Jordan Peterson is a sanctimonious crybaby

And you can absolutely quote me on that, in whatever voice you like. He’s such a ridiculous whiner as well as being a profoundly non-philosophical fraud.

This week, however, a company called put an AI engine online that allows anyone to type anything and have it reproduced in my voice. It’s hard to get access to or use the site, at the moment, presumably because it is currently attracting more traffic than its servers can handle. [NOTE: As of August 23, this website posted the following announcement: In light of Dr. Peterson’s response to the technology demonstrated by this site, which you can read here, and out of respect for Dr. Peterson, the functionality of the site will be disabled for the time being.]

A variety of sites that pass themselves off as news portals—and sometimes are—have either reported this story straight (Sputnik News) or had a field day (Gizmodo) having me read, for example, the SCUM manifesto (hypothetically an acronym for Society for Cutting Up Men), a radical feminist rant by Valerie Solanos published in 1967. Solanos, by the way, later shot the artist Andy Warhol, an act, driven by her developing paranoia. He was seriously wounded, requiring a surgical corset to hold his organs in place for the rest of his life. TNW takes a middle path, reporting the facts of the situation with little bias but using the system to have me voice very vulgar phrases.

Some of you might know—and those of you who don’t should—that similar technology has also been developed for video. This was reported, for example, by BBC, as far back in July of 2017, who broadcast a speech delivered by an AI Obama, that was essentially indistinguishable from the real thing. Similar technology has been used, equally notoriously, to superimpose the faces of famous actresses on porn stars, while they perform their various sexual exploits (you can find this story covered, for example, on The Verge, Jan 24, 2018). Movies have also been reshot so that the main actor is transformed from someone unknown to someone with real box office draw. This has happened, for example, to Nicolas Cage, primarily on a YouTube site known as Derpfakes, a play on the phrase “Deep Fakes,” which is what the video recordings created fraudulently by AI have come to be known. More recently Ctrl Shift Face, a YouTube channel, posted a video showing Bill Hader transforming very subtly into Tom Cruise as he performs an impression of the latter on Dave Letterman’s show. It’s picked up four million views in a week. It’s important to note, by the way, that this ability is available to amateurs. I don’t mean people with no tech knowledge whatsoever, obviously—more that the electronic machinery that makes such things possible will soon be within the reach of everyone.

It’s hard to imagine a technology with more power to disrupt. I’m already in the position (as many of you soon will be as well) where anyone can produce a believable audio and perhaps video of me saying absolutely anything they want me to say. How can that possible be fought? More to the point: how are we going to trust anything electronically-mediated in the very near future (say, during the next Presidential election)? We’re already concerned, rightly or wrongly, with “fake news”—and that’s only news that has been slanted, arguably, by the bias of the reporter or editor or news organization. What do we do when “fake news” is just as real as “real news”? What do we do when anyone can imitate anyone else, for any reason that suits them?

And what of the legality of this process? It seems to me that active and aware lawmakers would take immediate steps to make the unauthorized production of AI Deep Fakes a felony offense, at least in the case where the fake is being used to defame, damage or deceive. And it seems to be that we should perhaps throw caution to the wind, and make this an exceptionally wide-ranging law. We need to seriously consider the idea that someone’s voice is an integral part of their identity, of their reality, of their person—and that stealing that voice is a genuinely criminal act, regardless (perhaps) of intent. What’s the alternative? Are we entering a future where the only credible source of information will be direct personal contact? What’s that going to do to mass media, of all types? Why should we not assume that the noise to signal ratio will creep so high that all political and economic information disseminated broadly will be rendered completely untrustworthy?

I can tell you from personal experience, for what that’s worth, that it is far from comforting to discover an entire website devoted to allowing whoever is inspired to do so produce audio clips imitating my voice delivering whatever content the user chooses—for serious, comic or malevolent purposes. I can’t imagine what the world will be like when we will truly be unable to distinguish the real from the unreal, or exercise any control whatsoever on what videos reveal about behaviors we never engaged in, or audio avatars broadcasting any opinion at all about anything at all. I see no defense, and a tremendously expanded opportunity for unscrupulous troublemakers to warp our personal and collective reality in any manner they see fit.

Wake up. The sanctity of your voice, and your image, is at serious risk. It’s hard to imagine a more serious challenge to the sense of shared, reliable reality that keeps us linked together in relative peace. The Deep Fake artists need to be stopped, using whatever legal means are necessary, as soon as possible.

