Tag: media

DO talk to the media?

Although I initially turned it down, after consulting with Mike Cernovich, I decided to accept a request from a Rolling Stone reporter to do an interview concerning “a profile of Castalia House—particularly its success in sci fi and fantasy.”

Why do this after repeatedly instructing people to not talk to the media? Isn’t it hypocritical? Allow me to explain.

First, there is a massive difference between being used as filler to support an existing narrative and simply marketing one’s products. I have turned down dozens of interview requests this year. I expect to turn down even more over the second part of the year. If this reporter tries to pull a bait-and-switch like other reporters, such as David Pakman and Amy Wallace, have done before, I’m simply not going to answer those questions. I am there to talk about Castalia House, its books, and its authors. I’m not there to discuss the Alt-Right position on immigration.

(That being said, I still enjoy this quote from Wallace’s piece: “Having a conversation with Day feels sort of like walking around a room designed by M. C. Escher.” If nothing else, that should suffice to explain the concept of the 2SD communications gap.)

Second, as the Lead Editor of Castalia House, I have a professional responsibility to talk to the media about our books, and given the 100-percent year-on-year growth we have averaged for three years, it’s not surprising that the media has begun to become aware of our existence. I am not personally interested in talking to the media or becoming a public figure, nor, as an editor, is that a likely consequence. It is the books that are the compelling subject, not me or my political, religious, or sporting beliefs.

Third, the most interesting narratives about Castalia House do not involve the fact that one of its editors are Alt-Right. We have world-class authors from across the political spectrum publishing with us, from Steve Keen and Martin van Creveld on the Left to Vox Day and Tara McCarthy on the Right. We have first-rate scientists, such as Dr. Sarah Salviander and Dr. Christopher Hallpike. We have authors from around the world publishing with us, everywhere from Israel and Japan and Singapore to the UK, France, and the USA.

Fourth, as Mike pointed out, Rolling Stone is one of the few media institutions that is sufficiently important to our potential readers to justify spending the time. Few media institutions are interested in books, after all.

And fifth, even if it is a hit piece, what are they going to say? That our books suck? That’s laughable, as even a cursory glance at the Amazon reviews will suffice to show. That they’re all Nazi Nazi tomes written by Nazis? That’s absurd on its face. Charles Stross alone publishes more about Nazis than all the Castalia House authors combined. That we’re a sophisticated institution of unmitigated right-wing evil run by highly intelligent individuals who are actively engaged in the literary cultural wars?

You know, I tend to think we can live with that, said the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil.

A conversation with the ADL

I had an interesting conversation with Mr. Marvin Nathan of the Anti-Defamation League this morning. He was genuinely curious about my connection with the Alt-Right, and I explained to him that while I am certainly of the Alt-Right, it is a much broader political philosophy than the mainstream media has generally attempted to portray it, and that the narrative being pushed by his organization’s “hit list” of 36 Alt-Right and Alt Lite individuals was not merely a false narrative, but one that was very easily proven to be false.

I explained that I wanted a public retraction for both me and the others falsely accused, and that while I take no personal offense at their overheated rhetoric, I saw no benefit to the ADL of engaging in rhetorical conflict with all of the falsely accused individuals. On his part, he agreed to take a detailed look into the matter, which at this point is really all that one can ask of an executive who was quite clearly not involved in the writing and publication of the article in question.

I don’t know if Mr. Nathan will rectify matters or not, but as it is often noted, I am a kind and patient man who believes it is always best to give diplomacy a chance. (I can hear the VFM howling “NOOOOOO” even as I type this.) And if, for whatever reason, the ADL elects to double down on its false narrative instead of retracting it, well, we can always bring the noise at our leisure.

His skin was wrong

His skin was wrong
But his heart was strong
He fought for social justice.


And now he’s gone
His account withdrawn
Saint Godfrey, pray for us!

And yes, although our hearts are heavy, we’re still fighting the Daily Meme Wars with courage and resolve. Join our crusade. Saint Godfrey would have wanted it that way. And he is with us, always.


UPDATE: Amazingly, Saint Godfrey is already performing miracles.

theanniechrist‏ @theanniechrist
I walked on the beach with Godfrey. When I looked behind us, there was only 1 set of footprints ?

Adieu, sweet prince

The bravest and most noble of us all, Godfrey Elfwick, is fallen.

