Tag: Darkstream

To celebrate this subscriber milestone for the Darkstream, I’ve uploaded this one-hour 43-minute excerpt from the Jordanetics audiobook, which includes Milo’s Foreword, my own Introduction, and chapters one and five. If you haven’t read or listened to the book yet, this extended audio sample provides a solid foundation for the book’s case against Jordan Peterson and his evil philosophy.

It includes one of my favorite sections of the book, which addresses the oft-heard claim that Jordan Peterson’s thinking is simply too advanced for less-refined intellects to understand. The claim is particularly amusing for me in light of how few recognize, or even notice, my occasional literary pyrotechnic.

Objection 1: Jordan Peterson is a complex thinker with a Platonic approach that is easily misunderstood by those who don’t carefully follow him. You just don’t understand him.

I answer that, It is true that Peterson is inclined to excessive wordiness and run-on sentences, his references are often obscure, and the examples he provides are frequently too loosely connected and meandering for the average person to easily follow. But the nebulous word salad Peterson customarily presents in lieu of logical arguments is not at all typical of a genius-level intellect, to the contrary, it is much more commonly observed among academic poseurs who wish to be mistaken for one.

If you have actually read the great thinkers of whom Peterson is almost entirely ignorant, one thing that will often strike you is the intense clarity of their thought processes. Their genius stems from the way in which they enlighten the reader, from the way they turn dark chaos into orderly light. They do not confuse, to the contrary, they clarify.

As an exercise, compare the following four sentences, all of which are more complex than the norm these days. I ran each of them through the Gunning-Fog Index, a weighted average of the number of words per sentence, and the number of long words per word. The index provides a number that is supposed to indicate that the text can be understood by someone who left full-time education at a later age than the number; the higher the number, the more complicated the text. But it’s really just an objective measure of textual complexity.

• We must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him. (GFI 31.6)
• In like manner the poet with his words and phrases may be said to lay on the colours of the several arts, himself understanding their nature only enough to imitate them; and other people, who are as ignorant as he is, and judge only from his words, imagine that if he speaks of cobbling, or of military tactics, or of anything else, in metre and harmony and rhythm, he speaks very well –such is the sweet influence which melody and rhythm by nature have. (GFI 21.9)
• The great dramatists and religious thinkers of the world have been able to grasp this fact, at least implicitly, and to transmit it in story and image; modern analytic thinkers and existential theorists have attempted to abstract these ideas upward into “higher consciousness,” and to present them in logical and purely semantic form. (GFI 18.2)
• We have considered that students in this doctrine have not seldom been hampered by what they have found written by other authors, partly on account of the multiplication of useless questions, articles, and arguments, partly also because those things that are needful for them to know are not taught according to the order of the subject matter, but according as the plan of the book might require, or the occasion of the argument offer, partly, too, because frequent repetition brought weariness and confusion to the minds of readers. (GFI 40.2)

Were you able to distinguish the Peterson quote from the Aquinas, the Aristotle, and the Plato quotes? If you noticed, the Peterson sentence, which is the third sentence, is considerably shorter and less structurally complex than the other three examples, but it is also observably less clear than them. Whereas the Aristotle sentence in particular is rich with meaning, as it implies a vital distinction between rhetoric and dialectic that many today have trouble grasping even when it is explained to them in no little detail, but nevertheless clarifies the relevant point for the reader, the Peterson sentence unnecessarily complicates what is a fairly simple and straightforward observation about the mythopoetic human response to the concepts of good and evil.

And yes, the GFI on that last sentence was a respectable 36.3. But it wasn’t actually that hard to follow or understand, was it? Complexity is neither ambiguity nor nebulosity, and insight does not require complexity. Also, in case you’re interested, the authors of the four sentences, in order, were: Aristotle, Plato/Socrates, Peterson, Aquinas.

I expect most of the Dread Ilk will have read TIA in one form or another given the fact that it’s been out for over a decade, but if you haven’t, I’ve posted a two-hour audio sample that consists of the first three chapters on the Darkstream. If that inspires you to pick up the whole audiobook, you can do so at Arkhaven.

