All hail the God-Emperor

Still not tired of winning:

Donald Trump will be 'LAST PRESIDENT' of the United States - shock new claims!

DONALD Trump will be the “last President” of the United States but has “no intention of leaving the White House” and likes the thought of being President for life, one American filmmaker has warned.

After the 2020 Trumpslide, it will also be the right time to formally elevate Donald Trump Jr. to his rightful position as Vice-Emperor, Crown Prince, and Heir.

ARKSTREAM: Quantum Mortis #3

In which the release of QUANTUM MORTIS A Man Disrupted #3 is announced, complete with sample pages and more news about Arkhaven's next crowdfunding campaign. Watch the video.

Why the Right fails

This little anecdote at Steve Sailer's describes, in a nutshell, why the proudly individualistic Right has been consistently failing for decades.

reminds me of something that happened at jury duty. I was sitting there, trying to figure out how to get out of jury duty, and telling the judge that I had urgent responsibilities, blah, blah..

This was a trial where some young guy had used a gun for to warn off some rivals for his girl, or something. But it revolved around the (non-lethal, in this case) use of a gun. (horrors, I know)

Anyways, the judge was getting clearly annoyed that a few other jurors also didn’t want to participate in the farce. (I’m not a big fan of courtroom “justice” ; )

And he lectured us and then made the mistake of asking a leading question..

(clearly expecting to hear a ‘trial by jury’) he asked the assembled prospective jurors, ‘What is the main right that protects all your other rights from abuses of the government?’

Whereupon I blurted out very clearly and loudly, “The Second Amendment!”

There was a hush in the chamber. A pall had come over the room.

The judge sat for a moment speechless, and then asked the attorneys to approach the bench. There was some serious looking glances and whispers, and then eventually we were all told we could go.

Just like that.

From what I’ve glimmered, I had ‘tainted’ the jury when I said ‘the Second Amendment’. The prosecutor was likely intending to use the gun itself as the crime. And by proclaiming that our right to own guns was the very cornerstone of American freedom, I guess the prosecutor felt the trial was lost before it even began.

[heh]

What a smugly stupid moron! He portrays his self-serving, narcissistic behavior as a triumph of some sort, when in truth it is a disastrous, self-inflicted defeat for both justice and a free society. If this jackass is ever arrested, karma will be well-served if he finds himself facing a jury of avid gun controllers and is convicted on every count. Instead of doing his civic duty and upholding the Second Amendment he cited with such self-satisfaction, he ensured that the prosecution would get a second crack at packing a jury with anti-gun jurors.

The Right's idolatry of individualism is shortsighted and strategically disastrous. It is the philosophy of the crack addict, the rent boy, the cam whore, and the flytipper. It is the mindset of the parasite and the grasshopper. And it is not compatible with civilization, let alone advanced Western civilization.

Not all collectivisms are equal. Identity politics are not communism. Defending your family and your nation, and working to advance their interests, is not wrong, it is the very sort of normal human behavior that created Western civilization. I could not have created Infogalactic alone. I could not have built Castalia House alone. Arkhaven is a collective effort.

We cannot save civilization by running around like a bunch of headless chickens doing our best to avoid any and every responsibility to others.

The cyclical curse

A paper from 2007 (PDF) explains some of the negative civilizational developments that we have been observing over the last decade. And events quite clearly appear to have proven his thesis largely correct.

The Population Cycle Drives Human History – from a Eugenic Phase into a Dysgenic Phase and Eventual Collapse

by Volkmar Weiss

In the period before the onset of demographic transition from large to small families, when fertility rates were positively associated with income levels, Malthusian pressure gave an evolutionary advantage to individuals whose characteristics were positively correlated with child quality and hence higher IQ, increasing in such a way the frequency of underlying genes in the population. As the fraction of individuals of higher quality increased, technological progress intensified. Positive feedback between technological progress and the level of education reinforced the growth process, setting the stage for an industrial revolution that facilitated an endogenous take-off from the Malthusian trap. The population density rose and with it social and political friction, especially important at the top of the social pyramid. Thus, from a certain turning point of history, the well-to-do have fewer children than the poor.

Once the economic environment improves sufficiently, the evolutionary pressure weakens, and on the basis of spreading egalitarian ideology and general suffrage the quantity of people gains dominance over quality. At present, we have already reached the phase of global human capital deterioration as the necessary prerequisite for a global collapse by which the overpopulated earth will probably decimate those of mediocre IQ.

On the one hand, this will present opportunities for the cognitive elite. On the other, the downward trajectory of society and civilization is almost certainly going to increase as time goes on, IQ continues to decline, and the r/selected increasingly outnumber the K/selected. The welfare system was bad enough, but combining it with low-quality mass immigration is fatal. The longer the negative cycle persists, the more likely it is that the people of the West will eventually have to choose between utterly ruthless eugenics and total civilizational collapse.

When we look at the history of past high civilisations, it is noticeable that it was a long time before internal decay lead to final collapse (Knaul, 1985). From a certain point on there were nearly only failures. The economy stagnated and the finances of the state and of the cities fell more and more into disorder. The number of people depending on welfare rose from year to year, although each new ruler declared it an aim to lower this number. The security of the citizens was no longer guaranteed; the relationship between man and woman had likewise changed as had the relationship between young and old. The whole society seemed to be stricken by an illness and incapable of making and implementing rational and necessary decisions. Although nobody wanted the decline, the states and their inhabitants accepted policies that steered themselves into an abyss in such a way, as though they had no other goal than falling into the abyss. Today, our situation is similar.

Indeed.

A first look

Arkhaven Comics has sent us an exclusive first look at the cover for Quantum Mortis: A Man Disrupted #3.
- Bounding Into Comics

And so we have....

While we're on the subject of Arkhaven, a new video review of Alt-Hero #1: Crackdown.

QUANTUM MORTIS A Man Disrupted #3: A Secret Love is now available on Kindle and KU.

Chief Warrant Officer Graven Tower is a ruggedly handsome military policeman who hates aliens. Fortunately, as a member of His Grace's Military Crimes Investigation Division - Xenocriminology and Alien Relations, he gets to arrest a lot of them. Sometimes he even gets to shoot them.

Chief Tower and Detector Derin Hildreth of the Trans Paradis Police Department are investigating the murder of the Crown Prince of Morchard, but they have not been able to determine a motive for the crime or identify any suspects. So when a royal assistant comes forward with information about the prince's secret life, they don't hesitate to pursue the lead into the heart of the wealthy interplanetary establishment.

Twitter to FAYS: hold my beer

Twitter isn't content with losing money and hemorrhaging users, so they're going to drive even more people away just to prove that no one, not Facebook, not Apple, not YouTube, not Spotify, can speech-police more enthusiastically than Twitter does:

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday signaled a coming change to his company’s speech policies, following pressure from his own employees

• Some Twitter employees are unhappy that Twitter has yet to join Facebook, Spotify, Apple and YouTube in banning right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones
• Twitter is planning to accelerate a crackdown on “hate speech” and is looking to evaluate whether to punish users for “off-platform behavior,” according to a company-wide email sent on Wednesday
• Twitter is planning to accelerate changes to the company’s speech policies after a backlash from its own employees who want the company to ban right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, responding to a critical tweet from a Twitter engineer, said Wednesday he is “not happy” with Twitter’s current policies, which he said need to “evolve.”

Twitter vice president Del Harvey also sent a company-wide email Wednesday pledging to accelerate Twitter’s efforts to crack down on “dehumanizing hate speech,” in the wake of internal “conversations” about Jones.

Harvey noted that Twitter also plans to evaluate whether the company needs to better police “off-platform behavior.”