This guy doesn’t even believe in the Divine, so to what “sanctity of your voice and your image” is he referring? He doesn’t even believe in group identity or taking pride in one’s direct ancestors, he’s the most famous advocate of individual uber alles since Ayn Rand, so what is this “sense of shared, reliable reality that keeps us linked together” to which he’s suddenly appealing.

If you didn’t grasp that Jordan Peterson is an intellectual fraud before, his call to outlaw synthetic speech and make it a felony offense should more than suffice.

Personally, I love synthetic speech. I’ve been wanting to design games around it since 1996.

The cancer protects itself

A Reprehensible emails his observation that Twitter is muting the voices of anyone who criticizes the entertainment blackwashing:

After seeing the cast of Wheel of Time I couldn’t get my mind off of it so I made a twitter account using a throw away email account. I took a minute to grab some images from the web and put some propaganda/memes together, nothing special, and posted to the showrunners twitter. At first twitter gave me an error when trying to upload an image with the file name “not our Perrin”. Once I changed the name of the file to random numbers it let me post the image with my comment. The comment itself did not bring up race. I was IMMEDIATELY locked out of my account.

I followed the instructions to unlock my account through my email. I then navigated to the casting directors twitter and posted a similar image with a short message. I was once again locked out of my account. This time twitter was asking for my cell phone number to regain access to my account. I have a burner that I can use to get back into the account so I might continue but I’m amazed that they would be watching this so closely.

Also, as an aspiring illustrator/animator I keep seeing all of this twisting and perversion of stories that I would have loved to help get to the screen. Now I can’t stomach the idea of working on them. They even “woked” the ‘Cowboy Bebop’ cast. Do you have any advice on how to keep from getting discouraged by all of this?

It’s fascinating that they are clamping down on it so tightly. They must harbor some understanding the level of massive social fury they are inspiring with these blackwashing and gender-bending provocations.

As for getting discouraged, I don’t understand that at all. This is a massive strategic blunder by both Hollywood and the Social Thought Police. They are showing their hand to everyone, thereby giving us the opportunity to replace them entirely. Don’t be discouraged, be motivated and inspired!

They don’t think it’s a bug

It’s actually a feature designed to permit their ideological allies to exploit their infrastructure:

Tulsi Gabbard’s email account went down right after the Democratic Debate and I believe I can provide assistance on where to focus your discovery efforts because I saw how other accounts, such as Jordan B. Peterson, was taken down. I’m going to recount how this happened to him so as to assist you in your legal discovery process.

During my tenor, Jordan B. Peterson had his gmail account deactivated and I had the opportunity to inspect the bug report as a full-time employee. What I found was that Google had a technical vulnerability that, when exploited, would take any gmail account down. Certain unknown 3rd party actors are aware of this secret vulnerability and exploit it. This is how it worked:

Take a target email address, change exactly one letter in that email address, and then create a new account with that changed email address. Malicious actors repeated this process over and over again until a network of spoof accounts for Jordan B. Peterson existed. Then these spoof accounts started generating spam emails. These email-spam blasts caught the attention of an AI system which fixed the problem by deactivating the spam accounts… and then ALSO the original account belonging to Jordan B. Peterson!

To my knowledge, this bug has never been fixed. When Google says an account was deactivated because of “suspicious” activity, this is how they often do it.

Proof of this exploit can be found by doing the following:

1. Go inside the Google corporate network.
2. Then go to the following url: http://b (yes the url is that short).
3. Search terms: jordan b peterson

Cheers and good luck in your lawsuit!

Lawfare is the way to defeat the social media giants. But you must be willing to fight them! Contrary to what most people believe, they are not set up for it, they do not anticipate it, they are not legally sophisticated, and they aren’t even inclined to handle their own legal defenses with their expensive in-house lawyers. Their focus on diversity and inclusivity means that their lower-level executives and in-house counsel are almost astonishingly incompetent; look at the number of simple grammatical errors in the average Silicon Valley company’s terms of use as evidence of that.

The latest Google document leak

It’s not the first. It won’t be the last. But it is substantive.

A Google staffer today released documents exposing a massive censorship campaign where the ubiquitous Google search engine purposefully censored pro-life and conservative web sites, including

Google Insider Zachary Vorhies has given an interview to watchdog group Project Veritas where he discusses how he documented Google censorship of leading pro-life and conservative web sites for over a year. He made the decision to go public in an on-the-record video interview after Google went after him following the release of the information to Project Veritas.

He decided to go public after receiving a letter from Google, and after he says Google allegedly called the police to perform a “wellness check” on him.

Along with the interview, Vorhies asked Project Veritas to publish more of the internal Google documents he had previously leaked.

