ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Should have known better

Last year I made an exception to my "do not talk to the media" policy when a journalist who contributes to Rolling Stone and has a history of writing relatively fair and substantive stories contacted me about doing a story on Castalia House. We arranged to meet for lunch, and the interview was a reasonably free-ranging one that was not indicative of the usual "bad person du jour" hit piece. So, I felt that it went pretty well and that it would not be a repeat of the usual "isn't it terrible that you are such an unrepentant badthinker" narrative.

Spacebunny, of course, knew better. I should have listened to her when she told me to just ignore this request like all the others.

Last week, the same journalist went to visit Chuck Dixon in the company of another journalist, who turned out to be Al Letson, the host of Reveal, a public radio program and podcast showcasing investigative stories. They were not particularly interested in talking to Chuck about Arkhaven, about his books, about the comics industry, about how he "broke the Bat", or about the fact that he is an industry legend, the most prolific comics writer of all time, who has been openly blackballed by Marvel. Instead, they were primarily interested in playing the "you're really a bad person, aren't you" prosecutorial game in support of the usual disqualify-and-discredit narrative for a story that is intended to run jointly in Rolling Stone and National Public Radio.

Apparently the straight story on Castalia House didn't sell, because I received a request for a second interview from them yesterday. I declined the request, and informed them that if they require further support for their tedious narrative, they are certainly welcome to report that I literally feed SJWs to my Vile Faceless Minions and drink SJW blood while sitting on a pile of silvered SJW skulls and watching old newsreels of Mussolini. Let's face it, that's more accurate than anything they are likely to "report" now.

So, I will be returning to my previous policy of simply not talking to anyone in the mainstream media. Forget the nonexistent upside, there simply isn't any point in doing so. One can get the same narrative, more or less, from Wikipedia and RationalWiki, if one so desires. And there is no shortage of books, blog posts, and videos from which one can ascertain my views and quote-mine my words.

Now, here is what may be a useful observation in case you do happen to make the mistake of talking to the media. The journalistic responsibility of a reporter or interviewer is to give you the opportunity to speak for yourself, in your own words. Contrary to what many of them appear to believe, they are not prosecutors or debate antagonists, so the moment that they start "pushing back", cross-examining, or attempting to argue with you in any way, end the pseudo-interview and send them packing.

If a reporter wishes to publicly debate me as an equal on a level playing field, that's fine. If a journalist wants review copies of a Castalia House book or an Arkhaven comic book, I'll be happy to send a digital edition. I can't prevent them from playing the "bad person du jour" game, but I will not participate in it.

Labels: ,

45 Comments:

Blogger Rocklea Marina May 19, 2018 6:13 AM  

they were primarily interested in playing the "you're really a bad person, aren't you" game in support of their usual disqualify-and-discredit narrative.

Rolling Stone always choose the predetermined path.

Anonymous Anonymous May 19, 2018 6:20 AM  

Some of the worst mistakes I have made in my life could have been avoided if I had listened to The Wife a bit more. Oh well.

The "journalists" are all leftists and they all think they have "high moral ground" which "justifies" any underhanded tactic that they can think to use against you. The end justifies the means. The "coming glorious heaven on earth" justifies the nasty, evil tactics used in the present. Or so they say.

I was just reading a piece on the evil of egalitarianism and saw a part where the "conservatives" have been losing due to yielding moral ground for decades. That empowers the "journalists" and others all the more.

"For well over a century, the Left has generally been conceded to have morality, justice, and “idealism” on its side; the Conservative opposition to the Left has largely been confined to the “impracticality” of its ideals. A common view, for example, is that socialism is splendid “in theory,” but that it cannot “work” in practical life. What the Conservatives failed to see is that while short-run gains can indeed be made by appealing to the impracticality of radical departures from the status quo, that by conceding the ethical and the “ideal” to the Left they were doomed to long-run defeat."

We need to push back and call left wing evil what it is.

Blogger wreckage May 19, 2018 6:43 AM  

@2, yes. Precisely. Stop calling their destructive in principle gibberish "good".

Vox, how is Chuck? Does he have anything to say about this?

Blogger Don't Call Me Len May 19, 2018 6:56 AM  

A common view, for example, is that socialism is splendid “in theory”

This is why nothing ever gets conserved: there are "conservatives" dumb enough to not only subscribe to such a moronic view, but to adopt it as a "principle".

Blogger L' Aristokrato May 19, 2018 6:59 AM  

I'm very tech-illiterate, but how feasible would it be to create a website for entertainment news? One covering movies, comics, books, games, etc.. With a decent team of reviewers and writers?