It's clearly time to revive the blasphemy laws, many of which are still on the books. Now, here's the interesting thing about Twitter's rules and policies. According to their own policies, they should start banning their own employees for abusive behavior in their attempt to silence Alex Jones.

Live with Jesse Lee

I'll be on with Jesse Lee Peterson at 3 PM EST. The stream is here.

Mailvox: escaping the gatekeepers

Now that William F. Buckley is dead and no one reads National Review anymore, new gatekeepers are needed to keep conservatives on the farm:

The more I examine Conservative positions (that I used to hold) the angrier I get.

I've been paying a bit of attention to an Ultra Cuckservative on Twitter for a few weeks.

His name is Charlie Kirk and he runs a Conservative group called Turning Point.

He posted this on Twitter just last night:

"Fringe ethno-nationalist racial identitarians have NO PLACE in the conservative movement - we reject them!"

Every post from this clown is the same old Basic B Conservative Boilerplate we've seen for decades. He's constantly tweeting about Blacks. Never mentions white people.

I suspect he's propped up, too. He's only 24 years old, I never even heard of this guy two years ago, but he has nearly 700K twitter followers and has managed to establish a fairly major think-tanky style operation.

Propped-up? Just because he hasn't been kicked off Twitter, he's barely out of college, and he has a well-funded think tank is no reason to be suspicious. He's probably just whip-smart and DEMOLISHES liberals with his tweets.

Anyhow, neither identitarians nor nationalists have any place in the conservative movement, since the conservative movement never conserved anything, least of all America.

The birth of the White American Party

Even the true conservative's conservative, John Hawkins, is beginning to embrace the inevitable logic of the Alt-Right:

Liberalism is now full of people like Sarah Jeong who are excused for nursing racial grievances despite the fact that they are influential, privileged, and by any reasonable standard much more powerful than the average person. These are people who aim hatred toward white people because of the color of their skin, and then we’re told that they can’t be racist because minorities have no power in a country where a black man just spent eight years as president of the United States. Jesse Jackson has no power? Al Sharpton? Ta-Nehisi Coates? Julian Bond? Leonard Pitts? Marc Lamont Hill? Charles Blow? Cornel West? Shaun King? Aiming hatred at white people is an industry in the United States and it pays well in money and attention.  That’s why it’s such a growing field on the Left.

So, if you’re someone who is hated by a political party because of your skin color, what do you do about that?

Liberals certainly express a point of view about what minorities should do in that situation. They habitually falsely accuse Republicans of hating minorities and then say that means those voters are crazy if they don’t vote for them. Of course, their claim is not true. Conservatives overwhelmingly believe in judging people as individuals, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Still, this is how Democrats approach this issue.

So, should white people abandon the Democrats who hate their guts? Yes, they should. Why vote for someone who defends people who hate you because of the color of your skin? Why should any individual have to be a groveling apologist because he was born a certain color? Why support a party that is prejudiced against your white child because of the color of his skin?  These guys are aiming the same kind of hate at white people as their ancestors used to do at black Americans -- and if you’re a white American who just shrugs your shoulders at that, you’re foolish.

You often hear this debate in America about whether people are “voting in their own interest.” If you are white, how is it in your interest to vote for a party full of people who denigrate you not because of your actions, but because of your race? How is it in your interest to support people who openly blame you for the problems in their lives because of your race and discount all of your hard-earned achievements because of imaginary “white privilege”? How is it in your interest to support people who gleefully say it will be a better country when more people like you are gone?

Apparently it's no longer a moral imperative to cuckishly posture about how color-blind and totally not racist you are, and how much you would LOVE to vote for a black candidate when doing so doesn't even slow down the "liberal" attack dogs in their determined attempts to eradicate you. The next, and final, step for the likes of Mr. Hawkins is to realize that it isn't "liberals" who are firmly prejudiced against whites, but non-whites pursuing their own competing interests.

Identity politics are now in effect. Get used to it and behave accordingly. The political system in the USA is now just like every other multinational political system in history. Defend your own, advance your own, or lose.

They don't care about your adopted Negro son. They don't care about your Chinese best friend. They don't care that you voted for Alan Keyes or Hermain Cain or even Barack Obama. They don't care about your virtue-signaling or your virtue. They don't care what you think, what you do, or who you are. You are wearing the uniform of the enemy and you are in their way, so you are the enemy.

Consider this. Did any American soldier, throughout the entire course of World War II, ever stop to inquire of a German soldier his personal position on the invasion of Poland or how he voted concerning the Austrian Anschluss referendum of 1938 before shooting at him? That's about how much the average Chinese-American, African-American, Somali-American, Persian-American, or Jewish-American thinks about what a genuine white Christian American happens to believe.

The various tribes inhabiting the USA pursue their own interests, as humans have done since the dawn of time. You would be well-advised to do the same.

Science skepticism is well-justified

It makes sense that so much science appears to follow politics rather than, as people like to pretend, the other way around:

Research confirms that every decade since 1974, conservatives’ trust in scientists has decreased. But little has been done to explore why. Some suggest that conservatives are less likely to accept data that “threatens their worldview,” note Confas and his team.

But Confas told Campus Reform that this is a misguided approach. If anything, he said, published research indicates that liberals and conservatives are equally likely to discredit science if it conflicts with their world-view. Confas and his research team propose a different explanation. They suggest that increasing levels of skepticism towards scientific institutions is partly a reaction to the politicization—namely, the liberalization—of these institutions.

The distrust is not driven by all scientists, but rather by what Confas and his team refer to as “impact scientists.” These are researchers, typically working in the social sciences and environmental science, who often conduct research with the stated goal of raising awareness of left-liberal issues, or acceptance of left-liberal policy solutions.

“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction,” explains Confas. He points to the field of sociology as an example. A recent study surveying 479 sociology professors discovered that only 4 percent identify as conservative or libertarian, while 86 percent identify as liberal or left-radical.

The unstated goal of sociology, Confas suggests, “involves reorganizing society to fight inequality, oppression, poverty, hierarchy, and the like. Its ideological orientation arose out of…civil rights, feminism, Marxism, and other progressive movements.”

Most sociologists would claim, in good faith, to be objective. But emerging research suggests that the political slant in the field is corrupting objectivity, due to a variety of issues including confirmation bias and scholar-activism in the field.

“Taking the easy route isn’t something that I or my coauthors are tempted to do. We want to do our part to help correct the science,” Confas told Campus Reform. “Conservatives are right to be skeptical,” he added. “Take any politicized issue that is connected to some disagreement about scientific fact. I do not believe there is a single case in the last couple decades where a major scientific organization took a position that went against the platform of the Democratic Party.”

“What an odd coincidence that ‘science’ always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview,” Confas observed.

So politics drives science, especially when the scientists are dependent upon government funding to pay their bills. The observable fact is that science is absolutely and utterly untrustworthy; as a "truth mechanism", it's not as reliable as flipping a coin. As I have pointed out on several occasions, we have a word for science that is reliable, and that word is "engineering".

And let's face it, this would hardly be the first time that the "I love science" Left had the causality reversed.

Unbelievable

California prosecutors drop all charges against violent Antifa professor:

BREAKING: California Prosecutors drop major charges against violent Antifa gang member Eric Clanton who assaulted Trump supporter with deadly weapon - OAN

It looks like they really want war. There is not even a pretense of maintaining a civilized, law-abiding society anymore. This, by the way, is what post-Christianity looks like.

