Charleston, SC shooter Dylann Roof, who killed nine African-Americans during a Bible study group, was a user of the internet site Reddit and a fan of the sub-forum that it failed to ban recently, while not a user of the one that they did ban.
As many have noted in the past, Reddit forms a concentration point for those who waste time on the internet because they believe their lives are futile and without success. Dedicated to providing images, controversy and “safe spaces,” Reddit has created a group of users who deny reality outside of their own preferences.
It is therefore not surprising that Reddit would serve as an incubator for this kind of destructive thinking culminating in destructive acts.
While “social justice” may be a common topic on the internet, like the average person I never heard of them — until started working at an advertising agency. My job as a web programmer required me to integrate their ad control system with their many websites, adding extra functionality. This in turn required me to understand their marketing strategy, which specifically targeted Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) because they were a lucrative demographic.
SJWs are people for whom activism is an activity, like shopping, or being on a sports team. They bond with one another over having the right opinions. Cheap and easy, with no chance of criticism from others, social activism provides a hobby to talk about at the local bar after a long day of work. The vast majority of SJWs are liberal, middle-class, university educated white women and their low-status male admirers. These are the women who did not get married, but are living the single life, and the men who are of “low status” meaning they are not rich, famous, strong, or so intelligent that they are successful. They hang around middle-level jobs and follow around the women they think may grant them sexual access in exchange for “white knighting” or support in internet combat against the enemy.
Marketing to these people proves to be quite profitable. SJWs spend an absurd amount of money on cheap, mass-produced lifestyle products. They buy these things so they can post photos of themselves on Tumblr with the product, and a referral link to where they bought the item. These people are prolific consumers on par with the “bourgeois” they claim to resent. Where the bourgeois buy BMW and Prada, SJWs — being single, and unlikely to ever get married — spend their money on the same stuff time after time. They may own iPhones and cell phone plans, but the rest of their spending is on what are essentially novelty products. In this way, SJWs are a marketer’s dream because they have already established a sales pyramid among themselves and if a product becomes trendy it automatically scales that pyramid.
This makes it easy to sell them cheap products with expensive messages. There are considerably higher profit margins on “this is what a feminist looks like t-shirts” and a much lower investment is required to make them. There’s less of a barrier to entry. The same can be said for shit like “Depression Quest” or any other SJW fodder indy game. A game doesn’t have to look good or be fun if you can convince your audience to buy it because it addresses “issues.” If the product has the right message, they buy it with a blind impulse that is easily manipulated. They click ads and fall for fake marketeer profiles because they hear what they want to hear. They’re the left’s equivalent of people who’d buy anything with an American flag on for the years following 9/11.
Internet sites love these guys. Instead of surly 4chan types who never buy anything, they can easily attract people who will buy a t-shirt made in a Taiwanese sweatshop with a pro-feminist message on it (and 500% mark-up). How do you attract SJWs? You clear away threats to their ideology, which means anyone who might disagree. For them to see a virtual space as “safe,” it must be cleansed of the “undesirables” who are non-SJW. Luckily, these opposition types are bad consumers. Little money is made by pitching to ad-block, VPN, piratebay, google-fu experts who post things that makes the ladies want to faint. SJWs are a type of consumer that may be unique in its opinions, but it acts like every other type of consumer. If you pitch products to their self-image, they keep buying until they run out of credit.
You can see this same process of consumerization in music festivals. The festivals are made good by members of the counter-culture, but when the festivals start attracting big names, suddenly ticket prices climb, drugs are banned completely, nakedness, improptu perfomances, and general anarchy are stopped and it becomes some homogenised, middle-class-mother-friendly pop concert with Hummus everywhere and excellent baby-changing facilities. Why? Because dirty hippies don’t spend as much money as middle class moms and university-educated white girls. A dirty hippie is there to see the band, buy some beer and have a good time. An SJW is there to buy tickets, bumper stickers, mugs, pens and hats so that they can pose with them for a selfie and possibly win in the lottery of what is trending among other SJWs now. Even better, they are adamant about comfort, so you can sell them hotel rooms and rental cars too.
How do they afford this? Most of the famous SJWs are trust-fund babies. The working SJWs (and there are plenty) aren’t as loud and don’t spend so much time begging for you to supplement their trust fund or to fund their cutting edge game, made in game-maker, about being cat-called (games are art and therefore don’t have to be fun, shitlord). But they tend to follow the lead of the trust-fund SJWs because those have more time and as a result make up more of the cutting-edge trends. To post to Tumblr all day, someone else paying the bills or an easy perpetual entry-level job. SJWs will buy “male tears” mugs and “smash the patriarchy” t-shirts or a “die cis scum” quilt because they can do so from their desks every week instead of investing in homes, cars, kids and a future.
