The Call of the World

This is what it looks like when God permits people to exercise their free will and respond to the call of the world to walk the broad and easy path to Hell.

In early January, Hoke designed a sign that read: “Bruce Jenner is still a man. Homosexuality is still a sin. The culture may change. The Bible does not.”

Despite there being no outward sign of fracture within the church, on Saturday evening, Hoke published the following unexpected update on Facebook:

As of today, I am no longer the pastor of Trinity Bible Presbyterian Church. After much prayer and counsel, I have decided that it is best to briefly communicate what has taken place.

1. I was informed by our other elder that he felt he could no longer follow my lead as Pastor of TBPC. 
2. I was informed that essentially all but one couple in membership would leave the church if I continued as pastor of TBPC.
3. Our other elder and the couple felt that those who left would likely return if I would leave.
4. Our other elder was agreeable to stay and assume the pastoral responsibilities.

Therefore it was determined that it would be in the best interest of the local body for us (TBPC and the Hoke family) to part ways.

It’s a pity that Pastor Hoke left the church rather than informing the other elder and all but one couple in membership that they were welcome to leave. After all, they have already abandoned both God and the Bible in order to pursue the favor of the world.

The purpose of the church is not for non-Christians to feel good about how they are not [insert anti-Narrative badthink here]. What good does it do for anyone to return to a building that is now, at best, spiritually empty? The pastor said he left “in order to keep the church intact”, but that church is not merely shattered, it is dead.

Never quit. Never, ever, quit. Make them kick you out. And then, make the rubble bounce.

Financial blacklisting

Allum Bokhari traces it back to the credit card companies and the SPLC:

Crowdfunding platforms like Patreon, which allow online content creators to collect donations from their supporters, are frequently cast as the primary villains in financial blacklisting. Patreon’s recent ban of YouTuber Carl Benjamin, better known by his moniker Sargon of Akkad, triggered a crisis for the platform. Both donors and creators — including prominent atheist Sam Harris — quit the platform in protest, while Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin pledged to create an alternative platform that is pro-free speech.

But Patreon and other crowdfunding platforms are not the real villains. They are dependent on the whims of the credit card companies, something that was already apparent in August when Mastercard forced them to withdraw service from Robert Spencer. We now know that the credit card companies were also a factor in Patreon’s decision to boot Benjamin.

YouTuber and Patreon creator Matt Christiansen recently released a transcript of his conversation with Jacqueline Hart of Patreon about Benjamin’s ban. Hart frankly admits that the sensibilities of credit card companies play a key role in Patreon’s decisions.

Here’s an excerpt of that transcript:

JACQUELINE: The problem is is Patreon takes payments.  And while we are obviously supportive of the first amendment, there are other things that we have to consider. Our mission is to fund the creative class. In order to accomplish that mission we have to build a community of creators that are comfortable sharing a platform, and if we allow certain types of speech that some people would call free speech, then only creators that use Patreon that don’t mind their branding associated with that kind of speech would be those who use Patreon and we fail at our mission.  But secondly as a membership platform, payment processing is one of the core value propositions that we have. Payment processing depends on our ability to use the global payment network, and they have rules for what they will process.

MATT:  Are you telling me that this was Patreon’s decision then, or someone pressured you into this?

JACQUELINE:  No – this was entirely Patreon’s decision.  

MATT:  Well then I don’t understand passing the buck off to somebody else.  

JACQUELINE:  No, I’m not passing the buck off.  The thing is we have guidelines, but I’m trying to explain, #1 it is our mission to fund the creative class and obviously some people may not want to be associated.  

MATT:  Well if it’s your mission, then payment processors are irrelevant.  It’s your mission. That’s what you’re pursuing.

JACQUELINE:  We’re not visa and mastercard ourselves – we can’t just make the rules.  That’s what I’m saying – there is an extra layer there.

This “extra layer” places platforms like Patreon in an impossible position: abandon free speech or lose your ability to process payments. That’s also why so many free-speech alternatives to Patreon have failed: FreeStartr, Hatreon, MakerSupport, and SubscribeStar all tried to offer a more open platform, and were promptly dumped by the credit card companies. All are unable to do business.

This exposes the emptiness of establishment conservative arguments about the free market. Those who oppose Silicon Valley censorship aren’t allowed to just build their own alternative platforms. They must build their own global payment processing infrastructure to have any hope of restoring free speech online. That, or they must find a way to stop Visa, Mastercard and Discover from taking advice from the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Color of Change.

