Darkstream: wrong about Hitler

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 I’ve heard all the stories about the outdated tanks, and the the officer purges, and all these other excuses for the poor performance of the Russian troops, and so the thing that was really interesting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.


The Winestream

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.




Yes, yes, that does sound weird

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.


Darkstream: Hierarchy and Human Behavior

From Hierarchy and Human Behavior.

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?


Darkstream: Tommy Robinson and the death of EU democracy

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.


Darkstream: 7 Answers for Jordan Peterson


Seven Answers to Jordan Peterson’s seven questions on the Darkstream.

1. What if it was nothing but our self-deceit, our cowardice, hatred and fear, that pollutes our experience and turns the world into hell?

Then the problem could be solved by sweet reason and a dedication to facing the truth about ourselves. But it isn’t so it can’t. And it isn’t our self-deceit, cowardice, hatred, and fear, but our greed, our pride, our lusts, and our will to power. Beyond that is the problem of supernatural evil, which is totally unaffected by our internal emotions. Moreover, this concept of evil contradicts Peterson’s own stated belief that it is group identification that lies at the bottom of the human motivation for evil

2. This is a hypothesis, at least—as good as any other, admirable and capable of generating hope. Why can’t we make the experiment, and find out if it is true? 

Because it will turn out like every other utopian experiment; in large quantities of bloodshed. Especially since Peterson is determined to try the experiment on a global level.

3. Does survival itself depend upon a solution to the problem of war?

No. Because war is not the problem as far as human survival is concerned. Neither is religion. Science, and more importantly, technology, are what pose a potential danger to the species. That being said, inasmuch as this is a problem of survival, the problem is likely to cure itself, as the infrastructure required to maintain this level of destructive technology is more fragile than either the Earth or the species.

4. Is Tammy Peterson’s dream that it was five minutes to midnight back in 2016 prophetic or significant in any way?

No. It was a bad dream and nothing more. Her dream is considerably less significant than Jordan Peterson’s dreams about dog-headed aliens butchering his beautiful cousin and offering the meat to him.

5. Is history itself a unitary phenomenon?

No. History is neither a force nor an inevitability. It is merely a very incomplete record of the past. Peterson is no more correct in his bizarre take on history than Marx or Fukuyama were.

6. Is Western culture the only one to possess a history based on objective events?

No. There are ancient Egyptian records of the height of the annual Nile flooding dating back to 3050 BC. The formal rules of sumo date back to 726 BC. The tax records of the Qin Dynasty date back to 221 BC.

7. Have I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about?

No, you’re just a very frightened and mentally disturbed individual who was literally driven crazy due to your fear of death.

Jordan Peterson’s grand solution to war is the elimination of competing group identities. One world, one race, one identity. Evil will be vanquished and paradise on Earth will result.


Darkstream: why comics are collapsing

From the transcript of last night’s live Darkstream. I’m still figuring out the system; for some reason the charts I prepared in the edit screen were not available once I went live. Also, thanks to Hooper, we were able to determine that the donation system is working but you have to use the Streamlabs system and not the YouTube one, since my channel has been deemed ineligible for both monetisation and SuperChats by YouTube.

What happened is that comics went from being a fairly broadly distributed product to one that was
completely dominated by a single distributor. Now, what usually happens in the case of a single  distributor. You can probably guess. They’ve got a monopoly position and so they have a tendency to significantly increase their prices at the expense of everyone else. Remember, the distribution is part of the pie and distribution cannot, by definition, increase the pie, and so it’s always going to have to take something from somebody else.

Now if we’re going to take it, are you gonna take it from Marvel? No, you can’t. Marvel has about  40{434e4795edb8718426f2262f16bc350bda72304c69f2c22d1de5754882bdf177} of the market. Are you gonna take it from DC? No you can’t. because DC is already very closely tied to Diamond. So who do they take it from? Well, when a distributor can’t take it from the suppliers, they take it from the retailers, and that’s exactly what’s happened.

You know I knew what this situation was going to be even before I knew what the numbers were because I have worked in a distribution retail channel before. My father owned a large supplier in a particular industry and so my first job out of college was actually managing part of the distribution channel, so what that means is that if you look at a normal distributor, the kind of distributor that Arkhaven is working with, the kind of distributor that Castalia is working with, they usually do a 20{434e4795edb8718426f2262f16bc350bda72304c69f2c22d1de5754882bdf177} markup at most.

Diamond’s markup is 38 percent. And so what that means is that if you run the numbers and you work out the details, then what you see is that instead of taking 11.9 percent of the total retail price of a comic, that would be what a normal distributor takes, Diamond is actually taking 22 percent of the total retail price of a comic. so where does that additional 10 percent come from? Well, it’s not coming from Marvel and it’s not coming from DC, it’s coming from the comic stores. I worked it out, and the comic stores are losing, on average, each of them, $31,885 apiece because Diamond is a monopoly. So that’s what’s killing them, that’s why we’re seeing so many retailers going out of business, and this is not going to improve because the market is declining so everybody is trying to take bigger and bigger pieces out of a smaller and smaller pie.

I calculate that it’s going to go down from 74 million [correction: 79 million] last year which is well down from you know the previous figure of 86 million, and I believe it’s gonna drop down to 67 million or less by the end of the year.

The decline from 100.32 million units in 1997 to 67 million in 2001 is known as the Comics Crash. However, the current decline from the 2015-2016 peak of 89 million appears to be gaining momentum, due to rising prices, failing stores, and declining quality. The average price of comics has risen from $2.62 in 1997 to $4.14 in April 2018, Top 300 unit sales are already down 7 percent for the year, and the much-ballyhooed move of SJW Marvel writer Brian Bendis to DC is proving more disastrous than even the skeptics had expected.