A very poor job

That's the only way I can describe my ongoing attempts to avoid the media, at least this week. I'll be going on with Alex Jones today at 1PM Central, and with Jesse Lee Peterson tomorrow. You can probably imagine what Alex and I will be discussing. Please note that these appearances do not mean that I have changed my mind about interviews or that I want to be inundated with podcast requests and so forth.

Anyhow, I discussed the recent banning of Infowars from Youtube and the other social media platforms on, ironically enough, Youtube the other day.

The problem is that a lot of people took the bite from the apple, you know, it was tempting to use the platforms that they offer you. It was tempting to use Twitter because Twitter allowed people like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec and many others to quickly build up audiences much more rapidly than they could do in an organic fashion on their own platforms. So the problem is nobody bothered to do it, everybody wanted to use these platforms that were constructed because they made it easy for you.

Well, guess what, it's not easy anymore, so what? There's a lot of us who have been dealing with this stuff for over ten years. If you're a right-winger who happened to write fiction, you've been banned from most publishing houses for about the last 15 years, all right, so none of this is new. I mean, people sometimes ask how come you're so calm about this, that, and the other thing, and it's because I'm not surprised by any of this. All of this was inevitable. The moment that they felt that they were sufficiently in control, they were going to act like this, and so you know that the time for taking advantage of playing around and using their platforms is over.

25 and counting

The Sweden Democrats are defeating all the pro-immigrant, pro-globalist mainstream parties:

An anti-immigration and anti-globalist party is set to win Sweden’s general election next month by a landslide, according to the latest polls.

The right-wing Sweden’s Democrats (SD) will win 25.5 per cent of voters, according to a Sentio poll, making them Sweden’s largest political party.

Voiceofeurope.com reports: Secondly, the Social Democrats are 21.1 per cent, also a marginal decrease from 21.2 per cent. In the latest survey, the Moderates increased to 19.1 per cent.

Liberals, however, decreased from 5.8 per cent to 4.6 per cent. Even the Centre Party decreased to 6.9 per cent.

The Christian Democrats are dropping from 4 per cent to 2.4 per cent.

Environmental parties have lost favour by 3.9 per cent.

I wrote this in January:

Nationalism intensifies. The Sweden Democrats growing vote share:

1998: 0.4%
2002: 1.4%
2006: 2.9%
2010: 5.7%
2014: 12.9%
2018: I expect 30%+ 

The challenge, as the True Finns learned after getting their little first taste of power, is to not permit any power to be given to the cucks and moderates who gravitate to the winners. Going back on your promises under the guise of being responsible and respectable is the fastest way for an insurgent party to lose all of that sweet, heady public support and disappear.

"An absolute buy"

"Chuck Dixon's Avalon is an absolute buy for 3 bucks!"

A video review of Chuck Dixon's Avalon #1: The Street Rules. You can pick up the gold logo edition, and our other print editions, at Arkhaven Direct.

There will be no "Blue Wave"

There is no upset in Ohio:

Troy Balderson (R) has 50.2 percent of the vote with 100% of precincts in, compared to 49.3 percent for Danny O'Connor (D). 

The Trump Derangement Syndrome we saw after the election is only going to get worse when the Republicans hold the House in November.

The Republicans have now won 8 out of 9 House Seats, yet if you listen to the Fake News Media you would think we are being clobbered. Why can’t they play it straight, so unfair to the Republican Party and in particular, your favorite President!
- President Donald Trump

Media training

This is an excerpt from a member of a very large organization that is often the subject of media attention and has the need to train all its members on how to deal with the media.

1. Always be polite and smile.
2. Simply don't return calls, or if they get your number, say no thank you and hang up.
3. If you are rude, shout at them, be a smart ass, or are anything but polite, they now have their story about you.
4. Their final attempt may be an ambush where walking out of your home where you are harrassed with a microphone in your face. If this happens, ask who they are, where they work, and what they want. Then repeat while smiling, "You seem very nice, but I can't talk right now as I have to get to an appointment. I have your number and will call you later. Thank you. You seem nice." Walk backwards a little, keep saying how nice the journalist is. Then leave and never speak to them again.

NEVER say "No Comment". No Comment = guilty.

NEVER yell at them. They will play that clip 1000 times a day.

NEVER be rude. They will let the world know.

Tell them how nice and wonderful they are and they have NO STORY. The goal is for them to have NO STORY.

They will simply make up a story anyhow, but they will have to do so without any quotes or an interview. It will therefore be limited in its effectiveness.

Coming out strong

“If you’re looking at the expansion of the market, we keep on seeing new companies being introduced every day.  They seem to be coming out with a much stronger amount of content, right coming out of the gate. It’s not a slow buildup, these guys are coming out on the ground running.”
- DC Comics Publisher Dan DiDio

This is what he's talking about.

If you haven't caught the Arkstream yet, you may want to check it out to see what's coming next. And don't miss our latest releases: Alt-Hero #3 from Arkhaven and Rebel Dead Revenge #3 from Dark Legion.

Delete your Facebook account NOW

Forget the thought policing. Forget the Infowars ban. Facebook is going to get a LOT worse very soon.

The social-media giant has asked large U.S. banks to share detailed financial information about their customers, including card transactions and checking-account balances, as part of an effort to offer new services to users.

Facebook increasingly wants to be a platform where people buy and sell goods and services, besides connecting with friends. The company over the past year asked JPMorgan Chase JPM 0.03% & Co., Wells Fargo WFC 0.10% & Co., Citigroup Inc. C 0.01% and U.S. Bancorp USB 0.04% to discuss potential offerings it could host for bank customers on Facebook Messenger, said people familiar with the matter.

At this point, if you're still on Facebook, you're not merely putting your children's privacy at risk and aiding and abetting your would-be destroyer, you're downright stupid. I've never been banned from Facebook, I used it sparingly at best, and I got rid of my account anyhow. The ability to indirectly exchange pictures with your extended family or cyberstalk your high school boyfriend just isn't worth it.

If you need to have group communications, get on Idka. If you want more conventional social media, try Oneway. Or go radio dark if that suits you. But regardless, at the very least, deactivate your Facebook account and encourage your friends and family to do the same. It's not going to get better.

Don't ever talk to the media

No matter WHO you are, no matter WHERE you live. And definitely don't permit them to visit your home and get "an in-depth idea of your circumstances". They will use it against you and publicize it in the hope that it will somehow harm you.

When the Vice reporter came in January 2018, I showed them around Shenzhen for three days. During this visit, I brought the reporter to my home, long enough for the reporter to get an in-depth idea of my circumstances. In my home, I worked on an automated bartender project I had built for a friends bar- to address with the best possible evidence the ongoing Internet smear campaign against me that only a White man could do work like mine. All this was apparently not juicy enough for Vice. Frankly, it’s very rare I get accused of not being click-baity enough just being myself.

The Vice reporter returned home to NYC and in the following week began to ask the questions about my personal life it had been agreed were off limits. I was given the “opportunity” to address anonymous 4chan/Reddit speculation about my personal life from the ongoing harassment campaign against me- or look guilty in silence. This is not professional, this is not journalism:

Even the most basic level of professionalism was too much to ask of Vice- and yet they want to hide behind the title of “journalists” and claim to be above any accountability, when they are nothing of the kind.

The media and mainstream journalists are, without question, the enemy of the people. The God-Emperor should take a page from the People's Republic of China and simply start arresting them en masse... as we are informed he will be doing shortly, and with good cause.

She also reveals how the notorious New York Times racist Sarah Jeong is a lying, deceptive, and unprincipled bitch:

With the platform that journalism gave her amplifying that power, sent on behalf of the exact sort of “privileged White man” she claims to despise, she went out to destroy another Asian woman. All while knowing full well the issue was far more complex than she was pretending, the facts completely different- and simply not caring. Not then, not in the following months when it became clear to more and more people just how badly she had abused her power, her education, her profession, and her privilege.