I’m a little dubious that Patreon and other companies engaged in financial deplatforming are quite as innocent as Allum paints them here; it strikes me that they are really doing what they want to do and using the credit card companies as an excuse. But this financial deplatforming is unlikely to continue for long, as the political pressure is growing for the Republicans to do something about it, and it will probably not be long before we see the first successful legal action against a deplatforming platform, which should have a salutory chilling effect on those attempting to wage financial terrorism. Because that is quite literally what it is.

And perhaps more importantly, a number of Asian payment processors are extremely eager to move into the vacuum that is being created by the Third World-style unreliability and lack of accountability of their Western counterparts.

Breaking the SPLC

It’s long past time that victims of anti-American thought policing began waging lawfare against the con artists of the SPLC:

In December 2018, a Baltimore lawyer filed a devastating lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and two of its employees. The SPLC targeted Glen Keith Allen over his former ties to the National Alliance (NA), a white nationalist group. In doing so, the liberal group allegedly violated laws and legal codes of conduct by receiving and then paying for stolen documents in violation of confidentiality agreements. The group went after Allen with the intent of getting him fired by the city of Baltimore and permanently destroying his future prospects.

Allen’s suit claims that the SPLC should have its 501c3 tax-exempt status revoked, that it owes him restitution for racketeering, and that it should pay $6.5 million in damages. It also references Allen’s pro bono work on behalf of African-Americans and his mentorship of an African-American teen, powerfully rebutting claims that he is a racist. Allen told PJ Media he now regrets his NA support, and an African-American friend of his laughed at the idea of this lawyer being branded a racist.

Perhaps most importantly, the suit attacks the liberal group for undermining America’s tradition of free expression. In an August 2016 interview with The Washington Post cited in the lawsuit, SPLC Intelligence Project Director Heidi Beirich (a defendant in the case) claimed to have watched Allen “like a hawk” because he had “the worst ideas ever created.”

“This East Europe Communist thought-crime surveillance mentality is antithetical to fundamental American cultural and Constitutional principles protecting freedom of expression and association,” Allen wrote in the suit, which can be found on his website. His lawsuit uses concrete claims of lawbreaking and defamation to expose the SPLC’s Orwellian strategy of branding its opponents “hate groups” and orchestrating campaigns against them.

In August 2016, the SPLC published an article branding Allen a “neo-Nazi lawyer” and insinuating that this lawyer’s work for the city of Baltimore was racist. Beirich, the article’s author, smeared a small political party as racist and then published allegedly stolen documents protected by confidentiality agreements connecting Allen to the National Alliance.

This article led Baltimore’s law department to fire Allen immediately, costing him at least 10 years of employment at a salary of $90,000 or more. The article also destroyed his reputation, making it extremely difficult for him to obtain a job, create a good relationship with clients, or argue before judges and jurors who would immediately judge him a “neo-Nazi lawyer.” Furthermore, a year after Allen’s firing, Baltimore badly lost the case, losing $15 million in damages.

It is said that around 60 Organizations’ “Are Considering a Lawsuit Against the SPLC Following $3M Nawaz Settlement”. They should do more than consider it. Both the SPLC and the ADL are thought-policing scams that make a very profitable living from defamation. The very name of the “Anti-Defamation League” is an example of the inversive wizardry that Owen Benjamin decries.

History is not hate speech

The Voxiversity video SINK THE SHIPS has been removed from YouTube. You can still view it on BitChute. YouTube has also assigned a warning strike to the Voxiversity channel.

Hi Voxiversity,

As you may know, our Community Guidelines describe which content we allow – and don’t allow – on YouTube. Your video “Sink The Ships” was flagged for review. Upon review, we’ve determined that it violates our guidelines. We’ve removed it from YouTube and assigned a Community Guidelines strike, or temporary penalty, to your account.

Video content restrictions
We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express their points of view, even if unpopular. However, YouTube doesn’t allow hate speech. Sometimes there’s a fine line between what is and isn’t considered hate speech. If you’re not sure whether or not your content crosses the line, we ask that you don’t post it. Learn more here.

The impact of strikes
This is the first strike applied to your account. We understand that users seldom intend to violate our policies. That’s why strikes don’t last forever – this strike will expire in three months. However, it’s important to remember that additional strikes could prevent you from posting content to YouTube or even lead to your account being terminated.