There is certainly nothing like the mention of the state of Israel and one’s opinion concerning it to bring out the lurking spergs, alt-retards, and other undesirables on a YouTube channel. I’m no enthusiast of the “look how virtuously moderate poor little me is because I am attacked by Left and Right” approach, but I will confess that it can be a little bit bewildering to find oneself being accused of a) antisemitism and b) being a Mossad agent within the space of two comments.

MPAI but SPASC. Which is to say Most People Are Idiots but Some People are Seriously Crazy.

Anyhow, the good thing about YouTube is that unlike Blogger, it makes it very easily to permanently disappear a commenter and his comments for good with just a single click. This is absolutely necessary there, as otherwise every single channel would have the comments turned off for good.

But the good news is that the video offensive continues making solid progress. The Darkstream now has nearly 20k subscribers, and if you haven’t subscribed to it yet I would encourage you to do so even if you’re not a big video watcher, for the extended audiobook samples if nothing else. Voxiversity has been on inadvertent hiatus due to the high demand for its producer, and that demand is only going to grow from here for reasons that will be clear in due course, so I’ve hired another producer who is very good at his recommendation and we anticipate releasing at least two Voxiversities in March.

There is also a third video front that is going to launch very soon for which I am seeking an tech-savvy volunteer from the VFM who has a) plenty of free time and a good Internet connection, b) doesn’t mind dealing with tedious uploads, and c) has some ability to create simple image collages of the sort that I create for the Darkstream every night. I’m only looking for VFM at the moment, so if you’re not VFM, please don’t volunteer. If you qualify and you’re interested, please email me.

In other news, multiple arbitration processes have formally commenced. I can’t say more than that at the moment, and I may not be able to say much more once they have concluded, but I will share what I permitted to share. And to those who have expressed a desire to bring independent actions, I would recommend continuing to hold fire for the time being.

The defenders of the Neo-Darwinian hypothesis of evolution through natural selection and a whole host of things that have nothing to do with natural selection are frantically fighting a rhetorical withdrawal as they attempt to deal with the problem of the average rate of mutational fixations over time.

Torin McCabe: Vox first you said you could use math equation using fixation rates to disprove evolution since there is not enough time.  People called BS saying you could not use those rates. Next you say that we should be able to see differences in historic DNA and yes of course scientists are looking into that but again you are jumping gun if you assume that the rate of change is uniform across time.  For example 80{f03b982df00939a0603520e349290ee9e722cb707fe7cb6b379ee8d64c20e193} of the change could have occurred in 20{f03b982df00939a0603520e349290ee9e722cb707fe7cb6b379ee8d64c20e193} of the time leaving long periods of relative stability.  So regretfully your case cannot just be proved by showing how human DNA was relatively static for 100,000 years of a 12 million year period.  It will look very strange if we find DNA that narrows all the change to a very short period of time; and then perhaps external influence could then be an interesting hypothesis.

Vox: We can and it increasingly looks like we will. The defenders of the Neo-Darwinian hypothesis are losing the scientific battle, losing badly, and you know it because you’re attempting to retreat to a position of “well, it could have all happened super fast in the one area that we can’t examine yet.”  And even that retreat fails to account for the fact that we should be seeing more and faster fixated mutations among the human race further separating us from the CHLCA because a) beneficial mutations fixate faster among growing populations and b) the environmental changes have been greater over the last 450 years than at any time previous, including catastrophes and Ice Ages.

The Neo-Darwinian hypothesis has not been conclusively falsified, not yet, but the probability that it will be is rapidly increasing with advancements in genetic science. And with every retreat to “yeah, but I can imagine that this thing we haven’t ever observed is still theoretically possible”, more and more people are rhetorically convinced that the Darwinian emperor has no clothes.

It doesn’t help when you tell ridiculous lies like: “again you are jumping gun if you assume that the rate of change is uniform across time”. I have never, ever assumed any such thing nor can you pretend that I have. You are erroneously conflating an AVERAGE rate over time with a UNIFORM rate over time. And the more you engage in dishonest definitional changes like that, the less credible your criticism is.