The SJW phenomenon causes a type of gentrification of high-traffic parts of the internet. When they start out, most sites are occupied by people who have goals other than pure consumption itself. They tend to buy less stuff and not buy compulsively. This group is worthless as a target demographic for advertising. They make very little money, buy few products, and hate advertising, so the more you advertise, the less likely they are to buy. Business likes a simple formula of audience x advertising = profits. You can only get that with people who buy compulsively, and since SJWs compulsively buy whatever is trendy at the time, it becomes easy to follow trends, put them on products, and reap the “fat tail” of all the SJWs trying to catch up with their leaders.
If you want to understand the mentality of the SJW, you need to see them as consumers in the classic model and not as radical activists. Where Bob Smith was “keeping up with the Joneses” to avoid looking poor in comparison, SJWs are keeping up with each other to avoid looking uninformed and un-hip. Remember, “social justice” activism is a mode of socialization and an activity for them. They are not engaging in this to change the world like a die-hard ideologue so much as to have fun and attract a social group. As single people without families or extraordinary success in their careers, they need some cause that makes it look like their lives are still important, and their dollars have funded a whole industry based on giving them what they want.
On the original internet after its initial opening to non-military, academic and government interests, a lack of huge sites concentrating all traffic made free speech a non-issue. If one became a problem, people moved to the other.
In current usage, most people visit a half-dozen sites on a regular basis and go to others for specific tasks only, like ordering pizza or renting a car. This makes speech on the bigger sites an issue because most of these sites censor not just to remove the child pornography and hacking information, but to take away any data that might offend potential customers.
Happy hugbox for 18-to-35s who have taken refuge in a liberal beta vision of reality, Reddit took the lead in being free speech until recently, when it has formalized its clique status by banning “harassing” speech:
Systematic and/or continued actions to torment or demean someone in a way that would make a reasonable person (1) conclude that reddit is not a safe platform to express their ideas or participate in the conversation, or (2) fear for their safety or the safety of those around them.
The above is carefully constructed to appear legal, but it creates a broad and entirely subjective standard. Who fears for their “safety” based on words on the internet, unless those words consist of their home address and a direct threat? Who feels a platform is not “safe” to “express their ideas”? People who are easily offended.
With this new standard, Reddit is venturing into Facebook territory. The leading social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr have similar approaches to censored content, which generally takes two forms: (1) disturbing stuff that is not political, philosophical or religious speech or (2) political, philosophical or religious speech that offends others. We can separate a message that consists of nothing but ethnic slurs, crude jokes about fat people, rating women by appearance, and so on as the first category distinct from political commentary on the viability of diversity, the impact of obesity, or analysis of the differing average IQs of women and men as the second category. Facebook lumps much of this together and uses human power to determine what gets banned:
Facebook operates a fascinatingly strict set of guidelines determining what should be deleted. Pictures of naked private parts, drugs (apart from marijuana) and sexual activity (apart from foreplay) are all banned. Male nipples are OK, but naked breastfeeding is not. Photographs of bodily fluids (except semen) are allowed, but not if a human being is also shown. Photoshopped images are fine, but not if they show someone in a negative light.
[…]Moderators are told always to escalate specific threats – “I’m going to stab Lisa H at the frat party” is given as the charming example – but not generic, unlikely ones, such as “I’m going to blow up the planet on New Year’s Eve.”
It is, of course, to Facebook’s credit that they are attempting to balance their mission “to make the world more open and connected” with a willingness to remove traces of the darker side of human nature.
The problem with this solution is that it creates an invisible hierarchy of those who make the decisions as to what is accepted and this anonymity means that the difference between political censorship and removal of pointless blight and vandalism is erased. The effect of categorizing all traffic as “offensive” by type of content means that certain political viewpoints or topics can be removed using the justification that some of what was included in them qualifies under the banned category. One journalist found out just how arbitrary and partisan this process tends to be in reality:
My experience on both ends of the reporting regime suggests the process is neither rational nor transparent. Facebook censors operate under a cloak of anonymity, with no accountability to users. When the Supreme Court issues rulings, the justices present detailed, carefully reasoned (and often quite lengthy) written justifications for their decisions. So whether you agree or disagree with what the Court decides, you at least know the basis of their judgments.
