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.
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.
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.
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.
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 voxdaychannel, 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.
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.
These revelations about the man are entirely consistent with his philosophy. His philosophy is openly evil; His philosophy is not, contra most of his fans’ assumptions, respectful of the Bible and respectful of Christianity in any way. You know, the fact that you talk about them as myth and you talk about the importance of myth and all this sort of thing is it’s more polite than calling them fairy stories, but in some ways it’s actually more damaging because if you’re a frothing-at-the-mouth New Atheist who is just complaining about fairy tales and no evidence and that sort of thing, you’re very easily dismissed. It’s very very easy to demonstrate that what those people are saying is objectively false.
On the other hand, when you are talking about myth, and you’re talking about tradition, and you’re babbling away in this huge fog of barely penetrable citations and these meandering streams of references that resemble a Joycean novel more than anything else, more than anything coherent, it’s it’s difficult to disprove that because it’s just nonsense. I mean, how how do you factually disprove ambiguous nonsense? You know, it’s very, very difficult because there’s nothing there. When somebody tells you 2+2 is 37, it’s relatively easy to to prove that that’s not the case, but when the person is going on and babbling about the snake in the tree is because the Garden of the Eden, and children in the trees, and vision over the horizons, and this relates to the shame one feels, and is not worthy of taking one’s pills… I mean how do you disprove that?
There’s nothing there to disprove, it’s just this streaming salad of words. It’s like being presented with a fruit salad and someone says “well critique that, critique that argument!” Yeah, you’re looking at it and, I mean forget, Stefan Molyneux’s “that’s not an argument”, I mean, it’s a fruit salad! There’s nothing to it, there’s nothing to argue about it, and so, you know, it’s it’s very difficult for me to deal with Peterson’s defenders because what they do is they inform you that he really means X when he says Y, and so how do you argue with that?
All you can say is well, no, he said what he said. They say, no, but that’s because he would get in trouble in Canada, you know, he has to be careful of what he says, and he has to speak this nonsense but what he really means is… you know, then they come up with something. Sometimes they come up with something sensible, more often they don’t, but it’s all nonsense. And so there’s a reason why Peterson tells his fans not to read Maps of Meaning because when you read Maps of Meaning, if you are able to not be overly impressed by this stream of barely relevant citations and references, even if you don’t understand the references well enough to understand that he doesn’t always know what he’s talking about, you still have to understand that the connection of these things isn’t there.
It’s because he’s drawing such bizarre connections that if I were to simply prove that his syllogism doesn’t hold up, the average person’s response to me is going to be “well what does that have to do with it?” To which my response is EXACTLY! It’s both wrong and unrelated at which point the sufficiently intelligent or the sufficiently open-minded individual realizes Jordan Peterson is crazy. But the Peterson defender just does the “I can’t hear you, I don’t want to hear it, you know he’s doing so much good!” But what Peterson is functionally doing in terms of the “good” that he is doing is that he is helping young men jump from the fire into the frying pan. Now you might say oh that’s good, you know, that’s progress, but it’s really not, because whether you’re in the fire or whether you’re in the frying pan you’re still going to get cooked. There is no natural progression from the fire to the frying pan to getting out of the kitchen.
The revelations to which I referred in the video are these, which is the news that in 2009, Jordan Peterson attempted to dismiss as conspiracy theory the accusations of a police officer concerning a high-level coverup of a pedophile ring in Canada. It’s hard not to recall that similar accusations of coverups by the authorities were similarly dismissed in the well-known cases Jimmy Savile, Rotherham, and Telford scandals, to name but a few, before being subsequently confirmed.
Commissioner G. Normand Glaude concluded Tuesday that children were sexually abused by people in positions of authority and that public institutions failed victims by mishandling complaints dating back to the 1960s.
But many were looking to him to lay to rest a more sinister explanation for those events, that it was the work of a pedophile ring and a cover-up that reached all the way to the Attorney General’s office was at play.
He did not, saying in his 1600-page report that he would not make an unequivocal statement about the theory either way.
For some, it may not have mattered.
An explanation that to some appears to debunk a conspiracy theory just further confirms others’ suspicions, said University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson.
“It’s very difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory, because every bit of disproving evidence can be just written off as additional evidence that these conspirators are particularly intelligent and sneaky,” he said.
Conspiracy theories are usually started by people who are very untrusting and it gathers steam among others who are somewhat untrusting, Peterson said.
They’re psychologically compelling because they neatly tie together troubling facts or assertions, he said. When things go badly there are often many explanations, and an orchestrated conspiracy “should be pretty low on your list of plausible hypotheses,” Peterson said.
“A good rule of thumb is: Don’t presume malevolence where stupidity is sufficient explanation,” he said.
“Organizations can act badly and things can fall apart without any group of people driving that.”
While Glaude made no definitive statements about a ring, he declared there was not a conspiracy by several institutions to cover up the existence of any such operation, rather that agency bungling left that impression.
I recall to your attention my reliable heuristic for detecting evil: does it justify, rationalize, excuse, defend, encourage, advocate, or require sex with children in any way, openly or covertly, directly or indirectly? Then it is evil, topped by an evil sauce, with a side of evil.
And given that we already know Jordan Peterson’s philosophy is evil, given that we already know that the man himself is seriously disturbed, we can’t pretend to be too surprised to discover that its true depths may be considerably deeper than anyone imagined.