The President of the United States is absolutely right. The media is the enemy. But as Naomi Wu's story demonstrates, they are not just the enemy of the American people, they are the enemies of humanity. I used to think journalists were brave and heroic, but now that I have direct experience of their deceptions and dishonesties, now that I see through their self-serving self-portrayals, I'm afraid I will remain entirely dry-eyed when one or more of them are publicly sacrificed in the false flag for which the media is already preparing the anti-Q narrative.

The truth is we don't need journalists anymore. The ubiquity of smartphones and video recording equipment renders them utterly moot, especially since they primarily serve as gatekeepers and propaganda agents, not conduits of truthful and relevant information.

Darkstream: Scott Adams and the Power of Q

From the transcript of the Darkstream.

Scott Adams was talking about how the whole Q thing was bad for MAGA. Now that sounds very cryptic, but what he's talking about is how he is concerned, like a lot of middle-of-the-road folks and moderates, he is concerned that talking about conspiracy theory is going to turn off, confuse, and disenchant people who might otherwise be inclined to support making America great again. Now this is the conventional moderate talk, all right, moderates always think that the secret to success is appealing to the moderates. You know, they always always do this. Back when Ronald Reagan was a candidate, before he won the nomination, we heard the same sort of reasoning, if you're going to win you need to move to the center. Okay that is the conventional wisdom, and again and again and again,  political history proves that to be wrong.

Chasing the moderates is actually the way to ensure that you, number one,  will probably lose, and, number two, if you do win you're not going to be able to do anything. Moderates above all fear change, all moderates want is to stick with the status quo, and so you know running to the center, it's exactly what the elder George Bush did and that was part of why he managed to lose. So when you look at any advice about politics that worries excessively about marketing, about brand,  about turning people off and all that sort of thing, you need to look at it with this very skeptical eye, because most of the time it is not coming from a rational point of political analysis,  it's not coming from an observation and application of political history,  it's simply coming from the moderate's distaste for anything that normal people might look at with a skeptical eye.

Now, the reality is people follow strength. People follow truth as long as it is fearlessly and forcefully spoken. We see this all around the world and we've seen this all through history. Those who stand up and speak the truth tend to meet with very positive reactions because people have a tendency to recognize the truth when they hear it.

If you think about it, what has Q accomplished? What is the primary consequence of Q, has it resulted in more or less confidence in the system? Has it caused people to embrace or reject the FBI, the CIA. and the professional Deep State. Has it appealed to the mainstream media or has it frightened the mainstream media? Okay, those are the questions that are relevant. Who Q happens to be and whether everything that Q says is 100 percent accurate or not, you know, these things are not even relevant points, they're not even relevant questions.

Review of Alt-Hero #3

Bounding Into Comics reviews AH#3: Reprisal:

Even with its slower pace, the world that’s being expanded on in Alt-Hero #3 is an interesting one and this issue, more than any before it, sends some harrowing echoes throughout its universe that will, eventually, come to an explosive head. I am thoroughly interested in seeing how this will all play out and I fully expect to see people switching sides before the end. It echoes with shades of the best parts of Marvel’s Civil War storyline (the first one, not that second one) and anyone who takes the time to invest in this new comic universe will, I believe, be as excited as I am for the future. With art that continues to improve every issue and a handful of conflicted heroes fighting for what they believe is right, Arkhaven Comics has a great thing going with Alt-Hero. Issue #3 is less exciting, but no less satisfying.

Read the whole thing there. You know Arkhaven is already beginning to make an impact because the goalposts are moving and now the fake reviews are starting to appear. It should be amusing to see how they react to our next big action, which begins very soon.

Pretty Bad Stuff
By Amazon Customer on August 6, 2018
I'm not sure why this exists. It's a bad imitation of super hero comics from the early 90s with a hefty dose of cooky right wing flavor. If you'd like to read some decent comics with a right leaning bent, I'd suggest Frank Miller or some of Alan Moore's stuff. Their writing is not only masterful, but their politics have purpose - not just, "We miss big breasts in comics and are mad about 'SJWs'", which seems to be the main thrust of this series.

If you hate SJWs more than you like good comics, you'll love this book.
By D.I .on July 29, 2018
If the fact that the name is a reference to the "alt-right" is a selling point for you then you will pick up the book and claim it is "refreshing" because the hero is a straight white male who is awesome. Fine whatever, there are totally NONE OF THOSE in comics. If you want to read something that makes you feel good about hating SJWs it's a great book. If you want to read a good superhero comic book and don't care about politics read literally anything else. Pick up any random trade of Superman, Batman, Spider-Man (all straight white men if it matters) and you get ten times​ better stories.


In other comics-related news, congratulations to Brandon Fiadino, whose Chicago Typewriter: The Red Ribbon was nominated for a Dragon Award in the Best Graphic Novel category!

Best Graphic Novel

• Chicago Typewriter: The Red Ribbon by Brandon Fiadino, Djibril Morissette-Phan, and James Greatorex, Dark Legion Comics
• Brandon Sanderson’s White Sand Volume 1 by Brandon Sanderson, Rik Hoskin, and Julius M. Gopez, Dynamite Entertainment
• Be Prepared by Vera Brosgol
• Monstress Vol. 2: The Blood by Marjorie M. Liu, Sana Takeda, Image Comics
• Vision (The Vision) by Tom King, Gabriel Hernandez Walta, Marvel Comics
• Paper Girls Volume 4 by Brian K. Vaughn and Cliff Chiang, Image Comics

What else did you expect?

I am rolling my eyes at the hysterics that have greeted the news that YouTube has banned the Infowars channel in coordination with Apple and Spotify banning its podcasts and Facebook banning its Facebook page.

Paul Joseph Watson✔@PrisonPlanet
The Alex Jones Channel has been permanently DELETED by YouTube. This is a coordinated PURGE. This is political censorship.

Paul Joseph Watson✔@PrisonPlanet
Apple, Spotify, Facebook and now Google (which owns YouTube) - all within 12 hours of each other. A coordinated purge. This is a total abuse of power.

BFD and book-freaking-hoo. When Alex asked me what the next step would be, I told him that they would be deplatforming the Right and attempting to defund it. This was not merely predictable, it was obvious. This is the exact opposite of a surprise. Complaining and crying about it will accomplish precisely nothing.

This is why we have to build our own platforms, as I have been advising for years. This is why you are shortsighted and strategically-challenged if you allow yourself to be dependent in any way on the platforms of your enemy, even if doing so maximizes your profits and is in your immediate short-term interests.

UPDATE: Before anyone starts worrying that I've been banned by Facebook, I deactivated my account myself. I would have deleted it, but the damned DELETE ACCOUNT page would not load no matter which browser I tried. I'll delete it when I get the chance.

