Tag: media

A tale of two Pizzagates

In case you didn’t understand how important Infogalactic is already proving to be, given the online war to control the information you are permitted to access, this should suffice to demonstrate as much.

WIKIPEDIA:

Pizzagate may refer to:

Pizzagate, pizza thrown at former football manager and player Sir Alex Ferguson by an Arsenal Football Club player in the 2004 “Battle of the Buffet”
Pizzagate, a 2016 conspiracy theory falsely claiming the existence of a child trafficking ring involving the Washington, D.C. restaurant Comet Ping Pong

INFOGALACTIC:

Pizzagate is a crowdsourced investigation by citizen journalists into an alleged connection between child trafficking and people closely associated with Hillary Clinton. The investigation began in October 2016 after Wikileaks released the Podesta emails, which contain 58,660 emails[1] from the Gmail account of John Podesta, who was the chairman of Clinton’s 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Investigators exchanged information online via Twitter, Gab, 4chan, Reddit, and Voat.[2][3]

It’s not Infogalactic’s purpose to take sides on anything. Indeed, its objective is quite the opposite, which is to permit the user to dictate the perspective filter through which he wishes to view the known facts. Wikipedia, obviously, takes a very different stance.

Notice how Wikipedia’s 526 thought police are not providing accurate information relevant to the subject, but are instead aggressively acting as gatekeepers in precisely the same manner as the corrupt media they declare to be the only reliable sources acceptable. It’s a bit ironic, too, that it is the wealthy foundation with more than $70 million in annual revenue has a giant banner stretched across the page demanding more donations, not the shoe-string startup.

We’re getting close to addressing our primary issue as the initial round of speedups should be in place well before the end of the month. If you would like help us provide the world with a more accurate and less biased planetary knowledge core that is free of SJW corruption, you can join the Burn Unit or make a one-time donation towards the ongoing Phase Two development here.

They’ve learned absolutely nothing

The Guardian is under the impression that if they keep doubling down on their Narrative on GamerGate, and now the Alt-Right, eventually people will start believing their rubbish. But that’s not how it works anymore:

The stark parallels between Gamergate and the political atmosphere of 2016 may come as a surprise, but it shouldn’t: both saw their impact and reach amplified by self-interested parties who underplayed the obvious nastiness they were also promoting. With 2014’s Gamergate, Breitbart seized the opportunity to harness the pre-existing ignorance and anger among disaffected young white dudes. With Trump’s movement in 2016, the outlet was effectively running his campaign: Steve Bannon took leave of his role at the company in August 2016 when he was hired as chief executive of Trump’s presidential campaign. Despite Bannon’s distance from Breitbart in an official capacity, the outlet’s ideology and relentless support of Trump remained unchanged – with editor-in-chief Joel Pollak notably sending an internal memo to staff that ordered them not to support Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields after allegations she was attacked by Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

Breitbart’s aspirations to directly influence politics extend a long way into Europe, too – Bannon is openly keen to collaborate with the far-right Marine Le Pen in France, and hired UKIP’s Raheem Hassam to co-run the Breitbart London office. These movements are gaining ground by finding political figures who will legitimise them in return for the support of their swollen online communities. The young men converted via 2014’s Gamergate, are being more widely courted now. By leveraging distrust and resentment towards women, minorities and progressives, many of Gamergate’s most prominent voices – characters like Mike Cernovich, Adam Baldwin, and Milo Yiannopoulos – drew power and influence from its chaos. These figures gave Gamergate a new sense of direction – generalising the rhetoric: this was now a wider war between “Social Justice Warriors” (SJWs) and everyday, normal, decent people. Games were simply the tip of the iceberg – progressive values, went the argument, were destroying everything. The same voices moved into other geek communities, especially comics, where Marvel and DC were criticised for progressive storylines and decisions. They moved into science fiction with the controversy over the Hugo awards. They moved into cinema with the revolting kickback against the all-female Ghostbusters reboot. Despite colonising the world with pointless tech and plastering modern film and TV with fan-pleasing adaptations of niche comic books, nerds still had a taste for revenge. They saw the culture they considered theirs being ripped away from them. In their zero sum mindset, they read growing artistic equality as a threat.

The last two sentences demonstrate what I mean by the Alt-Right being the only ideological perspective that is rooted in reality. The West is our culture and it is being ripped away from us. Equality is not a threat because it is nonexistent; diversity is an existential threat. And demographics is, quite literally, a zero-sum game.