How you can respond
If you believe this was a mistake, we’d like to hear from you. Please follow both of these steps as simply deleting the video won’t resolve the strike on your account.

    – The next time you sign in you will be asked to acknowledge this strike on your account.
    – If you would like to appeal this strike, please submit this form. Our team will thoroughly review your appeal and will contact you again very soon.

– The YouTube Team

I appealed the strike and pointed out that history is not “hate speech”, that advocating the defense of national borders is not “hate speech”, and that endorsing military action is not “hate speech”. But this is yet another reminder of how it is vital to build our own platforms and utilize non-converged platforms like BitChute.

If YouTube does not remove the strike, I will investigate switching my Darkstream channel chat over to Stream.Me in the place of the YouTube chat until the strike expires. This action is further evidence, as if any was needed, that SJWs will attempt to eliminate history that contradicts the current narrative.

UPDATE: Upon further review, YouTube has decided that history is hate speech.

Dear Voxiversity:

Thank you for submitting your video appeal to YouTube.

After further review of the content, we’ve determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding.


— The YouTube Team

I’m sure you’re just as shocked as I am.

Facebook doesn’t SELL your data

They just GIVE IT AWAY to all their SJW social media buddies:

When he stood before Congress in April, following yet another scandal at Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg declared ‘We don’t sell data to anyone’.

That may technically be the case, but a new New York Times expose has revealed that Facebook gave 150 companies access to hundreds of millions of users’ data without their knowledge or consent. Records obtained by the Times reveal that the amount of data Cambridge Analytica received from a Facebook app paled in comparison to the access that was granted to the social media giant’s biggest partners, including Amazon, Spotify, and Netflix.

Facebook gave Netflix, Spotify, and the Royal Bank of Canada the ability to read, write, and delete Facebook users’ private messages and to see all participants on a thread, according to the internal records. It also allowed Microsoft’s search engine, known as Bing, to see the name of all Facebook users’ friends without their consent.

Amazon was allowed to obtain users’ names and contact information through their friends, and Yahoo could view streams of friends’ posts. As of last year, Sony, Microsoft, and Amazon could all obtain users’ email addresses through their friends.

It must be that amazing 115 IQ that has enabled Mark Zuckerberg’s astonishing success. It can’t be because he is a shameless, amoral deceiver who doesn’t even hesitate to ever-so-cleverly dazzle and confuse his inquisitors with his astonishing verbal skills.

Of course, it’s hardly surprising that the morons in Congress didn’t think to ask him any follow-up questions concerning the obvious variations and permutations on the privacy-violating theme in order to pin the evasive alien down. This revelation should be sufficient to shut down Facebook permanently for its repeated mass violations of privacy.

We all knew it would be cancelled

It’s just that we thought it would be because DC/Vertigo’s BORDER TOWN comic was converged and reprehensibly stupid. But surprise! It turns out that SJWs in the comic industry are total creeps… again.

On Sunday, a woman by the name of Cynthia Naugle sought to come forward with a story of abuse and sexual misconduct she had received in the past from an unnamed comic book creator. Naugle tweeted out a link to her personal blogspot page, wherein she recounted her story for the public. Naugle details many instances of mental abuse, sexual coercion, and sexual harassment she received from the individual in question…. While Naugle did not directly name her abuser, it was not long before members of the public were able to parse through the few identifying traits Naugle had discussed in her post to discover the identity of her alleged abuser: Eric M. Esquivel, current writer of Border Town for DC Comics.

It’s rather remarkable to observe that Arkhaven is targeted for media hit pieces and deplatforming while our competitors are literally running around sexually assaulting people without facing any similar treatment. This isn’t exactly the first contributor to DC Comics who has been accused of this sort of behavior.

Perhaps we should start advertising our comics as being “rape-free” and add a sticker noting “no women were sexually assaulted during the production of this comic book”.

They took Bleeding Cool’s scalp

Now the Comics-SJWs are going after Bounding Into Comics:

Bounding into Comics has become the latest target of comic book industry professionals’ attempts to silence those whose opinions they disagree with. On Tuesday, prominent Marvel and DC Comics Colorist Tamra Bonvillain (Doom Patrol, Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, Uncanny Avengers) issued a call to her followers to unfollow and ignore Bounding Into Comics (henceforth BiC):

Tamra Bonvillain@TBonvillain
I would appreciate it if some of you would check their followers, and if you see a company you’re working with or have a good enough relationship with to talk to them about it, make them aware. I’m sure it’s in error, and I’ve contacted a publisher before and got them to stop.