I don't even mean a site made specifically to promote "our side", but rather just a legitimate, neutral place wherein said side would be given a fair shake. A place where a normie could go and get both decent perspectives on the new Avengers product, as well as the same from Arkhaven, and such.
Perhaps it's worth considering.

Blogger VD May 19, 2018 7:06 AM  

I'm very tech-illiterate, but how feasible would it be to create a website for entertainment news? One covering movies, comics, books, games, etc.. With a decent team of reviewers and writers?

It's very easy. The problem is money. How are you going to pay those contributors? Few sites make money, and a Right-wing site would be de-monetized by Google and Facebook, who control about 90 percent of all the online advertising money.

Blogger VD May 19, 2018 7:07 AM  

Vox, how is Chuck?

Chuck is fine. Chuck is well-accustomed to this nonsense. I think he was surprised and disappointed that it was nothing more than the usual bullshit too.

Blogger Johnny May 19, 2018 7:09 AM  

What always made me a little crazy was the "compassionate conservative" concept. As the term was commonly used, implicitly it assumed that ordinary conservatism is not compassionate. Nobody ever announces that I am a compassionate Democrat.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 19, 2018 7:20 AM  

Conservatism and it's Cons exist to legitimize the liberal order, they should probably stop that.

Blogger Rocklea Marina May 19, 2018 7:35 AM  

If a reporter wishes to publicly debate me on a level playing field, that's fine.

The ideal level playing field. Javelins in the first half, then switch to pikes in the second. The journalists can have recorders and cameras, to make fair and balanced.

Blogger Avalanche May 19, 2018 7:40 AM  

Not sure this is OT; am 'working' in email with a bunch of older 'conservative' and religious guys; posted this. If you have a minute, have I represented this right?
===================
{q} > Still, I am left with questions like, how can abortion rights be framed as classic transphobia? And why is it that Black lesbians are the people most impacted by global warming?{/q}

{Avalanche:} You ask these questions because you're rational. It's very hard for us reasonable people to remember we are *literally( dealing with crazy people! If someone comes up to you on the street and introduces you to 'someone' not there, and says that .... his friend, the giant White rabbit ... wants to have lunch with you -- you don't try to talk him out of his delusion or tell him you can't see a giant White rabbit: you back away gently (or run screaming; either works!). Lefties are coming up to us with their delusional world, and "we" have been allowing them to tie us up dealing with (or trying to explain away) those delusions...

{Avalanche:} This is where Vox Day's suggested response to a leftie assault make sense -- I struggle with it: all "K-selected" folks do -- we live in reality and try to deal with the MPAI ("most people are idiots") around us by actually answering their assaults and questions. Vox is planning several "Voxiversity" episodes on rhetoric v. dialectic. (Can't wait!) We rational folks mostly 'speak' dialectic... the leftie-bunnies can't / don't / won't; they live in a rhetoric world: "if only" they feel strongly enough and say it often and loud (and offensively) enough, then whatever they feel will become reality! (You know: 2-year-olds!)

==================
{Vox Day quotes a commenter:} How do you respond to someone that calls you a racist or other shaming word?{/q}
{Vox Day answers:} Call them a pedophile. Or a Satanist. Or something worse than a racist.
For the Nth time, it's NOT about making any f__king sense. How many times do I need to tell you this?

I do not understand those who hear someone babbling nonsense, then think responding by talking sense to them is somehow going to be relevant in any regard.

{Vox quotes commenter:} But they're not a pedophile!
{Vox Day answers:} So the f__k what? You're not a racist.

{Vox quotes commenter:} That's easy, you say this...{/q}
{Vox Day answers:} No, no, NO! Seriously, how stubbornly stupid are you? Why don't you just go right to "Democrats are the REAL racists"?

I'm getting very tired of losers who INSIST on responding to rhetoric with dialectic. If you wouldn't reply in Chinese to someone speaking English, don't use dialectic, logic, reason, or whatever label you need to understand the concept to those speaking rhetoric. Seriously, this isn't that f__king hard.