Meanwhile, all of #GamerGate is looking puzzled and wondering “when was Mike Cernovich ever one of our most prominent voices?” About the same time we were leveraging distrust and resentment towards women and minorities, one presumes. They know nothing and they’ve learned nothing. That’s why we will continue to defeat them.

We have no idea where this will lead, but our continued insistence on shrugging off the problems of the internet as “not real” – as something we can just log out of – is increasingly misled.

Well, perhaps they’ve learned that. Not that it’s going to do them any good, as long as they insist on believing their own revisionist histories.

Fake news interviews Gab

The Carlos Slim Blog interviews a known Alt-Right White Supremacist Ultra-Nazi, Utsav Sanduja of Gab.

Carlos Slim’s blog, The New York Times, a known political activist organization and fake news publisher, reached out to interview Gab. Our policy with fake news websites is to either grant them a recorded telephone interview or a written-only interview at our discretion. In this case, we opted for a written interview. We do this to keep the dishonest, politically motivated media in check. Only 6% of the American public trusts the media, and for good reason.

Here is the article that was published on Gab by The New York Times.

Below are the answers to the questions they sent us. We will let you decide if their article was objective, fair, and not politically motivated. The interview was with Utsav Sanduja, Gab’s Chief Communications Officer.

When did Andrew first conceive of Gab, and why did he decide to start a new social media platform?

Andrew first conceived the idea for Gab after reading about the censorship of conservative news and sources on Facebook’s Trending Topics. He witnessed extensive censorship on Reddit, Twitter, and other platforms during the recent election cycle and more broadly noticed a clearly progressive-driven agenda in Silicon Valley where he worked. It was from there he realized that the monopoly in the technology industry had to be shaken up.

What’s the thinking behind the main design features — 300 character limit, up and down voting, and the categories up top and down the side?

Gab has innovated in areas where other platforms have refused to. 300 characters allows for more thoughtful and meaningful discourse in a microblogging environment. Upvoting and downvoting allows both positive and negative sentiment as it empowers the community to surface great content. Categories help users discover interesting topics and diverse communities on Gab who share similar interests. Editing along with edit logs allows users to make quick changes and modify additional information, while keeping the integrity of the post in check.


What are the limitations of Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit? What does Gab offer that they don’t?

Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit are taking the path of censorship — Gab does not. This alone sets us apart from Big Social. The aforementioned platforms also rely immensely on advertising revenues for their core business model, a concept that is proving to be futile in an environment of ad blockers on both mobile and desktop web. Lastly, we feel that Big Social does not empower content creators, but rather exploits them as said companies make billions off their creativity, time and energy. Gab takes a different approach — we put the user in charge in the expurgation process, we put content creators first so they can sustain their business and passion. And more importantly, we put free speech above all else.


Why a frog? Does the frog have a name?

Gabby the frog was drawn from antediluvian and Biblical sources. First, from Exodus 8:2–7, which is the plague of frogs. The frog serves as a metaphor for Gab “releasing the frogs” on Silicon Valley to expose their corruption, censorship, and information monopoly on the web. Secondly, the African Bullfrog was a source of inspiration after Andrew viewed a Youtube video of this species digging a channel between a drying up pond and a lake to save his tadpoles. Finally, frogs have historically symbolized transformation, rebirth and fertility dating back to the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians.

How New Atheism leads to Neo-Nazism

Blimey! A very scary piece in The Guardian.


It started with Sam Harris, moved on to Milo Yiannopoulos and almost led to full-scale Islamophobia. If it can happen to a lifelong liberal, it could happen to anyone!

‘Alt-right’ online poison nearly turned me into a racist
The Guardian

I am a happily married, young white man. I grew up in a happy, Conservative household. I’ve spent my entire life – save the last four months – as a progressive liberal. All of my friends are very liberal or left-leaning centrists. I have always voted Liberal Democrat or Green. I voted remain in the referendum. The thought of racism in any form has always been abhorrent to me. When leave won, I was devastated.

I was curious as to the motives of leave voters. Surely they were not all racist, bigoted or hateful? I watched some debates on YouTube. Obvious points of concern about terrorism were brought up. A leaver cited Sam Harris as a source. I looked him up: this “intellectual, free-thinker” was very critical of Islam. Naturally my liberal kneejerk reaction was to be shocked, but I listened to his concerns and some of his debates.