“I gave the documents to Project Veritas, I had been collecting the documents for over a year. And the reason why I collected these documents was because I saw something dark and nefarious going on with the company and I realized that there were going to not only tamper with the elections, but use that tampering with the elections to essentially overthrow the United States,” he said.

I don’t quite understand the concept of making the documents available to download only if you install some strange application, though. I’ll pass, thanks.

Been caught lying

I tend to doubt Sundar Pichai will still be CEO of Google by the end of the year now that he’s being busted for lying by his former employees. Again.

A former Google insider claiming the company created algorithms to hide its political bias within artificial intelligence platforms – in effect targeting particular words, phrases and contexts to promote, alter, reference or manipulate perceptions of Internet content – delivered roughly 950 pages of documents to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust division Friday.

The former Google insider, who has already spoken in to the nonprofit organization Project Veritas, met with on several occasions last week. He was interviewed in silhouette, to conceal his identity, in group’s latest film, which they say exposes bias inside the social media platform.

Several weeks prior, the insider mailed a laptop to the DOJ containing the same information delivered on Friday, they said. The former insider is choosing to remain anonymous until Project Verita’s James O’Keefe reveals his identity tomorrow.

He told this reporter on his recent trip to Washington D.C. that the documents he turned over to the Justice Department will provide proof that Google has been manipulating the algorithms and the evidence of how it was done, the insider said.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai told the House Judiciary Committee in December, 2018, that the search engine was not biased against conservatives. Pichai explained what algorithm’s are said Google’s algorithm was not offensive to conservatives because its artificial intelligence does not operate in that manner. He told lawmakers, “things like relevance, freshness, popularity, how other people are using it” are what drives the search results. Pichai said even if his programmers were anti-Republican, the process is so intricate that the artificial intelligence could not be manipulated and it was to complicated to train the algorithm to fit their bias.

The problem isn’t just that he lied to the House Judiciary Committee, it’s that he told such stupid and obvious and easily disproven lies. More on this soon….

The algorithm made me do it

It looks as if Michael Yon’s story on Google is going to be a lot more explosive than Wired’s, if indeed the latter’s ever runs.

Achtung! Pay attention: tonight I talked for about an hour with a “Google Snowden” who will soon go public. A deep insider.

Fascinating stuff. I cannot say much now other than pay attention to what is coming out starting in a week or so from now.

Source said many interesting things about how Chinese are flooding into tech companies like Google, and some of the incredible techniques they can use to brainwash or at least mislead millions of people.

Take this as an example that I am making up based on our conversation. Again, I am making this up but it is based on our conversation:

A politician tweets saying we must protect our national interests.

Google, or whoever, immediately promotes all stories that translates, “must protect our national interests,” to “nationalism,” and then in almost real time rewrites the meaning of “nationalism” to include traits such as xenophobic, racist, and references Nazis as nationalists.

This happens so quickly and so comprehensively that most people never will notice that in the 30 seconds the curtain was closed, Google (or whoever) rewrote part of the dictionary, and history.

To state this more clearly: they can basically rewrite what you say, write, sing, wear, or hand gesture — name it — and they can rewrite that faster than we can make popcorn.

They can do this anonymously saying the algorithm is doing it when in reality they write the rules that make the rules.

Anyway, the insider told me much more. I do not know how much already is public but I do think that if the source is correct, President Trump and a lot of others in powerful positions will be extremely angry with some of the internet players who already have hired half of China.

The amusing thing is that those of us who are dev-savvy already knew this was how it worked. An algorithm is not an excuse, it’s just a series of rules. So, blaming bad behavior on “the algorithm did it” is simply pointing the finger at the programmers of the algorithm.

But an insider putting it in terms that non-developers will understand and demonstrating the intrinsically and intentionally manipulative of the process is essentially translating it from techno-dialectic to techno-rhetoric, which is necessary if people are to be stirred into action.

And the most revealing aspect will be the obvious aims of the manipulators being revealed by the nature of the manipulation.

Satan’s blasphemy laws

There was never any such thing as “freedom of speech”. It was always an anti-Christian charade used as a foundation from which to attack the blasphemy laws. In Christendom, a man was not permitted blaspheme against Jesus Christ. In Satandom, a man is not permitted to blaspheme against, or even criticize, Google.

Hours after Google engineer Greg Coppola  appeared with James O’Keefe in a Project Veritas video, he was put on administrative leave by his company. In the video, Coppola said that he believed that Google News and Google’s search engine algorithms were biased. He also claimed that CEO Sundar Pichai’s testimony to Congress in December 2018 was not “true.”