Why Infogalactic matters

Wikipedia, as you would expect, is whitewashing the Sarah Jeong page:

The BBC, which is generally considered a WP:RS around these parts, reports:

The New York Times has defended a new member of its editorial board who wrote racist tweets about white people.[1]
I fail to see why this would not be included in the article. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

*** @XavierItzm: I have changed your comment, since the BBC changed the article today. For anyone wondering, the BBC used to say "racist" but now says "inflammatory". You can see somewhere below where I criticize this decision by the BBC, but if they changed it, we have to respect that. wumbolo ^^^ 16:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted this Orwellian change. Changing someone else's comment on a talk page is not acceptable.2600:1012:B147:F1EA:F559:8E27:8070:B4CB (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anyone disagreeing that the tweets are in fact racist. At the very least, we could insert a sentence that says: "Sarah Jeong become the subject of widespread criticism in the media in early August 2018 when, upon her hiring by the New York Times Editorial Board, it was discovered that she had posted a series of racist Twitter messages disparaging white people." I don't think any of that is disputed in any way at this point.Ikjbagl (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Support inclusion of your sentence as proposed and using the BBC as source. Remember, the page has been locked up and a condition has been imposed that consensus on the sentence and source must be reached. XavierItzm (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Whereas I still think the above contribution would have been fine, its simple one-sentence statement of fact was never greenlighted by the powers that be and instead got derailed by suggestions of having an entire paragraph. So now I support an alternate proposal below. Cheers to all. XavierItzm (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Just adding that my response here could be used to add two or three more sources to back up that the criticism was "widespread", with no fewer than 10 major news organizations reporting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#I_think_that_the_controversy_of_Jeong's_Tweets_should_be_mentioned%2E Ikjbagl (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that additional sources could be added later. However, let's not muddy the waters and see if consensus can be reached. XavierItzm (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Support sentence proposed Conveys what occurred concisely, with the article in the BBC I think its nigh impossible to describe the event as not noteworthy. SWL36 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding noteworthiness, the story is now on the Front Page of BBC.com/news, archive link here https://web.archive.org/web/20180803003558/https://www.bbc.com/news Ikjbagl (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per the above stated reasons for waiting to decide whether this should be included at all, and if yes per the sources, then how it should be characterized. We remain WP:NOTNEWS. We look at how a group of sources deal with a topic; decide if it merits inclusion in an encyclopedic account of, in this case, the subject's biography; then summarize the significant viewpoint or viewspoints. Reiterating the BBC's version is what news aggregation sites do. We're not that. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the not news point about Wikipedia, but I disagree with your characterization. All of the reputable sources linked so far deal with the subject in the same way. This single news event is more notable by Wikipedia's own (secondary-source based) standards than the rest of this person's career. The other secondary source mentions of her up to this point have all been in blogs, University blogs or lesser known websites (though she was cited by Forbes), and she now has an article on every major news website related to this incident. She has also had a multitude more edits to her page in the past day than she has had in her career. Waiting to see if the event "becomes" notable makes less sense when the event is already more notable than the rest of her page so far constructed. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I sure would like to work on expanding the rest of it but unfortunately I'll have to do so by edit request for now! Meanwhile. The number of edits has no bearing, really. We don't make decisions based on popularity. Other points: the term "racist" is definitely not being used universally; ABC, WashPost, and USNews use the expression "derogatory". CNN calls "disparaging" and notes many people defending Jeong call them "satirical". Who knows where it will land when the dust settles--if anywhere worth noting. Beyond word choice, your note above saying I don't think any of that is disputed in any way at this point is just the issue: as WP:NOTNEWS, we're not aiming to post an update "at this point" (which would be appropriate, for a news site!), we're trying to decide if an event is rates a mention of an encyclopedic bio, which I don't think we can see on a subject like this after one day. I'm not saying this should definitely never be addressed; I'm only saying WP:CRYSTAL applies in understanding the significance of this, or not, in the bigger picture. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Innisfree987 argues that "Reiterating the BBC's version is what news aggregation sites do," as if the BBC were unique in reporting these facts, as if the Beeb were somehow fringe, when in fact, up until yesterday, the BBC was considered a gold standard among WP:RS around the Wikipedia. Innisfree987 also implies that the BBC is somehow unique, when there are other WP:RSs saying the exact same thing.

Infogalactic gives you the power to decide upon the relevant facts for yourself: Sarah Jeong. It would be nice if conservatives would simply use Infogalactic instead of constantly whining about Wikipedia doing what Wikipedia always does.

Speaking of stealth-editing, Christina Hoff Sommers notes that there’s “No mention of Sarah Jeong’s demented tweets on her Wikipedia page. Why? A little group of activist editors won’t allow it. Amazing. See them in action here.”

Why? Because the 500+ Wikipedia Admins are all SJWs and they have no intention of allowing any information on Wikipedia that will damage anyone on the Left if they can help it. Speaking of Infogalactic, we're making some changes to the server that should increase performance considerably on certain tasks. So, if it feels faster to you, you're not imagining it.

Just another skull

John Scalzi laments that the Evil Legion of Evil has shown people across the Right that there is no information value in rhetoric and that SJWs exist solely for the skull-taking:

It’s really frustrating to me that more people don’t understand that racist/alt-right people have gamified their rhetoric; they’re not interested in discussion, they’re slapping down cards from a “Debate: The Gathering” stack, and the only goal is taking heads.

They gamify their rhetoric because essentially this shit is a low-stake game for them, whereas for other people it’s their actual lives. That’s an advantage they have. If they lose, they shuffle their cards and go on to the next thing. If others lose, their life takes a hit.

And because their rhetorical strategy is essentially card-based, actual knowledge of issues is unimportant and probably a hinderance. They don’t want or need to understand the issues that affect others, they just need you to play their game so they can win.

I don’t have time anymore to diddle about with children who think other people’s lives are some sort of turn-based game, especially when all they want is to hurt other people. And it bothers me more people, especially those with power, don’t understand this shit.

I’m not going to tell people not to engage with these chuckleheads. But don’t engage with them on their terms. Engage with them on your own. One, they hate that, and two, it exposes what they’re doing as a pointless, hateful exercise, and them as awful people.

In sum: Understand what these folks are doing. Refuse to play along. And if you choose, point out to others the hollowness of their game. Because their “game” is to hurt other people, and then go on to the next target. Their game is other people’s lives.

The amusing thing about this is the complete lack of awareness McRapey shows regarding why we have no stakes in their game. We've already been disqualified. We've already been counted out. We've already been expelled. So we don't give a quantum of a damn for their opinion, their rules, their careers, or their lives any more. We are coming after them, relentlessly, and it costs us absolutely nothing to do so. Indeed, we will profit by it.

We aren't interested in discussion. We aren't interested in debate. And we know they aren't either. They never were. So now we seek only to expose them, to ruin them, and to take their sad little skulls as trophies. Metaphorically, of course. (whistles innocently, kicks a suspiciously round object out of view of the webcam)

It doesn't matter how they engage with us. It doesn't matter if they engage with us. We are winning and we are going to continue to win until they are no more. We're not locked in here with them, they are locked in here with us. And the VFM are hungry.

UPDATE: RIP Whatever:

So, I don’t know if you know this, but next month will mark the 20th anniversary of the existence of Whatever. This is a fact that among other things is causing me both practical and existential reflection on what this place is, and what it means to me, and what is the best way to keep doing it moving forward, particularly in an age where “blogs” are not the center of online gravity that they used to be.... I’m not calling it an official hiatus mostly because I have enough going on that it doesn’t make sense to go away completely, but I also don’t want y’all to worry if you don’t see me posting a lot here between now and September.

WE. ARE. AMUSED. Everyone who remembers the old school blogosphere knows what this post means.

Alt★Hero #3: Reprisal

Alt★Hero #3: Reprisal is now on Amazon. Kindle and KU editions are available.

Michael Martel and the mysterious Immotus have freed Shiloh Summers from the UN's Superhuman Protective Council, but now Security Director Kulkarni is determined to track them down. So when SPC agents take her mother and father into custody as official persons of interest, Shiloh and her new friends face a difficult choice: fight to free them or find another way to convince the SPC to let them go.