Not so with Facebook. As powerful as the nine Supreme Court justices may be, they are no longer the most consequential arbiters of acceptable speech around. While the justices’ decisions affect over 300m Americans, and establish precedents for years to come, it is a rare individual who says or publishes something that rubs up against the wishes of the government. But for the 1.3 billion users of Facebook, anything you post could lead to an anonymously issued user report. The judgment comes swiftly—and, as far as this correspondent can tell, quite capriciously.
For a long time, Reddit dodged this problem by having no official censorship; it merely allowed groups of SJWs to police the site with mass downvotes and negative public attention, in addition to permitting journalists to expose problem users. This let Reddit keep its hands clean, continue claiming that it was a free speech platform, and yet have some of the most politically offensive content removed by a cadre of hardline politically-correct activists.
Reddit is now venturing into Facebook territory by creating a dividing line between “safe” and “unsafe” information. This distinguishes not by category (like “body parts”) but by a mixture of intent and effect on others, which can be totally subjective. One of the first hiccups with his new policy involved the disappearance of /r/EllenPaoInAction, a reddit sub-forum dedicated to discussion of new CEO Ellen Pao and her husband Alphonse “Buddy” Fletcher, who have a long history of alleged extortionate discrimination lawsuits, ponzi schemes and low work performance.
In addition, Pao raised some eyebrows with her admission that she is enforcing “social justice warrior” (SJW) — intensely politically-correct, civil rights oriented leftists for whom internet activism is a hobby (see Pao’s comments on Twitter) — standards in hiring:
Ms. Pao, who said she wants to stay long-term as Reddit’s CEO when a one-year interim period ends, said she has removed salary negotiations from the hiring process because studies show women don’t fare as well as men. She has brought in well-known Silicon Valley diversity consultant Freada Kapor Klein to advise the company. And she has passed on hiring candidates who don’t embrace her priority of building a gender-balanced and multiracial team. “We ask people what they think about diversity, and we did weed people out because of that,” she said.
It used to be that you had to avoid offending the boss with a strong political statement. Now, you must agree with the boss on political topics or you will not get hired in the first place. This above statement, plus the Reddit policy of removing “harassing” information, has made many users nervous and cynical. They are seeing a mostly free speech (minus child porn, illegal/stolen information, and “doxxing” or revealing of user real-life identities) platform become one where the users have to tip-toe around the various pretenses of different groups that are offended by any number of comments, some of them factually or logically true. The blending of removal of destructive activity and “offensive” speech, plus the clear direction of Reddit’s culture and hiring in an SJW direction, virtually guarantees that the platform will remove everything but politically correct speech.
This was intended as a discussion post about the controversy, not a place to be racist against Asians. Find somewhere else to post your stuff. I don’t want to be shadowbanned for this.
He refers to the notorious Reddit practice of “shadowbanning” or hiding everything a user posts from everyone but themselves, ostensibly to combat spam but used as a general purpose removal tool for troublesome users and some allege, politically-nonconforming ones. Once shadowbanned, a user has little chance of restoring his or her ability to interact with the site, and some users find that if they create new accounts on the same IP they are banned again, often for little more than offending one of the existing groups on Reddit. This message suggested that possibly a threat had occurred.
To clear up any drama, Amerika reached out to wfa19 to get his side of the story.
You were the moderator/founder of reddit.com/r/EllenPaoInAction. What inspired you to start this sub-reddit (or “sub”)? What did you hope would happen? Why do you think it was important?
I support Gamergate, as in we need more transparency in video game journalism, and I was kind of sick of having actual news on this being replaced by news on Ellen Pao on the front page of KotakuInAction. I wanted somewhere else for this stuff to go, so I decided to start it.
What kind of content appeared in /r/EllenPaoInAction? What types of comments? Were you satisfied with the quality of thinking in these submissions and comments? What do you wish had been there?
It was divided into two sections, either posts (usually articles) about what Ellen Pao or Buddy Fletcher had done, and just straight up shitposts, usually in text posts in Chinese gibberish to make fun of her being Asian.
On May 30, 2015, you wrote: “This was intended as a discussion post about the controversy, not a place to be racist against Asians. Find somewhere else to post your stuff. I don’t want to be shadowbanned for this.” What racist comments against Asians did you see? What percentage of the comments/threads did you think were racist?