Google has chastised those employees who have gone against its agenda. In 2017, Google fired engineer James Damore after he wrote a memo about the company’s “ideological echo chamber.” In 2019, Republican engineer Mike Wacker was fired after he complained about the hostile attitude in the corporate culture toward conservatives.

If Coppola is let go, he will be the third public victim of Google’s inherent bias toward conservative engineers. Coppola openly admitted in his interview with O’Keefe that he “liked Trump and liked his policies.” He stated that the search engine relies too much on biased news outlets to feed its users negative news on Trump.

According to Coppola’s GoFundMe, he expects that Google will “probably fire him.” He plans on publishing more on tech in the upcoming months.

This should put an interesting spin on the upcoming Wired article.

Breaking up the tech giants

No wonder the recent wave of deplatformings has suddenly come to an abrupt halt:

The U.S. Department of Justice opened a sweeping antitrust investigation of major technology companies and whether their online platforms have hurt competition, suppressed innovation or otherwise harmed consumers.

It said the probe will take into account “widespread concerns” about social media, search engines and online retail services. Its antitrust division is seeking information from the public, including those in the tech industry.

“Without the discipline of meaningful market-based competition, digital platforms may act in ways that are not responsive to consumer demands,” Makan Delrahim, the department’s chief antitrust officer, said in a statement. “The Department’s antitrust review will explore these important issues.”

The terse but momentous announcement follows months of concern in Congress and elsewhere over the sway of firms like Google, Facebook and Amazon. Lawmakers and Democratic presidential candidates have called for stricter regulation or even breakups of the big tech companies , which have drawn intense scrutiny following a series of scandals that compromised users’ privacy.

But if they’re left alone, or merely let off with a strict finger-wagging warning, they’ll double down on the deplatformings. Because that’s what converged organizations do.

The key thing is not letting them play it both ways on the publisher/not-publisher front. If they control content, then they must be liable for it. Only if they are completely content-neutral should they escape being held liable for it.


Looks like Wired is going to take yet another shot or two at me for the fourth time since the Sad Puppies first blew up the Hugos. Although it is possible that it is only doing so in the process of taking one at Google, since I am notoriously – and rather inexplicably – banned from setting foot on Google’s Mountain View headquarters.

I am fact-checking a story on Google for the coming issue of WIRED. Can you confirm the following details?

1. Your name is Theodore Beale.
2. You run the blog Vox Populi.
3. Would you consider yourself a member or proponent of the alt-right?

And no, of course I did not respond to the email. FFS, you’d think they would try simply, I don’t know, looking at the blog for the answers to those questions. Now, given the basic nature of the questions, it probably wouldn’t be any more harmful to answer them than not… but in the interest of setting a good example for those more tempted by seeing their name in print than me, I will not cooperate even to that extent.

Diversity meets corpocracy

If this human resources debacle isn’t a clear sign to short Intel’s stock, I don’t know what is:

Hoseong Ryu’s trouble at Intel started even before he began working there, he claimed in a lawsuit filed this week.

Ryu, 45, applied in 2014 for a software engineering job at Intel, and was interviewed by a three-man panel, according to his lawsuit filed in Northern California U.S. District Court. One interviewer at the Santa Clara semiconductor giant was originally from India, and he had a question for Ryu, the suit claimed.

“I see you are from Korea,” the man allegedly said. “I know a Korean man named Sung Won Bin. Do you happen to know him?”

After the meeting, the man told a fellow  interviewer that Intel shouldn’t hire Ryu because he was “Korean, married, and had a child,” and added, “It would be easier to hire a younger, unmarried Indian man,” the suit alleged.

Still, Intel hired Ryu onto its system integration team, where he found “the demographics of the worksite and its management have been heavily skewed toward employees from India or people of Indian or south-Asian descent,” the suit claimed.

One manager in his team, of Indian origin, “openly favored the hiring and promotion of only employees from India, stating that ‘Indians work hard’ and ‘Indians are harder workers,’” the suit alleged. That manager also encouraged a supervisor to hire only Indian employees, the suit filed Wednesday claimed.

Intel said it does not comment on pending litigation. But a company spokeswoman said a diverse workforce and inclusive culture are key to the company’s progress. “We believe diverse teams with different perspectives, experiences and ideas are more creative and innovative, resulting in a collaborative and supportive environment,” spokeswoman Patricia Oliverio-Lauderdale said.

I tend to doubt that Intel has realized yet that those different perspectives, experiences and ideas include the Indian notion that only employees from India, preferably younger unmarried men from their own extended family, should be hired.