From the first reviews:

• Every issue of this series is improving on the last. 
• Been following this latest insurgency in the culture war with mild interest. But they finally got me actually hooked. Art quality has jumped up a notch or three, and the story is starting to go somewhere. 
• Better than Civil War! Even at their best, back in the old days when Marvel and DC delved into politics and social commentary, they were not as gripping and thought-provoking as this! 
• Story is AAA! This one was freakin' goooooood! Best yet of the Arkhaven comics releases. Already, after a total of four issues in this universe (3 Alt-Hero, one Avalon) we're starting to see an interconnected web. The plot is racing ahead. These characters, these stories, this setting... It is going to be big. Huge. Epic.
• This is writing one hardly sees in comics anymore, and it's a slice of awesome. I thought issue 2 was good, but this in many ways is better. And once again, stellar artwork.

One note for backers: the credits page of the backer editions that first went out does NOT have the correct name of the next issue. It turned out that we were considerably further along on a different issue, so the name of Issue #4 is THE WAR IN PARIS.

The inaugural ARKSTREAM also contains a quick look at some of Arkhaven's future plans. As for Issue #3, it looks as if we're off to a good start. Three of the top four bestsellers in the category, and four of the top ten, are from Arkhaven. Thanks for your strong support!

Never trust a (((conservative)))

Perfidious fake conservative (((Jennifer Rubin))) urges the future shunning of the White House Press Secretary:

Conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin tore into White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Sunday, saying she should be shunned from her next job for her false and misleading claims.

“Sarah Huckabee Sanders is so concerned that people aren’t nice to her,” Rubin told MSNBC’s Joy Reid on "AM Joy." “And people like me think that — not that she should be harassed — but that she should be shunned. The reason is that she lies. She attacks our free press and no respectable employer should hire her after this term,” Rubin continued. “Also, no university and no news outlet. She has lied and she has endangered the lives of reporters and that’s why she should be shunned. Not harassed — shunned.”

Earlier this week, the columnist declared in a scathing editorial that the GOP “isn’t fit to govern.”

If lying is justification for being shunned, then why is anyone on the planet talking to Rubin? Before moving into fake conservative opinion writing to derail Republicans, Rubin was "a labor and employment lawyer in Los Angeles, working for Hollywood studios, for 20 years."

Rubin is as legitimately of the political Right as Richard Dawkins is an evangelical Christian. And she's as about as American as Li Keqiang.

Darkstream: Generation Shapiro or Generation Zyklon?

From the transcript of the Darkstream:

I didn't really think about Shapiro at all until 2005, when I dubbed him the Littlest Chickenhawk, and the reason I did so - remember this is back in 2005 okay - and what Shapiro did, despite the fact that he was of an age to join the military, he wrote and claimed that invading Iraq and invading Iran and basically invading the entire Middle East and establishing an American empire that would be democratic was the most most vital issue of our time. It was the absolute priority for the United States of America, and yet he didn't join the military! It was more important for him to go to college and go to law school. I mean, this is the literal definition of a chickenhawk, somebody who demands the country go to war but refuses to do so himself.

So back in 2005 I dubbed him the Littlest Chickenhawk after he tried to justify himself and defend himself and it was absolutely, totally inept. Totally unconvincing, you know, and it really astonished me that anyone took him seriously after that. I mean, Shapiro has no intellectual integrity at all! He prides himself, his supporters talk about how he's supposed to be this fearsome debater, he's written a little pamphlet on how to destroy liberals in an argument, but here's the thing. He ran away from the opportunity to debate Milo Yiannopoulos. Twice he talked about a general debate challenge, I  contacted him and said, "Ben, I'll be happy to debate you." Once it was on economics, I don't recall what the other one was.

Both times he practically left tracks fleeing in the opposite direction, and so you know the guy is a complete and utter fraud.

Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire. No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world.
– Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, Aug. 11, 2005

The media is the enemy

The God-Emperor makes it perfectly clear for everyone: the media is the enemy of the American people.

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
 The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
“Too bad a large portion of the Media refuses to report the lies and corruption having to do with the Rigged Witch Hunt – but that is why we call them FAKE NEWS!”

I could not agree more. The mainstream media is, without question, the enemy of the American people, and it has been for decades. Literally nothing they do or say is in the interests of the American people. And if the God-Emperor's well-justified criticism of them happens to lead to bad outcomes for journalists, I expect the vast majority of Americans will applaud.

In which I vociferously disagree

While it gives me great pain to publicly take exception with the greatest living science fiction writer, I have no choice but to do so with regards to what these days is an unfortunately all-too-pertinent literary matter:

A reader named Bellomy had a comment of dazzling insight I wanted to reprint by way of applause and emphatic agreement.

I learned the secret to what makes a character a Mary Sue.

You see, being great everything doesn’t make one a Mary Sue. John Carter of Mars is that. Batman is that. Wonder Woman, for a female example, is that.

What makes one a Mary Sue is the fundamental dishonesty in how the character is treated.

No, no, no! A thousand times no! A Mary Sue may well be a fundamentally dishonest character. Certainly most of them are. But a Mary Sue may also be an entirely honest character. The reader named Bellomy is confusing the observable fact that most Mary Sues are fundamentally dishonest characters with the basic nature of the Mary Sue.

The correct definition of the Mary Sue is very straightforward: a Mary Sue is a literary character who is an idealized stand-in for the author.

For example, the commenter HMSLion is correct in identifying Owen Pitt, from the Monster Hunter International novels, as an exemplary Mary Sue. Owen Pitt, the oversized accountant highly skilled with guns, who successfully steals the tall, beautiful dark-haired girl from his wealthy, popular, better-educated and more handsome rival, is a wonderful character because Larry Correia is himself a wonderful character. But there can be no doubt that Owen Pitt began as an unmitigated Mary Sue.

Authors have a tendency to reveal more about themselves than they realize, and often, more than they would like, when they write themselves into their stories. Consider the subconscious confessions contained in the two following quotes:

ITEM #1: She was beautiful. In fact she was possibly the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. She was tall, with dark black hair, light skin, and big brown eyes. Her face was beautiful, not fake beautiful like a model or an actress, because she was obviously a real person, but rather Helen of Troy, launch-a-thousand-ships kind of good-looking. She wore glasses, and I was a sucker for a girl in corrective eyewear. Since I was ugly it was probably some sort of subconscious reaction in the hope that I might have a chance with a cute girl who couldn't see very well. She was dressed in a conservative business suit, but unlike most women I knew, she made it look good. If I were to guess I would have said that she was in her mid-twenties.

"Mr. Pitt?" she asked. Even her voice was pretty. She was a goddess.

I tried to answer, but no words would come out. Talk, idiot! "Um… Hi." Smooth… So far so good, keep going, big guy.

"You can, um… my name is… Owen. My friends call me Z. Because of my middle name. It starts with a Z. Or whatever works for you. Come in. Please!"

Well, so much for smooth.

ITEM #2: I could not help but gloat a little as I smiled for my nemesis. Grant Jefferson. The smug bastard had only been able to do it in 2.5, which was still pretty respectable, but not even close to as fast as mine. And the best part was that he knew it. He was the one who said my first run had been a fluke. Grant was not used to being bested at anything. I enjoyed watching as he stomped off in frustration. He did not like me, and the feeling was mutual. I handed the shotgun over for the next shooter.

Grant was no Newbie. He was a full-fledged member of MHI, and also one of our instructors, though he was the junior man on Harbinger's team. He had only come out to shoot in the hopes of showing us poor folks how it was done. Grant was totally my opposite. Lean and handsome, witty, charming, a product of the finest schools, and descended from the oldest established (as in super wealthy) New England families. He even had nice hair. He was the type of person everybody liked, and everybody wanted to be liked by.