{Vox quotes commenter: }But I am. Race exists. I acknowledge a distinction between races. I discriminate between them.{/q}
{Vox Day answers:} Read the dictionary. That's not racism by the dictionary definition. So, you're accepting their frame.
========================
{Some other commenter:} Quixote tilted at windmills, not midwits. The former are more easily argued with.
========================

{Avalanche:} I struggle with this myself: my original answer, when someone called me racist was: "Yes, of COURSE I am; why aren't you?!" I'm a native 'dialectic speaker' and rhetoric makes my skin crawl... Like many on our side, I ... believe? wish? hope? can't face the falsity? that "if only" I can explain reality well enough, they will chose to participate in it. Nope. They cannot! (Have you not read Anonymous Conservative? Do so, and understand! https://www.anonymousconservative.com/)

Blogger Avalanche May 19, 2018 7:41 AM  

{Avalanche:} But accepting their premise(s), and trying to argue reality with people who flat-out refuse to see reality is futile. I can't find the exact quotation/comment this morning but the ... icon ... I cling to (and try to emulate, even though it makes me uncomfortable to NOT deal with them with reason) is Vox pointing out that (I'm paraphrasing):
--------------------
{approx. VD:} If they call you a racist, you call them a pedophile.

{Commenter:} But we don't KNOW they're a pedophile
{and/or Commenter:} But I AM a racist! {<-- that's me {eye roll}}

{approx. VD:} Doesn't matter! It has as much *substance* (reality, truth, usefulness) as them calling you a table! If they called you a table, would you try to explain that you're not made of wood and don't have four legs?! Their use of "racist" is not because they have reasoned themselves into an understanding of (and hatred for) your position in reality, but because "them's *magic* words" that they know 'we' recoil from. Magic words work (on us), so they use them.

So, do it back to them! Instead of trying to reason with them "as if" they were reasonable (they're not), just throw "magic words" back at them.
---------------------- {end paraphrase}

{Avalanche:} Yeah {wince}, I know, it hurts us to 'lie' like that! To speak an 'untruth' or at least an unknown... Rhetoric is not based in reality, it's based in emotional freight. You can, with practice and planning, make up and use rhetoric that is based in truth (the best kind of rhetoric); but it's not necessary. You're speaking with a DELUSION: you're not going to persuade them with facts!

So, if you're told that it is "Black lesbians are the people most impacted by global warming" -- you know you're dealing with a crazy person! Don't accept their premise and try to do emergency psychology on them -- you're wasting everyone's time! And don't try to argue them out of their delusion and the (insane) "magic words" that they use to distract you from reality! Get on to doing what's needful! Also throwing "you're crazy" back at them isn't rhetoric; it's just insult. (And asking them to back their words up with facts is just silly -- this is a CRAZY person you're dealing with! Would you try reasoning with a person having a psychotic break?)

Try to have 'at hand' several kinds of magic words you can whip out and use anytime; like Van Helsing carried holy water and silver and whatever. Have a tool kit! If it makes you cringe (why?) to think of our enemies crazy and preparing to deal with crazy people, then think of them as 2-yr-olds: do you accept a 2-yr-old’s premise(s) and then try to REASON with a 2-yr-old?

(Also, one huge problem with Conservative Inc. (indeed, nearly all conservatives) is the magic words do hurt. But instead of ignoring it: "a scratch, a scratch; marry, 'tis enough"; 'we' leap to defend ourselves from the magic words and drop whatever important thing we were doing/addressing. I equate that to (from the movie "Up") dogs with the word "squirrel!" -- you wanna distract an conservative? Shout: "trannys in bathrooms!" (Used to be, they shouted: "gay marriage!" Those magic words succeeded beyond their wildest dreams: and beyond 'our' wildest imaginings!) Conservatives will drop a $20 BILLION dollar national debt and run off after whatever 'squirrel' the lefties point at! (Graceful losers, yup. ) The alleged-cons will drop young Americans being killed in wars not our own to march and protest about whatever the lefties point at. For 60 years, the left has been able to keep 'us' off balance and distracted by shouting magic words at us.) (So, STOP THAT!)

Blogger Avalanche May 19, 2018 7:41 AM  

{Vox Day writes elsewhere:} The purpose of democracy is to avoid violence in the transition of power. But if the Left doesn't wish to play by those rules anymore, the Alt-Right is more than ready to meet them on the field of politics by other means. {end quote}


Sorry it's long (again); I fight this in myself all the time! I want our enemies (who appear semi-sane) to be convince-able by, well, by reality. They can't be.

Av

p.s., great comment from this morning's blog entry { http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/should-have-known-better.html }:

{q}What always made me a little crazy was the "compassionate conservative" concept. As the term was commonly used, implicitly it assumed that ordinary conservatism is not compassionate. Nobody ever announces that "I am a compassionate Democrat." {/q}


({Av:} Dyah see the premise he points out: which is then accepted and defended against? STOP THAT! They aren't going to be convinced to stop using magic words that ALWAYS work! Stop letting their delusion accusations work! Bark back!)