I have been tipped off by DC editorial sources that the numbers that DC Comics received were a lot lower than expected. A lot lower. Less than you might expect for a new Superman title relaunching the character with A-List talent and spinning out of Action Comics #1001 and DC Nation #0 and more like – well, a newly launching Brian Bendis title at Marvel, without the tiered variants. And out of the top ten as a result.

Also note that at -10 percent, total unit sales are down even more than Top 300 unit sales. Put these factors together and it looks as if the comics industry will hit a new 21st century low in annual unit sales by 2019 at the latest, and quite possibly, by the end of this year.


What it looks like

In case you ever found it hard to understand what was meant by the 2-SD IQ gap that prevents effective communication, this comment on a recent Darkstream should help illuminate the concept for you.

I am trying my best to get to know you and figure you out.I am trying to be fair and listen to both sides. But for the life of me I am not getting it. Because what and when you are saying it is nonsense it is just a fruit salad. It just sounds like psycho babble to me to same way whatever Peterson is saying sounds like psycho babble to you. I am thinking this is one of those times it might be best I just close my eyes and ears before they are too polluted with your nonsense. From where I sit I am hearing Peterson is selling out all over the country and filling up venues with people that obviously understand and need his nonsense and will pay for it. And it is obvious to me that he might be doing something ok and right because people are trying to bring him down and stain him and ruin him for whatever nefarious reason they have. Whether it ruins or interferes with their narrative like the catholic church did back in the day when they destroyed everything that wasn’t in their book of ideas. So whether your cause is noble or not is yet to be scene and I can hear nor sense any real motive for me to be on your side to disparage the man. It just sounds like you are making things up as you go along the same way you are accusing him for doing… that’s what I am getting out of this… 

It’s a good poing. After all, how can Hitler possibly have been bad? He filled up venues all over Germany and a lot of people around the world went well out of their way to try to bring him down for whatever nefarious reason.

I sometimes wonder what it would be like to legitimately be that stupid. Just the process of getting up, eating breakfast, and making the morning commute must feel like an awe-striking series of wondrous mysteries. It’s as if the guy can see the tree and see the acorn, but has no idea that they might be related somehow. And as for the crazy notion that squirrels eat trees and live in them, well, that’s clearly just psycho babble.

Jordan Peterson’s philosophy doesn’t sound like word salad to me because it is so intellectually advanced, it sounds like word salad because it is word salad.


Darkstream: the Free Speech Fake

From the recent transcript of my second successful attempt at livestreaming a Darkstream. If you want alerts for when I go live with them, subscribe to the voxday channel, which is distinct from the Voxiversity channel.

Here’s the thing: If Jordan Peterson is a genuine free speech advocate, then what is he doing on Patreon? Why is he supporting an SJW-converged organization that is actively and aggressively opposed to free speech? Has anyone asked him that?

You know, the thing that you have to understand is that in the same way that Ben Shapiro is a fake American conservative, Jordan Peterson is a fake free speech advocate. Now, I’m not saying that the free speech is the most vital thing in the world – I’m not a free speech advocate myself – but if you’re going to sell yourself as a free speech advocate, if you’re going to claim to be a free speech champion, if you’re going to run around the country, run around the world, lecturing people on how they they have to be individuals and they have to speak their own truth, then there is absolutely no way that you
should be working with a company like Patreon. There’s absolutely no way that you should be supporting any business that is as ruthlessly prone to speech policing as Patreon!

This led to an informative exchange in the comments when one commenter quite reasonably requested a clarification concerning my claim not to be a free speech advocate. For the record, I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a follower or admirer of Voltaire. I will absolutely not defend anyone’s absolute right to blaspheme or even be impolite, much less to the death. To the contrary, I have even pointed out how very wrong he was.

JustAintThatWay: “… I’m not a free speech advocate …” Say what?  Clarification requested. From any WesternCiv, let alone a book publisher.  “I may not agree w/  what you say, but will defend to the death, your right to say it”-style.

VD: Read more about the history of free speech. It’s nothing more than a philosophical attack on Western Civilization in general and Christianity in particular. JB Bury, a strong advocate, has written a very informative history that makes it clear that it was always about getting rid of the West’s blasphemy laws.

Joshua Coleman: I’d recommend you read the Supreme Court rulings in Reynolds vs United States, Commonwealth Vs Nesbit, and Lindenmuller Vs The People. They reaffirm that the First Amendment, and in particular the Religion clause, was not a free license to say anything you like. Specifically, anything that was considered “Subversive of good order” and “overt acts against peace” were not protected, and among those things was advocation of immorality. The Libertarian / Conservative / Liberal interpretation of ‘you can say anything’ is ahistorical. The First Amendment was to protect your right to express your Christianity without State interference, not to subvert Christian order and morality. You could be prosecuted for doing or advocating immorality such as bigamy, polygamy, parricide, infanticide, etc.


Test One Comms Good

After six failed attempts, I finally got the Darkstream going live via YouTube, which considerably improves both the video and audio. If you want alerts for them, subscribe to the voxday channel, which you should note is NOT the Voxiversity channel. There were still a few minor bugs, which is why I deleted the video, but I should be able to get it rolling again tonight. Far more people are watching these on YouTube than on Periscope, and I’d rather not use a Twitter-owned service due to my being banned there anyhow.

Also, if you’re ELoE on Idka, check it out later today for more communications news.