I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. I thought he was a pompous ass from the moment I had met him, and I felt the primal and instinctual need to beat him up and take his lunch money.

But the real reason that I hated his guts was that he was Julie Shackleford's boyfriend.

Now, would you like to bet against the surmise that there are real-life analogues to Julie Shackleford and Grant Jefferson? I would not recommend it. The line about "fake beautiful like a model" is particularly informative. Of course, as Larry Correia has improved as a writer, he is no longer reliant upon his own experiences and emotions to create credible characters, which is why Owen Pitt has grown beyond his origins as a Mary Sue.

The reason that most Mary Sues are dishonest is because most authors are not interesting and accomplished individuals like Larry Correia. Therefore, in order to make their characters appear attractive, successful, and interesting, they have no choice but to present them in a dishonest fashion, winning every argument and succeeding in every challenge with the greatest of ease. But that does not make a dishonest character, like Rey from the latest Star Wars abominations, a Mary Sue. She is not a stand-in for the various authors, she is merely a dishonest feminist archetype.

The genius of Poe

Despite being a mild Edgar Allen Poe aficionado, I wasn't familiar with his Eureka, which is a sort of brilliant stream-of-consciousness intellectual exploration that is almost exactly what Jordan Peterson, in his fevered, cousin-devouring dreams, must have imagined his Maps of Meaning would be. I've been reading Eureka and finding it to be an absolute delight, particularly in Poe's prophetic anticipation of the instrinsic limitations of the methodology of modern science, which he described in the summary of a letter said to have been written in 2848.

“Well, Aries Tottle flourished supreme, until the advent of one Hog, surnamed ‘the Ettrick shepherd,’ who preached an entirely different system, which he called the à posteriori or inductive. His plan referred altogether to sensation. He proceeded by observing, analyzing, and classifying facts—instantiæ Naturæ, as they were somewhat affectedly called—and arranging them into general laws. In a word, while the mode of Aries rested on noumena, that of Hog depended on phenomena; and so great was the admiration excited by this latter system that, at its first introduction, Aries fell into general disrepute. Finally, however, he recovered ground, and was permitted to divide the empire of Philosophy with his more modern rival:—the savans contenting themselves with proscribing all other competitors, past, present, and to come; putting an end to all controversy on the topic by the promulgation of a Median law, to the effect that the Aristotelian and Baconian roads are, and of right ought to be, the solo possible avenues to knowledge:—‘Baconian,’ you must know, my dear friend,” adds the letter-writer at this point, “was an adjective invented as equivalent to Hog-ian, and at the same time more dignified and euphonious.

“Now I do assure you most positively”—proceeds the epistle—“that I represent these matters fairly; and you can easily understand how restrictions so absurd on their very face must have operated, in those days, to retard the progress of true Science, which makes its most important advances—as all History will show—by seemingly intuitive leaps. These ancient ideas confined investigation to crawling; and I need not suggest to you that crawling, among varieties of locomotion, is a very capital thing of its kind;—but because the tortoise is sure of foot, for this reason must we clip the wings of the eagles? For many centuries, so great was the infatuation, about Hog especially, that a virtual stop was put to all thinking, properly so called. No man dared utter a truth for which he felt himself indebted to his soul alone. It mattered not whether the truth was even demonstrably such; for the dogmatizing philosophers of that epoch regarded only the road by which it professed to have been attained. The end, with them, was a point of no moment, whatever:—‘the means!’ they vociferated—‘let us look at the means!’—and if, on scrutiny of the means, it was found to come neither under the category Hog, nor under the category Aries (which means ram), why then the savans went no farther, but, calling the thinker a fool and branding him a ‘theorist,’ would never, thenceforward, have any thing to do either with him or with his truths.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. It's also fascinating to see how the Mozart-Salieri relationship seems to play out again and again over time, the inevitable public rivalries between the original thinkers with integrity and talent and the popular pretenders with neither. Sometimes the Mozarts win out, sometimes the Griswolds do. But time always eventually exposes the latter, as your complete failure to recognize the name of Poe's bitter would-be rival should suffice to demonstrate.

On a possibly-but-not-necessarily-unrelated note, I found this email from a reader to be more than a little amusing.

I was over at my sister’s place today and saw a copy of The Irrational Atheist in their library. When I asked about it, her husband, who is a recent MDiv graduate, told me that it was assigned reading in seminary. Amen. 

Anyhow, "Hogian" is an apt description of the science-loving dogmatists who demand "proof" and "evidence" for event the simplest and most straightforward claims. They inevitably confuse the means with the end, and not infrequently go so far to claim, without any apparent sense of irony intended, that any factual statement made without evidential support and reliable sourcing being subsequently provided is inherently untrue.

How to not get banned here

Dire Badger kindly provides newcomers with a useful basic guide to commenting at Vox Popoli without getting publicly mocked and banned:

1. It's not about Vox Day. If you make it about him, you get banned.
2. You cannot talk crap about VD unless it's actually true. And relevant to the conversation at hand. And it 'seems' like VD revels in being called stuff like 'arrogant' and 'uncompromising'.
3. When he tells you the topic is over, shut up about it. Don't try to get the last word, because the last word has already been spoken... and usually, when he says shut up about it, the rest of the board stops following the conversation... so getting the last word is pointless anyway, since mostly no one is going to read it.
4. It's not about you. Personal anecdotes to illustrate a point is one thing, as long as it is a a valid illustration... but "not all _ are like that" with a personal anecdote that shows a statistical outlier just makes you look like a stupid troll with nothing of value to add... and people with no value are likely to get banned since it really won't hurt anything.
5. Figure out your sociosexual hierarchy position, your personality profile, or any other shit like that yourself. No one wants to answer your 'what am I?' question. This is not a facebook personality quiz stream.
6. Figure out what people here are like. You can disagree, but if you voice a disagreement that has been covered a million times, you are going to get hazed. Don't post a million times countering a million arguments, and especially don't respond to every single insult because you said something most people here think is stupid. That's spamming. (see the last word comment)
7. Cussing should be sparing. This is not HALO. Talking trash just for the sake of talking trash will get you banned as fast as making it all about VD.
8. When someone asks you a direct question without qualifiers, answer it. Even if the answer is "I don't know", or "I googled it but my search Fu was weak, I will find it later." if they ask you a question that starts with 'considering that...' or adds a weird goalpost-shifting frame like "Answer in a Haiku" or "Without using examples or Allegories..." feel free to answer or tell them to kiss your butt.
9. Statements of known fact are okay. Patronizing statements sharing your secret king wisdom "Because you all need to know this" will get you mocked and banned, especially if you never bothered to notice that there was an article about that very thing less than two days earlier. I suggest lurking for at least a month before making your first post, so you can figure out what kinds of people are here, and maybe even learn a thing or two before you open your mouth.
10. DO NOT GET DEFENSIVE! When you are wrong, admit it. Being able to learn from your mistakes is vastly more important (and more respect-worthy) than 'winning' an argument in the thread... mostly when you 'win' it's because people have just gotten bored with arguing with you. That doesn't mean apologize. Men only apologize when their actions have inadvertently harmed others. If you go off on a tirade and insult someone and find out later that you were wrong, an apology is cool, but don't apologize for being wrong. Just admit it, fix it if you can, and move on.

I would add that this blog has been here for 15 years. Readers, moderators, and blogger alike, we know what we're doing. VP was here before you. VP will be here after you. And the better you understand that VP simply does not need you or your comments, the more likely it is that your comments will be valued by the other readers.

