Tag: Darkstream

From the transcript of the Darkstream:

Whether you believe in the spiritual aspect of life or not,  even if you’re a rational materialist and you believe that the only things that exist are things that you can see and feel, there is no shortage of material evil that you can see and feel and use to choose the right side. What that evil is is what I call the religion of Neo Babel and the European Union is one of the centers for that ancient religion.  Now this is not a coincidence, this is a painting by Bruegel on the left of the Tower of Babel. That was how he conceived of it, and we don’t know what it actually looked like but that was just one painter’s idea of it.

Now what is the architectural statement that is being made by the EU Parliament in Strasbourg? What they are very clearly stating in a language that anyone who speaks architecture can understand is that they represent Babel. They are the new Babel, and so the connection that a lot of people don’t make, the connection that a lot of people don’t realize is that these are the same people who in the U.S. are called neocons. They’re the same people who in the old Soviet Union were called communists, Bolshevik,  and eventually, Trotskyites. The difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism in the 1930s was that Trotsky stood for world revolution.

Stalin on the other hand picked up the idea of communism in one country. Now obviously the Soviet Union was not a good place, it was not anywhere you’d like to live, it was a economic contradiction in terms, it was bound to fail. Alexander Solzhenitsyn did a good job of chronicling the evils of Stalinist communism, but the fact is was that once communism ceased to be Trotskyite, it ceased to be the primary vehicle for world revolution. And because of the growing power of the United States, because of the fact that in the United States you had the only surviving industrial economy, you know you had the only global power that had not been destroyed during World War II, that became the center of the world revolution. They don’t call it Trotskyism, they called it neoconservatism, but if you read Irving Krystol – he’s the father of Bill Kristol, the fake conservative and Never Trumper – the neoconservatives were the heirs of Leon Trotsky, they’re the heirs of global revolution, and that’s why the neocons are constantly pressing for war with everyone, but they’re particularly pressing for war with Russia because Russia has escaped their grasp. They began to lose their grasp on it thanks to Stalin.

Now people didn’t necessarily make all these connections because Stalinist communism didn’t seem all that different than Leninist communism, and so you know, as you look into this, you begin to see that globalism is not something new. Globalism is the same thing that Trotsky preached, it’s the same thing that Antonio Gramsci preached, it is the world revolution. They called it world revolution because world revolution is supposed to bring about global government. Now where this gets religious, one thing that you may have noticed – even those of you who are pagans and hate the cucked Churchians as much as I do – one thing that you may have noticed is that these people absolutely hate Christianity.

They do their best to destroy Christian institutions, they invaded and began to destroy the Catholic  Church with Vatican II, they have invaded every single Protestant denomination,  I mean even the Southern Baptists, who I would have sworn 20 years ago could not be penetrated by these these lunatics, has been. Russell Moore and the people at the head of the Southern Baptist Conference are absolutely globalists, and so you know, when you look at this, you can see very clearly that this is ultimately not merely a political clash, it is a religious war, not only is it a religious war, it is THE religious war.

Comicsgater Ethan van Sciver is pretty confident that he’s still going to be a bigger deal in comics than I am in six months. As I discuss in the Darkstream, we’ll just have to see about that….

Darkstream: I am the new Marvel supervillain. A clarification for the Alt★Hero backers was requested via email by a backer.

Just a note for future reference; you may or may not feel the need to make a clarification now. In your latest Darkstream, I am the new Marvel supervillain, around the 34:45 mark you mention the backers will receive all 24 digital editions of Alt Hero and Avalon.

The crowdfunding campaign as you know lists this for the $15 digital reader and all levels above that: “This is to receive the first six volumes of Alt★Hero and the first three volumes of Alt★Hero: Avalon in digital format when they are complete.”

I always understood this to be 9 digital editions for $15 which is a helluva deal.  However, now I’m questioning if those volumes were originally 48 pages and were each split in two, would it then be 12 volumes and 6 volumes for a total of 18? That is to the point of almost being overly generous; 24 editions for $15 would truly be preposterous.