But I am glad you finally admit that this is pointing to some very intriguing possibilities. If all the DNA changes occurred in a time too short for the various mechanisms currently proposed, as increasingly appears to be the case, then there must be some other mechanism at work. And isn’t that much more interesting to consider than simply trying to find a way to defend an outmoded and erroneous hypothesis?

Smock Man: It is about observed vs theoretical. Torin, Vox already agreed, as do I, that your theoretical case is possible. What Vox is saying is that if every time we observe the rate of change, and it contradicts the theory, we should begin to be skeptical. The observations we see dont make the theoretical case impossible. But you need to revise your arguments if they disagree with observation. And we are seeing that, which is a good thing.

Torin McCabe: Are you one of the “dread ilk” the fabled smart people who follow Vox?  So far I am less than impressed with most of those I have talked with

Smock Man: No, I am not. I didn’t read vox until 2015.

Thomas Saint:  It does not have to be uniform. But the existence of continuous change itself starts to come into question if it is absent in recorded instances. It’s a matter of probability. The longer the period extant of no observable genetic changes, either addition or subtraction, the higher the average rate of change must be within the unmeasured time-frame. Evolution is starting to look like a theory that ignores probability, when the whole theory is predicated on probability.

Evolution seems a nonsense if it magically doesn’t apply to a 450 year period during which populations have exploded and environments have changed to unprecedented scale. Evolution is based on ‘change’ as well as ‘time’. Remove change, and time actually becomes irrelevant. 450 years is still a large number of human generations. There must be evidence of replacement of genetic base-pairs. Vox has established a feasible number.

Evolutionists basically have to now argue that environmental change basically has to be apocalyptic to get a single replacement of a gene pair, or that humans and in fact all species have our final form. Is that what evolutionists are arguing? This theory is really starting to ridiculous isn’t it.

Torin McCabe: Yes it is a matter of probability.  Can you do some math for me: what percentage is 450 of 12 million years?  The “magic”, “unprecedented”, “apocalyptic”, and “ridiculous” slurs are not arguments.  450 years is a good start but based on a real understanding of probability much more data is needed to explain 12 million years.  There is no need for argument, get some good coverage and the answer is there.  Stop here dude, you are making a fool of yourself

Vox: No, he’s not. But you are not merely making a fool of yourself, you are being obnoxious and are very close to getting banned. First, your appeal to big numbers biologists don’t understand is irrelevant. Second, according to the current understanding of the theory, the 450 years should be seeing a higher-than-average rate of fixated mutations, not a lower-than-average rate. Third, the relevant number is 9 million years, not 12 million. And fourth, the sample years being 0.00005 of the total makes them five times more statistically relevant than the 0.00001 samples that are used to correctly predict U.S. presidential elections.

Isn’t it informative how rhetorical, nasty, and completely unscientific they get the more you press them on the actual facts and figures that are necessarily involved. At this point, we can’t even reasonably call evolution by natural selection a “theory” anymore, as it is more accurately described as a “low-probability hypothesis” that will almost certainly be entirely falsified within our lifetimes.

UPDATE: After Torin McCabe demanded “a retraction and an apology” I banned him from the channel. He apparently believes as long as you say “if”, then it’s fine to say anything you want when you describe someone else’s actions. It is not and that is why he is not welcome to take part in the Darkstream discourse anymore.

1. He claimed that mutation rates rather than fixation rates were more relevant to my case, even though “the fixation probability is one of the cornerstones of population genetics.”
2. He failed to grasp that the 2009 Nature study specifically involved parallel gene fixation, thereby accounting for the entirety of his objection to my case. He thought my case assumed a successive-mutations regime even though the study obviously concerned a concurrent-mutations regime.
3. He retreated to rhetoric and misdirection by bringing up that list of genome sizes and population mutation rates, neither of which said anything about actual fixation probabilities or time frames.
4. The fact that there are “millions and billions of mutations” says absolutely nothing about how fast a single mutation propagates through an entire population, let alone provides part or all of the basis for a speciation event. The fact that each human child is born with an average of 70 mutations doesn’t say anything about how long it took to fix the genetic structure of the human eye throughout the entire human population.

