow, after midnight.
Scott Adams drinks coffee in the morning, I drink wine at night.
Ours not to reason, fine.
Ours but to drink red wine.
So, if you all come up with $500 in Voxiversity or StreamLabs donations in the next week, I will institute a weekly Winestream, which will consist of me reviewing a wine live for the viewership, complete with the bottle. A contribution of $50/the cost of the bottle (whatever is more) will allow a viewer to suggest a specific wine for me to review, with the caveat that I am based in Europe and cheap American wines like Night Train and Ernst & Julio Gallo are not available here.
Since I have no idea how anyone would talk more than five minutes about a wine, this will merely be an intro to the rest of the Darkstream, which I will cleverly attempt to tie to something to do with the place where the grapes involved came from. Or perhaps I’ll just talk about current events. Regardless, the initial Winestream will be tonight.
I don’t even know what to do with this YouTube comment.
It might sound weird but I wish Vox would put aside all of this intellectual stuff and do one of those videos where he just eats a cheeseburger on camera or something. Like don’t even say anything, just sit down and dig into a burger. I would watch the fuck out of that. There are people who do only that and they get millions of views. Then once in awhile he could go back to making a video of intellectual content, but after hooking in a brand new audience with videos where he eats pasta or whatever. It could be anything. Something indigenously Italian. I think this appeals to me because I can’t really picture it, so it would be entertaining and interesting to see. Like I could easily imagine Molyneux chewing on a bagel or having a smoothie or something. So that wouldn’t really interest me. I just can’t imagine Vox eating anything. I’m sure he does eat; he would have to. I just can’t really imagine it, though. I wish he would do it.
The video medium is bad enough as it is. I didn’t know it was even necessary to draw a line, but I definitely draw one at making eating fetish videos.
The important thing to understand is that the names don’t matter. This is something that for some reason a lot of people struggle with; the fact is that we’re not creating anything here, we’re not inventing anything here. Now I like to use the example of the okapi. The okapi is an animal that looks kind of like a combination of a zebra and a giraffe, and it’s only found in some of the deep jungles in Africa. People told scientists and zoologists for decades that this animal existed, but it wasn’t “discovered” until you know sometime, in I think it was, in the mid-20th century. And then they named it “the okapi”, but the thing that you need to understand is that the animal existed before it was named. The animal was always there.
These behavioral patterns exist and are exhibited on a daily basis by people around you every single day. It doesn’t matter what you call them, it doesn’t matter whether you think they’re good or you think they’re bad, you know, all we’re doing is recognizing that similar people in similar social positions, they are all playing out the same role.
Chronicle your behavioral patterns with regards to how you interact with others and it’s very, very easy to categorize your behavioral form through the eyes of someone else. Most people have no ability, they have no ability whatsoever, to honestly judge themselves. And that’s one reason why I stopped blogging at Alpha Game, because I got so tired of all these people who wanted to talk about what they were, you know, what other people thought they were, and then argue about what they were. You know, to do that, to focus on that, is to completely miss the point.
It’s not about you, it’s about how you can anticipate and predict the behavior of others, and anyone can do it. It doesn’t matter what you are, you know, doesn’t it matter more if you’re hiring someone, if you’re bringing someone in as a volunteer, isn’t it more important to understand whether that person is going to try to take over your company, if they’re going to be incapable of taking responsibility and making decisions on their own, or if they’re going to lash out in a fit of rage and attempt to destroy you and the organization if they don’t get their way, or if they’re going to pay no attention to whatever you tell them to do and they’re just going to go off and do their own thing without really paying much attention to what your objectives are? Wouldn’t you agree that being able to distinguish between those things is much much more important?
I’m still working on getting out the livestreaming kinks. This was all just inexperienced user error; I forgot that without my headset on, I couldn’t hear the audio track of the Wilders video but the viewers could, and I talked over it. Then I loaded the wrong Stefan clip, which was much longer than the one I had cut, and trying to stop it caused the streaming software to freeze on my end. But we soldiered on anyhow. Also, I forgot to retitle the stream before I started it, hence some of the earlier confusion on the part of those watching live. It’s a learning process.
I think is important to observe here who is speaking out about this and who isn’t. Okay, where are the big, self-appointed champions of free speech in this? Have we heard Ben Shapiro say anything yet? Have we heard Jordan Peterson use his big microphone in order to champion the cause of Tommy Robinson, or at the very least, to protest what is happening with regards to the British media’s gag order?
Now contra what you guys might think, I’m not obsessed with these guys, I have no idea what they’ve said on the subject, but I know enough about them to guess that they’re not going to say anything, because when push comes to shove, they are more concerned about eliminating and eradicating nationalism than they are in championing the free speech that they claim to support.
Now the problem is actually much much bigger than what Tommy Robinson is facing, or than the British media is facing. A lot of you may not realize this, but in Italy two nationalist parties recently dominated the most recent Italian election, Movimento Cinque Stelle, which is of the Left, and La Liga which is led by Matteo Salvini, is of the Right, and between the two of them they have an absolute majority in the Italian parliament. (Combined, they hold 69.7 percent of the seats.) In fact La Liga has a has a very powerful position there, they’re one of the more powerful parliamentary parties in Europe at the moment, (with 37 percent of the seats) but what was remarkable was that the Italian President managed to interfere with the formation of a government and the sole reason that he stood in the way and prevented the formation of a government was because he wanted to keep a 81-year-old Euroskeptic out of the Finance Ministry.
So what that tells us is that all of the professed ideals of the European Union, all the various claims to democracy and so forth are entirely false. It all comes down to power and money, you know, the European Union is doing whatever it can to silence people like Tommy Robinson, they’re doing as much as they can to keep the public from finding out what’s really going on, but most of all they are absolutely desperate to protect the single currency because the single currency is what makes all of the banking games and all of the shenanigans and everything possible.
And so it’s important to understand that these games that they’re playing are just that, they’re games. They have no moral high ground and they have absolutely not a single democratic leg to stand on. You know, as is so common with intellectual charlatans throughout the world, and throughout history, what they play is the game of bait and switch, they play the game of changing the very clear and well-understood definition of terms, so now what we see is that democracy no longer means “the will of the people” it now means the approved will of the Neo-liberal World Order.
You see all these claims that the US has to defend democracy but if the US is going to defend democracy it should be invading Europe again.