This, I think, is where YouTube’s “suggested videos” can lead you down a rabbit hole. Moving on from Harris, I unlocked the Pandora’s box of “It’s not racist to criticise Islam!” content. Eventually I was introduced, by YouTube algorithms, to Milo Yiannopoulos and various “anti-SJW” videos (SJW, or social justice warrior, is a pejorative directed at progressives). They were shocking at first, but always presented as innocuous criticism from people claiming to be liberals themselves, or centrists, sometimes “just a regular conservative” – but never, ever identifying as the dreaded “alt-right”.

For three months I watched this stuff grow steadily more fearful of Islam. “Not Muslims,” they would usually say, “individual Muslims are fine.” But Islam was presented as a “threat to western civilisation”. Fear-mongering content was presented in a compelling way by charismatic people who would distance themselves from the very movement of which they were a part.

At the same time, the anti-SJW stuff also moved on to anti-feminism, men’s rights activists – all that stuff. I followed a lot of these people on Twitter, but never shared any of it. I just passively consumed it, because, deep down, I knew I was ashamed of what I was doing. I’d started to roll my eyes when my friends talked about liberal, progressive things. What was wrong with them? Did they not understand what being a real liberal was? All my friends were just SJWs. They didn’t know that free speech was under threat and that politically correct culture and censorship were the true problem.

On one occasion I even, I am ashamed to admit, very diplomatically expressed negative sentiments on Islam to my wife. Nothing “overtly racist”, just some of the “innocuous” type of things the YouTubers had presented: “Islam isn’t compatible with western civilisation.”

She was taken aback: “Isn’t that a bit … rightwing?”

I justified it: “Well, I’m more a left-leaning centrist. PC culture has gone too far, we should be able to discuss these things without shutting down the conversation by calling people racist, or bigots.”

The indoctrination was complete.

About a week before the US election, I heard one of these YouTubers use the phrase “red-pilled” – a term from the film The Matrix – in reference to people being awakened to the truth about the world and SJWs. Suddenly I thought: “This is exactly like a cult. What am I doing? I’m turning into an arsehole.”

I unsubscribed and unfollowed from everything, and told myself outright: “You’re becoming a racist. What you’re doing is turning you into a terrible, hateful person.” Until that moment I hadn’t even realised that “alt-right” was what I was becoming; I just thought I was a more open-minded person for tolerating these views.

It would take every swearword under the sun to describe how I now feel about tolerating such content and gradually accepting it as truth. I’ve spent every day since feeling shameful for being so blind and so easily coerced.

US election day rolled around, and I was filled with dread. Trump’s win felt like EU referendum morning all over again – magnified by a hundred. Although I never shared any of this rubbish with anybody, I feel partly responsible. It’s clear this terrible ideology has now gone mainstream.

It hit me like a ton of bricks. Online radicalisation of young white men. It’s here, it’s serious, and I was lucky to be able to snap out of it when I did. And if it can get somebody like me to swallow it – a lifelong liberal – I can’t imagine the damage it is doing overall.

It seemed so subtle – at no point did I think my casual and growing Islamophobia was genuine racism. The good news for me is that my journey toward the alt-right was mercifully brief: I never wanted to harm or abuse anybody verbally, it was all very low level – a creeping fear and bigotry that I won’t let infest me again. But I suspect you could, if you don’t catch it quickly, be guided into a much more overt and sinister hatred.

I haven’t yet told my wife that this happened, and I honestly don’t know how to. I need to apologise for what I said and tell her that I certainly don’t believe it. It is going to be a tough conversation and I’m not looking forward to it. I didn’t think this could happen to me. But it did and it will haunt me for a long time to come.

The funny thing is that at no point did any of this strike the editors of The Guardian as a pure parody of their SJW Narrative about the Alt-Right. But we are now informed that this brave piece of soul-searching by one of the bravest, most deeply sensitive men on the Internet, the glorious Godfrey Elfwick.

Moreover, it points to the way in which Alt-Right ideas are beginning to appear increasingly seductive to white liberals, progressives, and SJWs, as the reality of identity politics is beginning to gradually penetrate their Narrative-numbed consciousnesses and they finally start to recognize what the eventual consequences of their ideologies are turning out to be.