Sir Godfrey had the effrontery to take on one of the BBC’s overpaid luvvies, thereby offending the Trust & Safety Council, which exists primarily to protect celebrities on Twitter. This was the tweet that sealed his fate.

When the narrative fails

Following the strategy that the New York Times and other mainstream media publications have utilized with me, NPR buries its interview with Milo:

Former Breitbart Senior Editor MILO flew to New York specifically to take part in an extensive interview with NPR about his bestselling book, DANGEROUS. During the July 10 interview, which MILO has provided exclusive footage of, the host stated that the interview would be going live the next day. MILO was then reportedly contacted by an NPR producer that clarified that the interview would be published the following week.

When the interview was still not published, leading MILO to question why it had not gone live, he was reportedly informed that a short version of the interview would be published “sometime in August.”

When asked for comment, MILO said, “It’s perfectly obvious from the constantly shifting deadline from NPR producers and the line of questioning from the host that they were expecting a low-rent troll — someone who would assure the broadcaster’s ossified audience that anyone sympathetic to the President must be a redneck or an idiot.”

“What they got was me: an articulate, New York Times bestselling author in complete command of his material,” he noted. “If America were finally to hear a provocative, intelligent, fabulous but eminently reasonable gay free speech crusader who leans to the Right — yes, I’m still talking about myself — it would be devastating to the Left’s speech codes and dedication to political correctness and identity politics. So NPR did the only thing they could in the circumstances to protect the narrative: they nixed the interview.”

You can hear the interview here.

Grow a spine, cucky

When are conservatives going to stop clucking and cucking, wringing their hands, and lionizing noble surrender rather than wholeheartedly supporting the Right That Fights?

Over the weekend, the hashtag #CNNDirt popped up in my timeline. I clicked on it and found that a Trump operative named Jack Posobiec had come up with a very simple and cost-free method of digging up dirt on current CNN employees–punch CNN into the search function of Linked In, then sift through the personal Twitter accounts attached to CNN employees’ Linked In accounts.

It didn’t take him long to find a CNN editor who’d tweeted out rape jokes and comments about how watching the movie, Roots, made him hate white people. The editor quickly locked his account, but the tweets had, of course, been preserved with screen shots.

I’m not going to name the guy here. He’s not an on-air personality. But I would like to point out that this is a natural and predictable outcome of the war on privacy and free speech that CNN journalists began when they decided to hunt down a Reddit user and threaten to expose him simply for posting a tweet that poked fun at their organization.

Low level, behind-the-scenes CNN employees now find themselves in exactly the position in which their management and on-air people have put conservative America–one of fear, frustration and worry that anything said on social media that could be construed as offensive will be used mercilessly by partisans to damage their careers and livelihoods.

This is not the world I want to live in. When I first saw that they’d embarrassed this guy, I laughed. I thought he was an on-air personality and at least a minor political player. After I realized he was just an editor, I cringed a little. I can’t bring myself to endorse it, but neither can I condemn it. This is what they’ve done to time and time again us and they won’t stop. What alternative is there?

Reprisals are intrinsically fair and just. Reporters and editors deserve being investigated as deeply, and treated every bit as brutally, as they treat the members of the public they target. This is a cultural war, not a cultural tea party. For the record, the CNN employee mentioned was Rashard Elijah, rashard_elijah on Twitter, who demonstrated his racial sensitivity, commitment to social justice, and fine command of the English language in tweets such as these.

And, of course, we know why Jack Posobiec was targeted by the All Defamatory Lies hit list. Because he is among the most effective culture warriors in the Alt Lite.

Five questions about Russia

Charlie Martin has a few questions about the Trump-Russia “scandal”:

Question One. Does agreeing to meet with any Russian constitute collusion? Does lobbying by a Russian constitute collusion?

Question Two. What criminal statute covers meeting with Russian private citizens? For that matter, what criminal statute covers accepting opposition research about a candidate?

Question Three What is the massive ethical breach involved here? Was it more unethical than these?

Question Four. Does this photograph indicate collusion with the Russians? Is it only collusion when your name is “Trump”?

Question Five. What the hell is is wrong with these people?

I can only conclude that the media never heard the tale about the boy who cried wolf. Then again, it is Russian….

Bitchslapping the neocons

Tucker Carlson brings the pain to Ralph Peters and Max Boot. First, Peters, who has never gotten over the Cold War:

Peters leaps into overstatement, as is his wont: “We can’t have an alliance with terrorists, and the Russians are terrorists. They’re not Islamists, but they are terrorists.” He then alleges that the Russians aren’t really fighting ISIS, but instead are bombing hospitals, children, and “our allies” (i.e. the radical Islamist Syrian rebels trained and funded by the CIA and allied with al-Qaeda and al-Nusra). The Russians “hate the United States,” and “we have nothing in common with the Russians” –nothing!” The Russians, says Peters, are paving the way for the Iranians – the real evil in the region – to “build up an empire from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean.” Ah yes, the “Shia crescent” which the Israelis and their amen corner in the US have been warning against since before the Iraq war. Yet Tucker points out that over 3,000 Americans have been killed by terrorists in the US, and “none of them are Shi’ites: all of have been Sunni extremists who are supported by the Saudis, who are supposed to be our allies.” And while we’re on the subject: “Why,” asks Tucker, “if we’re so afraid of Iran did we kill Saddam Hussein, thereby empowering Iran?”

“Because we were stupid,” says Peters.

Oh boy! Peters was one of the most militant advocates of the Iraq war: we were “stupid,” I suppose, to listen to him. Yet Tucker lets this ride momentarily, saving his big guns for the moment when he takes out Peters completely. And Peters walks right into it when Tucker wonders why we can’t cooperate with Russia, since both countries are under assault from Sunni terrorists:

“PETERS: You sound like Charles Lindbergh in 1938 saying Hitler hasn’t attacked us.

“TUCKER: I beg your pardon? You cannot compare me to somebody who makes apologies for Hitler. And I don’t think Putin is comparable.

“PETERS: I think Putin is.

“TUCKER: I think it is a grotesque overstatement actually. I think it’s insane.

Wait, I thought Assad was Hitler today? Or is it Milo Yiannopoulos? It would be helpful if there was some sort of Hitler du jour mailing list to which we could all subscribe and thereby be assured of remaining up to date on the current Hitler. But Peters was merely the appetizer for the meal Tucker made of the hapless Max Boot:

Perhaps the neocons, having been trounced in round one, thought Boot could do better: they were mistaken. Tucker took him apart simply by letting him talk: Boot didn’t answer a single question put to him, and, in the course of it all, as Boot resorted to the typical ad hominems, Tucker made a cogent point:

“[T]o dismiss people who disagree with you as immoral – which is your habit – isn’t a useful form of debate, it’s a kind of moral preening, and it’s little odd coming from you, who really has been consistently wrong in the most flagrant and flamboyant way for over a decade. And so, you have to sort of wonder, like –

”BOOT: What have I been wrong about, Tucker? What have I been wrong about?

”CARLSON: Well, having watch you carefully and known you for a long time, I recall vividly when you said that if we were to topple the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, the region will be much safer and the people who took their place would help us in the global war on terror. Of course it didn’t happen –“

Boot starts to completely melt down at this point

When evidence is not “evidence”

The media’s “fact-checkers” are no more reliable, or credible, than the very media whose reputation they are attempting to restore.

It’s important to remember that Band’s email was sent privately, with little expectation it would be aired publicly. On the one hand, that might indicate he would be more open about possible conflicts. But he was also feuding with Chelsea Clinton and so might have been inclined to exaggerate or embellish his concerns.

Even the email, at face value, does not justify the hyperbolic news coverage. There was no reference to foundation monies, just “resources.”

At the same time, the foundation, the family and the wedding planner deny the claim made in the email. This was a major social event with 450 guests, something that has to run on clockwork — at great cost. The wedding planner paid the bills and submitted one bill to the Clinton family.

We can’t really award Pinocchios here, since no specific person repeated this allegation. But we can fault the news reporting — and label this as a claim lacking any evidence. Readers (or their friends) who viewed this as the “last straw” about Clinton corruption need to be more careful consumers of the news.

No Evidence

In other words, documentary evidence is not evidence because “money” is a subset of “resources”. That’s an attempted bait-and-switch almost worthy of Richard Dawkins and midwit atheists who claim that documentary evidence and eyewitness evidence is not evidence because it is not scientific evidence.

Almost.

This demonstrates why the media’s rhetoric is so often ineffective. In this case, it is pseudo-dialectic based on a foundation of pedantry and deception.