Anonymous Anonymous May 19, 2018 7:46 AM  

> Last year I made an exception to my "do not talk to the media" policy

There is NAWALT, but there is also NALALT: "Not All Leftists Are Like That."

Sometimes we think we've found the unicorn, the cute little leftist we'll be able to tame. After all, it agrees with us on so many things already, and we're such suckers for its attention and validation... but the leftist (or cuck) cannot be tamed, at some point when you're not looking it will bite your balls off! Or your ankles, in the case of lil-benny-boy.

Blogger VD May 19, 2018 7:47 AM  

I want our enemies (who appear semi-sane) to be convince-able by, well, by reality.

Who gives a damn what you want? I do not understand why so many conservatives fail to understand that the enemy decides how he behaves, not his opponent.

"Gee, it would sure be nice if you'd suddenly surrender for no reason at all when you're on a 60-year winning streak so that I wouldn't have to actually fight back before I am entirely subjugated."

Conservatives are not only cowards, they are just as crazy in their own way as SJWs. Their position is totally illogical and unrealistic.

Blogger VD May 19, 2018 7:50 AM  

Sometimes we think we've found the unicorn, the cute little leftist we'll be able to tame.

In fairness to the journalist, I read the previous articles and the questions to me were consistent with a serious story focused on Castalia House. My guess is that the involvement of NPR completely changed the focus, which is why they wanted a second interview. Remember, it's the editors who drive the narrative, not the reporters.

If it had been a hit piece from the start, there wouldn't be any need for a second one.

Blogger Wanderer May 19, 2018 7:57 AM  

I want our enemies (who appear semi-sane) to be convince-able by, well, by reality.
To quote Sam Hyde: Do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny.

The only thing that you should want for your enemies is their swift death. Anything else is bordering on virtue-signaling.

Blogger wreckage May 19, 2018 8:20 AM  

@17 I am compassionate, and will accept their utter submission and lifelong servitude.

Anonymous Anonymous May 19, 2018 8:35 AM  

I am compasisonate: I will offer free helicopter tours!

Avalanche: I want our enemies (who appear semi-sane) to be convince-able by, well, by reality.

The root reason why this does not work is: their reality is not the same as your reality. Things that are obvious to you (because they're real) are not obvious to them (and hence not real to them).

Try to see things from the point of view of someone who uses Jordan Peterson's definition of truth. "Truth is whatever keeps me alive". But let's rephrase it to "Truth is whatever feels good, or at least lowers the suffering."

If something is "offensive" or "problematic" it cannot be "true" because it feels too bad, no matter how real it is.


Blogger James Dixon May 19, 2018 8:37 AM  

> Apparently the straight story on Castalia House didn't sell, because I received a request for a second interview from them yesterday.

You owed it to Castalia House to try.

> Conservatism and it's Cons exist to legitimize the liberal order, they should probably stop that.

Since they're selected and paid by the opposition, how are we supposed to stop it?

Blogger James Dixon May 19, 2018 8:40 AM  

> I want our enemies (who appear semi-sane) to be convince-able by, well, by reality. They can't be.

Very few of us want to actually have to kill other people. But they want us and our families dead, so that's what it's going to come to. I wish I knew of a way to stop it, but history argues there is none.

Blogger Avalanche May 19, 2018 8:59 AM  

Uh guys?

My: "I want our enemies (who appear semi-sane) to be convince-able by, well, by reality."

... was "pacing"? You know, from Scott Adams: pacing and leading? Aligning my (old) view with their current view to make us seem to be facing the same way? To perhaps get them to look in the direction I'm pointing?

Of course, yes, I DO want our enemies to be reasonable... but as I ended that very sentence:

"They can't be."

Blogger Xellos May 19, 2018 9:21 AM  

Yes. The only time one should speak to journalists is in court, when they stand accused.

Blogger Lovekraft May 19, 2018 9:35 AM  

I think, on a simple business model aspect, that RS would benefit MORE from taking one of the alt-right's intellectual leaders down several notches (virtue signal), than actually present a fair and balanced interview.

The motivation of a publication/media source in terms of audience should be considered.

The 'By/For/About Rule'.

Blogger HalibetLector May 19, 2018 9:41 AM  

L' Aristokrato wrote:how feasible would it be to create a website for entertainment news?

Somebody attempted that after gamergate got popular. Does anybody remember basedgamer.com?

Anonymous Anonymous May 19, 2018 9:53 AM  

@11 Avalanche

Two comments on your questions.