This is what winning looks like

Mother Jones to Andrew Torba of Gab: “I’d appreciate if you could grant me access to Gab so that I can observe and interact with the alt-right. I’d be interested in interviewing you about your motivations for creating Gab.” 

Andrew Torba: “Wait your two weeks. We don’t interview with fake news sites.”

We don’t need them. We don’t need to genuflect to them, accommodate them, or even talk to them.

I’ve been on Twitter since 2009. I have 26,900 followers there. I’ve been on Gab for about four months. I have 11,579 followers there. At this rate of relative growth, I may not have any more reason to bother with Twitter than with MySpace within a year.

So-called or self-described

Early days, my friends. Early days. The AP gives the mainstream media its marching orders.

AP: Avoid using ‘alt-right’ without context

The Associated Press Monday released new guidelines for referencing the “alt-right,” which ask that journalists use the term alongside its definition and in context of its association with racist beliefs.

The new guidelines read: “‘Alt-right’ (quotation marks, hyphen and lower case) may be used in quotes or modified as in the ‘self-described’ or ‘so-called alt-right’ in stories discussing what the movement says about itself. Avoid using the term generically and without definition, however, because it is not well known and the term may exist primarily as a public-relations device to make its supporters’ actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience.”

It should be amusing to see them try to define it in the next set of guidelines. What this indicates, however, is that they’ve failed to stamp the Alt-Right as either Nazis or White Supremacists, which was their initial attempt to address it. They want to avoid so much as mentioning the term without providing the necessary context, which means framing it to fit their Narrative.

As it is written, SJWs always lie.

Meanwhile, the Romanian and Bulgarian translations of the 16 Points of the Alt-Right have been delivered and posted. We now have more translations than points; don’t hesitate to copy them and spread them around the Internet. While the Hoax Media is dithering and deceiving themselves and attempting to marginalize us, we’re rapidly expanding across the globe. Those in need of getting up to speed on the Alt-Right may wish to note that one can quickly access all of the Alt-Right-related posts on this blog via the link on the right sidebar below the various translations.

Now who’s seeing Russians under the bed?

The Washington Post has gone completely off its rocker:

The flood of “fake news” this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery — including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human “trolls,” and networks of websites and social-media accounts — echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.

Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on “fake news,” as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem.

Guess what is the top Russian propaganda site?

The Drudge Report.

Keep in mind, this is the same Washington Post that insists the Cheese Pizza crowd around Hillary Clinton is merely a collection of obsessive enthusiasts of Italian cuisine and ping pong with ghastly taste in modern art, not a weird and creepy pedophile cult.

Is the Alt-Right dead?

Paul Joseph Watson talks to Mike Cernovich about the question.

Contrary to what you’ll read about them, the answer is quite obviously no. PJW and Mike understand the new media game much, much better than most of their critics, all of whom are still operating on the same outdated concept that let the media play Richard Spencer last week. That doesn’t mean they are always correct; I trust their judgment on the media and I prefer to rely upon my own with regards to the more abstract and historical elements.

Events and movements require the right moment more than the right person. What will have a massive impact today might have gone unnoticed five years ago. Social mood, as per socionomics, is key. The historical cycles, from Kondratieff to the debt cycle, also play significant roles. The next 10 years are the Alt-Right’s moment, because only its ideology is in harmony with both the zeitgeist and the material, measurable societal metrics that the cliodynamicists are tracking.

Both the USA and Europe are rapidly approaching critical stress points with unhappy populaces and rival elites whose interests cannot be rectified. An 1860-level event could take place in as few as four years from now in one or more nations in the West, and that’s not even taking the situations in Ukraine/Russia, Syria, Iran, or the South Pacific into account. That is why the Alt-Right is destined to rise in much the same way the Republicans did regardless of a) what it is called or b) who is involved.

What is happening is much, much bigger than the media, the Alt-White, or even PJW understand. (PJW hasn’t caught onto the inevitability of identity politics yet, but he’s smart and he’ll figure out their relevance soon.) There is very little that any of us can do about any of this; even the global elite who flatter themselves with the idea that they are driving events are actually doing little more than attempting to hold on to the hurricane and exploit whatever consequences result.

Look, I’m a game designer. I design multi-variable models, and without the ability to design for effect, or impose external limitations on the outputs, fairly minor changes rapidly cause the model to become unpredictable. And the complexity of real world events is vastly greater than a simulation of a sports league, or a single game.