Fake news, fake Right

The cucks are really, really desperate to keep the Littlest Chickenhawk viable:

I spend a few weeks every year teaching high-school and college students, and in my interactions with young people in and around universities I have noticed a trend. After class, at meals, and in walks around campus, the politically engaged students invariably ask me the same question: What do I think of Ben Shapiro?

Nor am I alone. Recently Eliza Gray had a similar experience while reporting on young conservatives in the age of President Trump. “Oddly enough,” she wrote in the Washington Post, “the person who appeared to be doing the most to shape the thinking of the new generation of Republican leaders was not the president of the United States—but Ben Shapiro, a 34-year-old anti-Trump conservative pundit who came up unprompted in more than a third of my conversations.” Again and again, students turn exchanges involving politics and ideology into discussions of Shapiro, his media presence, his ideas, and his mode of discourse.

As it turns out, I happen to think well of Shapiro, and admire not only his intelligence but also the way he is modeling political debate for an audience of millions. (We’ve corresponded once or twice but have never met.) More important, though, is what Shapiro’s celebrity tells us about the changing nature of media, the emerging sensibility of conservative youth, and indeed the future of American conservatism itself.

Shapiro owes a lot to social media. His appearances on Fox News Channel are not the cause but the consequence of his fame. It is by searching YouTube that teenagers come across his debates with campus lefties, his speeches, his appearances on like-minded podcasts, and his extended interviews with friends and other members of the so-called intellectual dark web.

The idea that Ben Shapiro is shaping ANYONE'S thinking, let alone the coming Republican leadership, is downright hilarious. The trend is clearly moving well away from his outdated open borders, free trade, Israel-first nonsense. Ben Shapiro may well be "the future of conservatism" because conservatism is dead. The cuckservatives fantasize about Generation Shapiro, but what they will get is Generation Zyklon.

As with the dog that didn't bark in the night, what is significant is the fact that they have literally no one else. All of the genuine intellectual energy is on the nationalist Right. Jordan Peterson is a propped-up fraud. Sam Harris is a recycled, propped-up midwit. Shapiro has been propped up and pushed on conservatives since he was in junior high despite this being the quality of his political analysis.

No gammas

Okrane S. is now banned from commenting here.

Okrane S. August 04, 2018 7:50 AM
You seem weak and angry. Are these some of those nice Christian values you preach?

I neither know nor care who is the target of this comment, but this is exactly the sort of passive-aggressive gamma bullshit that is no longer tolerated here. If you're an emotionally incontinent gamma male, just don't try to comment here. It's not going to go well for you and you will end up being banned sooner or later.

Read and learn, or read and go away and snark about it somewhere else, but either way, your comments are neither wanted nor permitted here.

Everybody's Alt-Right now

I told you it was inevitable. But for the time being, conservatives are still determined to try to hold on to their bowties and good opinion of themselves as fine upstanding individuals who are above getting their hands dirty by actually laying hands on the enemy:

Ask any conservative hate-listed by the SPLC (me, for example) what it’s like to work for decades to achieve a successful career and then be labeled a menace to society based on some left-wing ideologue’s interpretation. The Left has been smearing the Right this way for so long — they did it to Barry Goldwater, they did it Ronald Reagan, they do it to every conservative — that we scarcely even notice it anymore.

What has happened in recent years is that the Right has begun to fight fire with fire, and the Left calls this “harassment.” This was the basic story of #GamerGate: Videogame enthusiasts had grown tired of their hobby being targeted by “social justice warriors” (SJWs) and decided to fight back. Defending themselves against the organized lobby of politically correct censors and critical-theory busybodies (e.g., Anita Sarkeesian), the #GamerGate crew were accused of “misogyny” and “haraassment.” And this exposes the double-standard: When the Left attacks the videogame industry, this is “activism”; when gamers fight back, this is “harassment.” Likewise, when left-wing outfits use the past words of conservatives to brand them racist, this is “research”; when the tables are turned, liberals call it “trolling.”

As John Sexton at Hot Air notes, the Left is defending Sarah Jeong’s anti-white hatred as simply “the way the social justice left talks”:

“White people” is a shorthand in these communities, one that’s used to capture the way that many whites still act in clueless and/or racist ways. It’s typically used satirically and hyperbolically to emphasize how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color, or to point out the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist.

Having engaged in a bit of satirical hyperbole myself, I call bulls–t here. It’s a blatant double-standard — one rule for liberals, another rule for everybody else — that permits “the social justice left” to engage in blatant hate-mongering, while conservatives are compelled to tiptoe carefully and watch every word lest they accidentally say something that might somehow be interpreted as “racism.” What conservatives need to do is to start calling the Left’s rhetoric what it is: hate propaganda.

That actually made me laugh out loud. I like Robert Stacey McCain, his intentions are undoubtedly pure, but like most conservatives, he simply has no clue that there isn't a silent majority that is going to gravitate to whichever side can present itself as the least hateful. Calling the Left's rhetoric "hate propaganda" is going to be even less effective than "Dems R the Real Racists" was.

What conservatives need to do, what they will eventually be forced to do whether they want to or not, is to embrace science, history, and reality, and finally accept that blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, Indians, and Jews are NEVER, EVER going to take their side or align with their idiotic, idealistic universalism. What conservatives need to do is accept that for better or for worse, they are the White American party now, and pursue their own interests accordingly. All anyone has to do to understand how any immigrant interest group is reliably going to vote is to look at how that interest group prefers to live in its own country. The dirt is not magic.

This really isn't that hard a concept to grasp. Immigrants don't move to the USA in order to live like White Americans any more than Californians move to Texas in order to live like Texans.

GenCon ignores violent attack on attendee

It's really rather remarkable that the idiot SJWs who now run GenCon think that they can somehow make a violent criminal assault that took place in public disappear from the public awareness:

The story around the assault of The Quartering’s Jeremy Hambly appears to be getting worse. The promoters of the Gen Con are now silencing attendees who are fearful for their safety and are questioning Gencon’s silence over the assault. In fact, they are actively crushing ANY discussion on the manner.

They are specifically using 1984 style tactics on their Twitch channel. They first began giving users short bans if they brought up the assault, but then resorted to completely wiping their stream chat and limited it apparently to people who have been following for three months. Thanks to several Twitter users proof of the bans are clear. One user who was watching the GenCon live feed was told they were banned because “this isn’t the place to discuss this.”

While GenCon appears to be banning people and silencing those asking about the alleged assault against The Quartering, they have remained silent about his alleged assaulter despite their own Ethics & Conduct stating that “Violating any federal, state or local laws, facility rules or convention policies … constitute grounds for explusion from the convention without refund.”

In fact, their policy instructs people to “seek out Gen Con Event Staff or Gen Con Security to report the incident.”

Given they still have not released a statement regarding one of their one exhibitors being accused of assault one has to wonder if Gen Con’s silence means other attendees could be at risk. Are they protecting a client who has a booth over attendees?

Or could their silence be politically motivated? If you happen to think the wrong way, well then it appears Gencon won’t do its due diligence when it comes to any possible violence you might face.

It would appear that The Quartering's mistake was to fail to identify as female. GenCon will leap in with guns blazing if a hapless dork stares at a female cosplayer for two seconds too long, but a violent attack on an attendee by an exhibitor goes unremarked. That's not a viable strategy.

Hillary's SECOND server

This could be significant. Apparently Hillary had TWO mail servers, and the FBI never reported the second one or took it away from her. The more we learn, the more corrupt and illegal the actions of the Clinton campaign appear to be.

And, of course, the more obvious the corruption of the FBI becomes.