As with many other comic book news websites, BiC does in fact receive review copies of books from major publishers such as Image, DC, Boom!, IDW, etc. The one publisher that does not work with BiC is Marvel Comics. At one time BiC did receive press releases from Marvel, but Marvel has since ceased this practice and ignored all requests from BiC editorial for details.

Bonvillain is no stranger to controversy, as she has a history of producing and supporting inflammatory statements. Previously, Bonvillain called ComicsGate supporters “trash”, declared that the ComicsGate movement is a “hate campaign”, and harshly criticized Chelsea Cain because she did not include trans characters in her recent series.

Bounding into Comics is committed to providing readers and audience members with factual news coverage on the comic book industry. While many see the coverage of individual creators and their words as personal attacks, these stories are reported not out of malice, but because the audience deserves to be informed of the workings of the industry and how it could affect them personally. Though coverage may spark controversy, backlash, or even personal attacks, the team at BiC will continue to provide well-researched and informative stories from across the comic book industry.

This attack on Bounding Into Comics is further proof, as if any more were required, that my position about the inevitable bifurcation and Fox-Newsing of the comics industry was correct and ex-Bleeding Cool Editor-in-Chief Mark Siefert’s well-intentioned, but naive perspective, as expressed in his now-deleted Bleeding Cool article, was hopelessly wrong.

It’s not as if this very scenario hasn’t been played out before in various industries, to say nothing of the American political system. The more the extreme Left attempts to exert its influence over permissible thoughts, opinions, and actions, and the more people that it banishes from the infrastructure it controls, the more powerful the reaction of the Right becomes.

We’ve seen this again, and again, and again. This process is already well underway in comics, which is why Arkhaven, and ComicsGate, and Bounding Into Comics exist in the first place. The more that Bleeding Cool ignores Arkhaven and we continue to ignore them – and we have no intention of ever speaking with them about anything or sending them any review copies in the future – the less relevant they will become as others follow our lead and we begin to make movies and games as well as further inroads into the financing, production, and distribution of comics.

Considering the journalistic competence of John Trent and his crew at Bounding Into Comics and their willingness to cover both sides of a story, I expect that they will begin to cut seriously into Bleeding Cool’s monthly traffic within 12-18 months. And the SJWs know it too, which is precisely why they have begun this campaign against them.

This is what corporate cancer looks like

From the inside of an SJW-converged corporation:

A former senior Facebook engineer who wrote a memo earlier this year decrying the social media giant’s “political monoculture” told Fox News on Tuesday night that the company has a “vocal minority” intent on implementing “social justice policies across our mission.”

Brian Amerige, whose last day at Facebook was Friday, told Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that “you can’t have conversations about … anything that’s a tenet of the social justice ideology, effectively, without being attacked personally.” He added that the company’s recent policy cracking down on so-called hate speech was a particularly sensitive topic.

“You can’t even have conversations about that policy inside the company without having your character attacked — and I’ve experienced this personally — without being called a sexist or a racist or a transphobe or an Islamophobe,” said Amerige.

Amerige drew national attention in August when he penned an internal memo, “We Have a Problem With Political Diversity.” The memo, which was later leaked to The New York Times, stated that Facebook employees “claim to welcome all perspectives, but are quick to attack — often in mobs — anyone who presents a view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.”

On Tuesday, Amerige said that Facebook executives had taken his concerns seriously and had worked with him to improve the hate speech policy. However, he said rank-and-file, left-leaning employees did not share his concerns.

“The real concerning thing that’s happening here is that even though this is a minority of employees in the company, unfortunately, I’m not sure that Facebook leadership knows how to push back against them,” Amerige said. “They’re unbelievably belligerent, demanding and hostile not just toward other employees, but toward Facebook leadership directly.”

On a much smaller scale, this is exactly what happened to Bleeding Cool after they ran the interview with me. It’s what happened to Google with regards to the James Damore incident and the subsequent aftermath. If a corporation’s executives do not systematically weed out their SJW infestation, the SJWs will eventually transform their influence into effective control of the corporation, even when they don’t hold the executive positions themselves.

And once SJWs metastasize inside a corporation and they take over HR or the corporate board, the corporation is doomed.