Tonight I interviewed JF Gariepy about his ideas concerning the deeper mechanisms of evolution by natural selection. We had some technical difficulties getting started due in part to my unfamiliarity with Hangouts and its settings, but you can watch it here.

If you want to know how to not pique someone’s interest, this may serve as a useful primer.

hassel buske
“I have proven my ability to dismantle theories that are wildly accepted.” Well, do flat earth next then.

Darkstream
No. I don’t care if the Sun revolves around the Earth or vice-versa.

Marty Leeds Live
You don’t care about true cosmology? You don’t care about the world being awash in lies about the nature of the creation? You don’t care about the notion that, through the manipulation of our cosmology, those in power have replaced creation with accident? Of course you care. You are too smart NOT to care.

I say this out of respect, but it us one of the most absurd things to say that essentially, “our cosmology doesn’t matter.”

I am writing this here as a fairly big voice in the FE discussion. If you or your audience ever want to have a reasonable conversation about this, feel free to give me a shout. Blessings.

Darkstream
What part of “I don’t care” was hard to understand? Not everyone shares my interests, and obviously, I don’t share yours.

Marty Leeds Live
That was incredibly fucking condescending, Vox. I said my reply was “out of respect.”

For your information, I’m no fucking dummy. I’m not just another blowhard on the internet commenting randomly. I teach, lecture, host a podcast and have written 5 books about a litany of very dense subjects such as linguistics, symbolism, mathematics and comparative mythology so spare me the slanderous insinuations about my lack of intelligence, i.e

 “What didn’t you understand?” I can understand your English just fine Mr. Day. OBVIOUSLY I am simply challenging your conviction and opinion with my response. If you honestly don’t care about the model or cosmology that we live in, if you honestly don’t care about the entirety of humanity possibly being lied to about our home, if you don’t care about billions of dollars going to space organizations who can be proven  to be 100{9f98116018ff6c328dc55792d496f6b718acbf13f64942fc915b733dd5f493cb} fraudulent, then you are a complete fool, feigning like you are some profound thinker.

P.S. Hey Vox…your arrogance, ignorance and ego is showing. It’s not a good look on you.

Whatever shall we do?

My seven core reasons:

1. The evidence doesn’t exist.
2. The historical timelines that purportedly support it are constantly mutating.
3. The theory is a complete failure as a predictive model.
4. The theory is scientifically and technologically irrelevant. There are no evolutionary engineers.
5. Theoretical epicycles are increasingly required to maintain its viability.
6. The theory is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.
7. There is a very long track record of scientific fraud surrounding it.

My favorite quote about the scientists working in the field of evolutionary is definitely this one:

Scientists usually do not use experimental data because such experiments can be difficult to conduct and because they are very time-consuming.

Doing an experimental Arkstream at 1 PM EST to discuss what’s going on at Arkhaven and Dark Legion Comics.

The evening Darkstream will be at the usual time. Tonight we’re discussing The Descent of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

I had no idea there were so many gammas on YouTube. We’ve actually been a little spoiled here. From a comment on Jordan Peterson’s IQ:

This is hilarious. I have a degree in physics and computer science and certainly do not think I have an IQ of 150, or even 140. There is nothing I have seen so far in your videos that would indicate that you have an IQ of 150. I also do not believe Jordan Peterson has a 150 IQ, and I seem to remember a video of him stating his IQ was closer to 120. Moreover, it is a fact that to find even a person with an IQ over 130 is rare. Many of the online tests and related give false values for IQ to make money, etc. You seem to fail at doing basic research and self-reflection. You  are not that smart.

To which I responded:

Yes, you don’t have an IQ of over 130. You also don’t realize that between two and three people out of 100 have IQs of over 130. It’s not that rare. And you don’t understand that I am at least 2 standard deviations more intelligent than you are. But hey, at least you have a degree that will permit you to be easily replaced by cheap H1B visa holders. 

Nothing triggers gammas faster than a straightforward assertion that someone they don’t like is smarter than they are. They almost invariably resort to contorted logic based on false assumptions that produces conclusions that fly in the face of verifiable reality.