Anyhow the best news I heard all day was that Dixon has already written 12 editions of Avalon.

I had originally envisioned 48-page digital volumes before discovering, post-campaign, that we could produce affordable 24-page print editions. So, each volume is now two issues. I also neglected to update the $15 Digital Reader reward to reflect the fact that three more volumes (six more issues) of Chuck Dixon’s Avalon were funded. But it was always my intention to provide the Digital Reader backers with all the volumes that were funded by the campaign.

So, to be clear, all Alt★Hero backers will be receiving the first 12 digital issues of Alt★Hero as well as the first 12 digital issues of Chuck Dixon’s Avalon for free. Preposterous deal or not, the entire Arkhaven team is deeply appreciative of the support Alt★Hero has received, and continues to receive, from the backers and newer supporters of the comics. The foundation we are collectively building is going to be strong enough to support an Arkhaven Comics Universe that will, in time, be capable of taking on both the Marvel and DC empires successfully. But we proceed judiciously, one step at a time.

However, I did misspeak about Mr. Dixon’s progress on writing the scripts for CDA and the usual volume/issue confusion is to blame. Mr. Dixon has actually finished the scripts for the first six ISSUES. CDA #1 will be completed tomorrow and will be going out to backers this week, CDA #2 is illustrated and is now being colored, and Frank Fosco is illustrating CDA #3 now. AH #2 will be available in gold logo print edition next week and AH#3 is being colored.

In non-comics news, Wardogs Inc. #3: Metal Monsters will be out this week and Jack Posobiec’s 4D Warfare will be out later this month as will John C. Wright’s Nowhither: The Drowned World.

From the transcript:

So the Mexican elections finished up and the results were not surprising to anyone who’s been paying attention,  but they’re certainly significant. You know the remarkable thing wasn’t that Mexico elected a pretty serious socialist on the Venezuelan model, but the massive amount of the guy won by. If I recall correctly he had nearly 60 percent more votes than his closest rival, and what I want to discuss is the statement that he made where he was talking about how everyone has a right to live in the United States. Everyone apparently is an American now. So how does somebody come up with something like this? Where does it come from? You know, why would a foreign leader say something that is that seemingly insane?

The answer is very simple. He’s not even close to being the first foreign leader who said something like this. A lot of people don’t realize it, but Moammar Qaddafi used to say exactly the same thing: America belongs to everyone, America belongs to the world. More recently the Iranian president, or former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said much the same thing. He said America is a concept that belongs to the world and no government has the right to tell people that they can’t go and live in the United States.

Now a lot of people are saying well, how can this be? How can AMLO, this Mexican president, be talking like this? They don’t know about Qaddafi, they don’t know about the Iranian president using the same language, but the reality is that this concept is directly traceable to the idea that conservatives have been using in order to try to justify their dislike for identity politics and their dislike for the idea that white Americans might have a nationality of their own, that there might be an American nation.

You know, it’s not the Mexicans, it’s not the Iranians, it’s not the Libyans, who came up with the idea that there is no such thing as an American nation. If you want to hear people talk about that you’ve got people like Ben Shapiro who will talk your ears off about how America is not a nation, America is a concept, America is a a nation of immigrants, America is a melting pot. Come on! You guys have all heard these concepts. In fact, I would be willing to bet that since this audience tends to be a bit more right wing than the norm, I would bet that at least three-quarters of you subscribed to those concepts at some point.

So I’m going to make some of you extremely uncomfortable here, because what I’m going to tell you – and this is not going to be comfortable for those of you who are US citizens – a lot of you are not Americans and you never were. Your parents aren’t, you’re grandparents aren’t, because Americans
are defined very, very clearly and the United States Constitution was written for a very specific group of people and that doesn’t include immigrants, it doesn’t include refugees, it doesn’t include the great grand children of former immigrants, it doesn’t include anybody except for the sons and daughters of the American Revolution.