1) A black girl in class said, "you are judging me!" I responded, "of course I am. Everyone judges other people. It is evolution. Don't you judge your friends and family?"

She laughed and agreed. I have not heard that from her again.

2) "You are a racist!"

My response at times has been: "everyone is racist". There are no people who don't notice race and blacks are the ones who notice race all the time. It is all they can talk about.

------------

Remember, the SJWs and other leftists project. They know they are racist and the right wing needs to call them out on it. Hell, we destroyed the public schools because everyone thought black kids could not learn unless they had a white teacher and a bunch of white kids in the room with them. Lunacy!

Blogger English Tom May 19, 2018 10:16 AM  

Wanderer

Not a swift death but a slow one. With lots of pain. These vermin want us dead. Do not forget that.

Blogger Matthew May 19, 2018 10:30 AM  

Xellos wrote:Yes. The only time one should speak to journalists is in court, when they stand accused.

It's also acceptable to ask them if they have any last words.

Blogger Jamie-R May 19, 2018 10:50 AM  

Should've Known Better is one of Richard Marx's finest works. Time for a trip to You Tube!

Blogger Dave May 19, 2018 10:56 AM  

James Dixon wrote:> Apparently the straight story on Castalia House didn't sell, because I received a request for a second interview from them yesterday.

You owed it to Castalia House to try.


And Arkhaven/Dark Legion.

Is she exclusive with Rolling Stones? They could decide they don't want the story and then she could sell the story somewhere else.

Blogger Brick Hardslab May 19, 2018 11:36 AM  

I think we'd have a hard time getting over the shock if an unbiased news organization set up shop.

Blogger Todd Everhart May 19, 2018 11:50 AM  

A lot of that is available on the Castalia House blog currently

Blogger Unknown May 19, 2018 11:53 AM  

That's racist!

That depends. If you are a whiny crybaby then it's racist because everything is racist to whiny crybabies. But if you're not a whiny crybaby then it's not racist.

Blogger Matthew McDaniel May 19, 2018 12:15 PM  

Maybe Jann Wenners boyfriend didn’t like your answers.

Blogger Ned May 19, 2018 12:58 PM  

Wondering how to clean up the skulls of one's enemies without stinking up the garage. Asking for a friend.

Blogger Akulkis May 19, 2018 1:08 PM  

Pacing and leading is only effective after you have rapport. Getting rapport with an SJW is not worth the damage required to your mind and soul.

Blogger Dave May 19, 2018 1:29 PM  

Ned wrote:Wondering how to clean up the skulls of one's enemies without stinking up the garage. Asking for a friend.

Impossible, it's why you make it somebody else's problem.

Blogger Avalanche May 19, 2018 1:55 PM  

@35 "Wondering how to clean up the skulls of one's enemies without stinking up the garage. Asking for a friend."

Set up a raised garden out back, add skulls under mulch, add a box or two of Dermestid beetles. I asked a friend...

Blogger Avalanche May 19, 2018 1:58 PM  

@36 ;Pacing and leading is only effective after you have rapport. Getting rapport with an SJW is not worth the damage required to your mind and soul.

Not SJWs: I'm 'working on' a group of fundamentalist Catholics (one of whom suggests Pio Nono should be patron saint of nuclear weapons...), mostly seriously old-school Christians, and few of us cultural Christians. I'm laying breadcrumbs to entice them to come see that 'what they know' of the Alt Right (i.e. damned near nuthin'!) is not on target!

Blogger Skyler the Weird May 19, 2018 2:51 PM  

I'd start the interview with a question, "Mr. Reporter have you finally gotten all the Kiddie Porn erased from your hard drive?" There's probably a 50% chance there is some.

Blogger Doomfinger May 19, 2018 2:52 PM  

Sam Hyde's interview with Buzzfeed and resulting article.

Anonymous Anonymous May 19, 2018 5:58 PM  

No matter how sensible and sympathetic an MSM reporter may be, he does not get to decide what goes in the paper.

Blogger James Dixon May 19, 2018 7:14 PM  

> I'd start the interview with a question, "Mr. Reporter have you finally gotten all the Kiddie Porn erased from your hard drive?"

Don't start with that, save it as a response to an appropriate question.

Blogger James Dixon May 19, 2018 8:39 PM  

It occurs to me that Vox should also have known better than to use that title, as it would invariably lead to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T8qVcDpTjA

Blogger Dave W. May 21, 2018 4:04 PM  

Dammit, you made me look at Buzzfeed. Now my browser needs to be deloused.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts