'Network Contagion', 'NC Labs', 'Perception Lab'... Scientificalisation. The medicalisation of everything off-message. It's how these groups lend weight to anything they claim, because they have no other basis for anything they believe and they know this tactic works on them.
That's also probably how Peterson sleeps at night while being so evidently wrong. 'I'm just trying to save others from what I know to be my weakness.'
What makes them seethe even more is the fact their programming prohibits them from quoting the funnier line, which was 'you think Biden could get into that car?'
In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped to recognise the common sense they are born with - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.
Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.
Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.
If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill them, since neither of those things are inherently wrong either. And what about culling minorities? That could get started right now.
Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.
For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and it may need to be that in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.
Ultimately these are the rocks upon which any materialist outlook gets wrecked. Utilitarianism is a woolly viewpoint that feels good to tout but falls apart under examination. Seder didn't want to tie himself to it but said nothing that differentiates his moral basis from utilitarianism. It boils down to 'just do what's bestest for the mostest' - well what does that mean? That which will leave most people happy? Completely unquantifiable. Most healthy? Hello last 5 years; anyone empowered by a certain policy will rig stats and metrics to make that policy seem like the most healthy option. Most people alive? See above, even mortality figures can be queered, hidden and straight up ignored, plus now you've skipped over the issue of quality-of-life and overcrowding is on the table. A pure mathematical system of making society moral is a childish pipe dream wide open to abuse, as mythical as genetic impulses making us 'moral'.
Seder didn't even get into issues as complex as that, he tried to reach for 'well people vote and decide what's right' (ie. moral), meaning morality is just a movable feast that changes every few years, subject to propaganda and electioneering, and the moral framework you end up with is derived from nothing other than the messy system of laws you're left with over centuries. Which is fine if you believe that and are content with it, but at that stage it's pointless to pretend you have any greater vision for a nation other than a nihilistic morass, and you will get trampled in argument by anyone whose morals proceed from something timeless and intangible. And obviously he got shot down in the next sentence when he revealed it wouldn't be moral any more if people voted for something he didn't like.
Same thing in UK. Harry Stanley (white man) unjustly shot by cops, no riots. Jean Charles de Menezes, even a Brazilian, unjustly shot by cops (and lied about and evidence destroyed), no riots. Mark Duggan (black man) shot by cops, you get riots. And was he shot unjustly? No reason to give the cops the benefit of the doubt by then, however since he was black the official story of 'they thought he had a gun which they later found tossed from his car' might actually be true.
I cheered on the London anarchy in 2011 since I saw it as late karma for Stanley and de Menezes, as a bloody nose for unaccountable authoritarians. I was naive to the other implications. Since then, and with the recent added example of Muslims allowed to rampage around Birmingham under police supervision, it's just a reminder of how whites are second class citizens in their own countries.
As many have said, he's a streamer, so he didn't just 'spend 9 months and 50,000 attempts to full combo Through the Fire and Flames at 200% speed on Guitar Hero' - he spent that time milking content for his stream. Because his profession is ultimately the same as Matt Walsh's: being visible online for dumb reasons, for other people's entertainment.
This passes for entertainment and is a unique accomplishment (apparently). Learning to shred faggy power metal is not (inherently) either one. Having seen DF live I question whether Herman Li gets through many of his gigs with a 100% perfection rating, certainly not at 200% speed.
Speaking of which, when I saw DF it was before the name change & they were called Dragonheart. They were a supporting act and fewer people were there to see them than were probably watching this guy's Twitch stream. Their fame is built on thousands of touring hours, band headaches and lots of luck since then. Merely 'learning to play' doesn't guarantee you shit.
More about McKenna here [edit: fixed link]. Legend of Zagor was in '93 so the start of Berserk would have beaten it by a few years, although I feel it unlikely that McKenna was drawing influence from manga. I know practically nothing about the lineage of fantasy art but it's probable they shared influences, since apparently McKenna was very young and inspired by other artists for this book. From a blog I found while sourcing:
Few gamebook fans could disagree that Martin McKenna is an exceptional fantasy artist whose work verges on the darker (horror) side of the fantasy spectrum. His work here is as excellent as ever and many of the tougher foes look truly terrifying and awe-inspiring (the Chaos Champion, for example.) It is interesting to note that, in places, McKenna apes others’ work (which he often did in other FFs particularly by drawing influences from Hammer Films) and, whilst there is nothing here lifted from Hammer, the Orc throne room is a literal copy of Iain McCaig’s version from Casket of Souls and the Chaos Champion looks strikingly like the LJN-produced Advanced Dungeons & Dragons action figure called Warduke
There were dozens of books in the FF gamebook series and they used a whole bunch of different artists. The above guy mentions Iain McCaig who also had some slick work (1, 2, also did the famous Deathtrap Dungeon). The one FF book that always stuck in my mind for art was Island of the Undead, apparently illustrated by a guy called Russ Nicholson, but that may be because it crossed a bit too uncomfortably into ugly, spooky territory and was too fucking scary for me as a kid.
Can't beat those dramatic full colour pieces, but for my part I tended to like the slightly dirtier, spookier stuff you'd find in 80s/90s Fighting Fantasy gamebooks.
These are from Martin McKenna's illustrations in Legend of Zagor, FF54:
There's always Sam Hyde's Harry Potter rap, although it's part of the Fantano multiverse
It makes it all the more of a mask drop moment when anyone pointing to cultural subversion in that era decides, of all examples, to pick out Saved By the Bell and Friends... Bumped straight up to Alert Mode when that person is brown.
Well I like to think I never picked him up so I don't need to put him down now. To use the same metaphor, I was hoping he was a snake who bites its own handler. Putting vaxx-sceptic sentiment at the head of HHS really would be a risky thing for the establishment to do to itself, if that alone was genuine on his part. Looks more like he's been safely de-fanged though.
I've known he's a rabid zionist for a good while, I just figured it was a fixation of his that would have a low chance of interfering with his remit in HHS. I didn't realise he would, as one of his first actions as secretary, announce that anti-semitism has 'lethalities comparable to history’s most deadly plagues' lmao. Good to see he's focused on the real health issues of the day... measles and anti-semites!
More fool me, clown world always has more surprises.
a debate with Max Blumenthal of The Gray Zone. Which RFK agreed to, but never returned.
It's difficult to imagine he ever would have gone along with that. Blumenthal eloquently and reasonably lays out the theories and evidence that Oct 7th was mostly IDF killing of Israelis - in a way that really should be better understood by the mainstream, since Blumenthal himself is relatively mainstream as alternative voices go, hence Jimmy bringing him up. All other opinions on Israel aside, RFK would lose that debate on Oct 7 alone and the establishment would have torched him for legitimising nazi conspiracy theories. As if attacking vaxx orthodoxy wasn't bad enough... but he's apparently stopped doing that now and vaccines which he once highlighted as a danger to child health are now 'crucial' in stopping relatively benign childhood illness.
It certainly would be nice to be proven wrong, because it would also be fascinating to learn what 5D chess moves these actually are if they're not what they appear.
I literally can't think of any single act RFK could take that would undermine everything he's ever stood for, other than advocate the MMR vaccine as he does in that piece. One could say well maybe advocating the covid jab would be worse - but actually RFK Jr. got where he was by being a vaccine critic BEFORE covid. There are plenty of covid shills around, so sounding like one of them would simply mean that he's just another interchangeable shill. But actually advocating one of the vaccines he's been against in the past actually goes one further and removes any meaning to RFK being RFK.
There's a kind of reputation-laundering action going on with RFK, ever since it became clear that Trump might successfully shuttle him into HHS. There are deep state types and now other commenters who want to sum him up as 'well he's against insufficiently tested vaccines, not all vaccines'. The fact is that 'insufficiently tested vaccines' IS all vaccines. The dissident health movement which has been using RFK as something of a flagbearer has consistently pointed to the superior health of unvaccinated children in all metrics. RFK suddenly warning against staying unvaccinated is not just some single wrong note, it's an entire concerto getting switched from major to minor key.
Doesn't bother me, because fuck needing validating voices in politics, but this man seems to be a kind of controlled opp demoralisation bomb, and people should ditch any lingering illusions fast.
You're in cope mode, I'm afraid.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Measles outbreak is call to action for all of us
MMR vaccine is crucial to avoiding potentially deadly disease
This is the actual headline and sub-headline. In the second most visible line in the article he tells a lie (multiple lies actually; MMR vaccine is dangerous, not crucial, and 'potentially deadly' is weasel words which misleads people to the degree of lethality) and sells down the river all the parents who have spoken to him over the years, telling him how the vaccine schedule has affected their kids. Many of these parents (such as those from the Vaxxed and Vaxxed 2 docus) will have been talking about MMR specifically, and elsewhere he has claimed that this experience of talking to them is what sent him down the whole health route in the first place. It's a complete sellout.
Nothing else matters really but the first para starts continuing the lie, that there's a current outbreak which has killed a child, which is almost certainly not true. There is nothing of merit at all in the op-ed other than a signal being raised by RFK to prove that he is the establishment's man and to call off whatever pressure they have on him behind the scenes.
My entire opinion on him has changed in the last hour, and it's all by his own pen. What a cunt. Hey maybe he can champion an anti-semitism vaccine along with the MMR he loves so much now, since it's the greatest health threat humanity faces.
It's okay because this one will be a traditional vaccine with deactivated nazism in it rather that Zionist protein-printing instructions. You know you can trust whatever the establishment puts out next because Uncle Bobby's backing it.
Why would they say he claimed without proof.
Because this became the new media standard around the end of Trump's first term. For commie indoctrinators and indoctrinated, it's very dangerous to broadcast what your political opponents are saying without insisting simultaneously that it shouldn't be listened to. "X Claims Without Evidence That...", "X Claims (Without Proof)..." is what the MSM started doing even in news headlines whenever a person they disliked made a claim that attacked their power. Compare and contrast to reporting on, say, any murder case where a suspect with no good alibi claims to have been elsewhere when the murder happened - you would never hear "X claims, without evidence, to have been alone at home at the time." You only started hearing it for Trump, even when he was quite definitely and obviously providing evidence. And so their sheep have started repeating 'claims-without-evidence' mindlessly, practically as if it's a compound word now, which keeps their ideology safe from evil claims(without-evidence).
Haven't heard this theory, but idk if this rules out much - monoxide leaks can be pretty local and don't need to fill up a whole house before becoming lethal in a single room, especially the size of house we're probably talking about with Gene Hackman.
Just like with toys and cars, if you want to see how robust something is, hand it to some retards to stress test it. In the same fashion, when democracy is 'given' (lol) to muslim shitholes, they do their best to break it by voting it away.
The only way to safeguard against this is to make democracy completely fake and gay. Elites don't want to head up a system which contains the seeds of its own potential instant dissolution, capable of germinating after one surprise result. And so the fiction we've come to enjoy in the West is that we just happen to opt for democracy every time, over the last century or so, because we prefer it to the alternatives. The reality is that we're offered a barely shifting status quo whose purpose serves only to protect the long term power of faceless, entrenched interests. Democracy is rigged to ensure more democracy, because that's the most useful system to the elite, so at some stage you have to wonder if this is not just some flaw but in fact the intended design.
Democracy conflicts with nature, which favours a hierarchy. In democracy the hierarchy is made invisible and the populace is sold the central, soothing lie which is that our vote makes us the master and that our true masters are actually our servants. 'I pay your wages!' cries the boomer at the WEF mandarin as she imports infinity Indians; 'You serve us, you serve the public!' splutters the hate facts spreader as the cop ships him off to the gulag - that's how it actually works out in reality. Then an elaborate ritual is hosted every 4-ish years to sell the lie and cast the illusory reversal of master and servant all over again.
Multiply this by about 1000 and you have a pretty accurate picture of what happened on Oct 7 while muzzies escaped with hostages.
I'm not what I'd call a Christian, although I pray in church occasionally. Raised Catholic. Abandoned it in favour of pseudo-nihilist, Nietzschean outlook (I've never read Nietzsche, but anyone can figure his shit out intuitively). Recently, I solved all nihilist impulses through thorough self-reflection, inspired by the ever-shifting epistemologies of the covid pandemic and some philosophical reading. Self-preservation, fear, loneliness.... these did not factor in.
I think perhaps Christianity doesn't tell the full tale of human consciousness but it tells a fuller tale than secular 'rational' materialism. I have some disdain for the idea of utilitarian Christianity - as in, 'we need it because think of the alternative' - but maybe that's because I have extreme disdain for utilitarianism in general.
I'm not devout, nor atheist nor one of Dawkins 'cultural Christians', but I do pray to Christ sometimes.
In this instance, the prohibition would only be upon an act which is prohibited as a baseline in civilised society, but allowed under certain limited conditions where magic words are involved: when a 'doctor' who is 'licensed' is 'practicing medicine'. That is when somebody magically becomes permitted to subject a human body to damage with no legal intervention.
Simply rescind the right of the white-coat clergy to perform surgery on genitals for psychiatric, cosmetic or religious reasons. Done. Trannies instantly have to resort to mutilating themselves, which will soon stop after the first few performative 'drumpf made me do this!' garden-shears examples. With the stroke of a pen, you torpedo the money-making capacity of tranny medical industrial complex. Trannies losing their $$$ value as lifelong patients would deflate a lot of the social, institutional support of the ideology too.
Of course, trannies aren't the only or most powerful group who would protest...
I like to include the context of Doritogate in 2012, since it was basically Gamergate before journos had the bright idea of coordinating their defence. These days people tend to just remember it as just a funny photoshop of Geoff Keighley, but it's actually remarkably similar:
-Woman called out for games journo corruption (Rab Florence's article on journos benefiting from game dev junkets, which happened to mention female journo Lauren Wainwright)
-Woman attacks as form of defence rather than accept any criticism, industry conforms to woman's wishes (Rab resigns from his mag as they unpublish his article)
-Rab's article and the response draws uncomfortable attention to widespread incestuous relationship between games journos and dev PR (Geoff's funny photoshop occurs here)
-wider discussion avoided and deflected, some use the tactic of alleging that the controversy was rooted in misogyny so could be safely ignored.
I used to check Giantbomb around this time, as well as other random gaming sites occasionally, and the sheer weight of cringeworthy discomfort in their not wanting to discuss any part of the Rab Florence article was striking.
Between 2012 and 2014, the main difference is that they got all their slack chats and circlejerks in better order, ready to form a fighting circle the next time one of their greedy women was criticised. Plus it was a better connected slut in 2014; despite Wainwright actually having been a journo insider, all she really was was some British fangirl type who wanted free Tomb Raider merch and maybe a job at Crystal Dynamics. That said, I did discover that she once ran a podcast with Jim Sterling, reemphasising how games journalism was a puddle deep bedroom industry.
The YTer considers the Luminar CEO his buddy. Presumably he didn't mention this? IDK since I won't be watching his shit.
It doesn't need to be paid promotion, it's already GG-style non-disclosure and nepotism at best, potentially insider trading too.