From the edited transcript.

What we have to recognize when we’re talking about the Right is that the ideology that hitherto was the leading expression of right-wing politics in the United States, the conservative movement, is effectively dead. Donald Trump killed it.

And it’s not so much that Donald Trump killed it as he exposed the fact that it was an ideological zombie vampire, and the dates 1951 to 2016 that you see on the tombstone date from that first famous book of William F Buckley, the founder of the modern conservative movement, and its end with the presidential election of 2016. Because the legacy of conservativism is this: it never conserved anything! And that is the most damning thing that you can say about all the conservative organizations, all the conservative opinion leaders all the various Republican groups, all that kind of stuff, all of it was a failure. None of it conserved anything.

Conservatives couldn’t even conserve the ladies room. This is an illustration of how badly how completely the conservative movement has failed, and if you talk to a conservative, they love to talk about the Constitution, and yet what they always ignore is the purpose of the Constitution. We have seen that the Constitution has completely and utterly failed in its purpose, a purpose that is stated very clearly in the Preamble. The Preamble states that the purpose of the Constitution is to defend the rights of American posterity, and what “posterity” means is the direct genetic descendants of the people who established the country in 1789.

It does not refer to immigrants, it does not refer to refugees, it does not refer to the descendants of those immigrants who came over much later. You know, this is something that I got in some very intense discussions and arguments with various conservatives(1) who are genuinely good people, genuinely smart people, but they are entirely unable to wrap their heads around the fact that their friends, their family members, people they like, people they approve of, are not and never will be American posterity, and that the Constitution was not written for those people. It wasn’t. This is a basic fact, this is an established fact, and the amount of intellectual dishonesty and self-deception that one has to engage in in order to deny the very clear meaning of these words is rather remarkable.

So you know, now we see the same concept being expanded further and further, and what’s funny about conservatives is that while at the one hand they push away and they deny the actual historical meaning of various concepts, they also try to deny the obvious consequences of their own positions. You know, if you’re running around saying that because all men are created equal that 19th century immigrants therefore equal and their descendants therefore qualify as American posterity, then you cannot deny the position of Iranian president Ahmadinejad who says that America belongs to all the world and that the American government does not have any right or  any ability to deny the movement of people into the United States of America. That is the absolutely correct logical conclusion to the conservative argument.

(1) In the public sense, this primarily refers to my debate on Posterity with Tom Kratman. If you take issue with any of my assertions here, I strongly recommend that you read it first before commenting on this issue.

I really, really do. I mean, I understand it is necessary to reach a broader, post-literate audience, and I am committed to mastering the medium eventually, but I genuinely do not understand how these morons can so confidently, and so publicly, take the absurd positions they do.

Κέννυ Αντονέσκου
All you seem to do is just say “this won’t work because its not applicable to X” and other statements that you do not back up with logic, reason, evidence, etc. Maybe your brain-dead followers won’t challenge what you are saying but I will, unsubscribing from you because you are obviously a pseudo-intellectual who constantly brags about how you have super high IQ when its clear you are not high IQ.

Perhaps if he was able to read, or obtain material from some other medium, he would understand that I reliably back up my assertions in what is generally considered to be comprehensive detail. He doesn’t seem to be aware that there is considerably more information available beyond that which is presented on YouTube in the Darkstreams.

It’s like someone told these morons that all you have to do is say the magic words and declare that it seems like someone doesn’t back up a statement with logic, reason, and evidence, and this will suffice to not only disprove the statement, but also permanently disqualify the source. He quite clearly doesn’t understand that saying X won’t work because it’s not applicable to Y is, in fact, a logical syllogism. I really wish he was telling the truth about unsubscribing and not watching future videos, but we all know what the chances of that are.

From the transcript:

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.

From the transcript:

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.

From the transcript:

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.