When I originally started the subreddit, I wanted it to be a place where both sides could debate about the subject of Ellen Pao, and not be divided into separate hugboxes like Reddit has done on many other issues. However, when I made the mod team, I realized that they mostly from Fatpeoplehate, Mensrights, and other controversial subreddits. I was initially ok with this because I send out a pm to the mods saying that they should not delete any post that is for Ellen Pao and I wanted this to be a neutral sub. Unfortunately some of the mods and the userbase decided to basically turn it into a hugbox of sorts.
One mod decided to mod his main account, which turned out to mod extremely distasteful subreddits like CoonTown. He then immediately changed the CSS to include extremely racist pictures (one of which was a picture of Ellen Pao photoshopped to look like Mao Zedong with the Japanese Imperial Flag in the background), which I was not ok with. I unmodded him and unsuccessfully tried to remove the images from the CSS. This drew some ire from the mod team but there was no more drama. Then a bunch of users decided to shitpost links to the chinese front page of reddit, and racist more pictures of Ellen Pao comparing her to WWII Japan or Communist China. Then one day, bunch of mods of subreddits critical of Ellen Pao were shadowbanned. I wasn’t certain if my subreddit was on the admins radar, but considering my mod team, and the userbase of the sub, I didn’t want to take any chances.
Did anyone directly threaten to shadowban you, or was this more a response to what you saw as the direction reddit was taking after CEO Pao’s announcement that it was not a free speech space, but a “safe space”? Had you had any contact with admins or other mods regarding /r/EllenPaoInAction?
No admins had ever approached me about my decision to shut the sub down. I only did it due to the points I made in my previous question.
Was there any “crypto-racism,” e.g. dog-whistling or other coded symbols for racist ideas?
I don’t think so.
What was the reaction of the Reddit community to your taking the sub down? Were they supportive, and did they understand your reasons?
The only posts made about it were on subreddits like Subredditcancer, who already have a deep distaste of Pao, so nobody actually supported me taking the sub down. However, half of the top comments that were on that post were laughable (most of them insisting the subreddit was not racist, when the CSS had pictures referencing the Japanese Imperial Army and Communist China). Some people said that I was a coward, and I admit my behavior was cowardish in shutting the sub down, but I didn’t want to hand the subreddit over to anyone on the mod team because I knew the racism would just get worse.
If you could summarize your reasons, why exactly did you take /r/EllenPaoInAction down, and does it relate to either the failure of the sub to achieve the objectives you set out for it, or the negative behaviors that it evoked, or both?
The mods were racist, the userbase was racist, there was a ton of shitposting, the older the sub got, the less actual good content was posted, and it became a hugbox instead of an actual place of discussion.
If you feel comfortable with this question, can you tell us about yourself? How did you get involved in being critical or at least feeling that a watchdog was needed regarding Ellen Pao? Are you a longtime redditor? What do you like about Reddit?
I thought that there definitely is a problem with a company when the CEO’s husband is accused of running a Ponzi scheme, and I just think that there should be a place on a platform as big as reddit, to discuss the leader of the platform.
What do you think will happen with Reddit in the future?
The admins will eventually have to take some sort of action. The whole Cooper fiasco with Jailbait will re-sprout either with CoonTown, Fatpeoplehate, or somewhere else, and the admins will either decide to save face by shutting them down or decide to be a “free speech” platform and I’m almost certain it’ll be the former.
If people want to stay in touch with you and what you do, where should they go and what should they read?
Out of the gathering fog, they assemble without knowing why. Brainless, they move impulsively like insects, repeating actions autonomically. They consume the living and replace them with the living dead. The few survivors resist but are hopelessly outnumbered and are excluded to the point of living in constant fear, hiding in remote areas and maintaining a constant paranoia, because at any moment the attack can come.
This is the Zombie Ritual. It describes how every society on earth has destroyed itself: by replacing the logic of consequences with a social code that enforces illusion. In a dying society, the only way to advance is to repeat the zombie ideology. This causes other people to approve of you, hire you and befriend you. Once you have joined the group of socially acceptable people, you can then make a life for yourself. It is thus logical to repeat lies and eventually, it becomes logical to believe them, because otherwise you must face the truth that your society is dying and you and your descendants will be destroyed by its collapse.
If you obey the dominant power, all will be OK, at least for now; almost everyone does, because the alternative is to be excluded. The dominant power maintains control by forcing people to accept an idea which is also a goal. This idea “represents” reality but does so like a symbol, inaccurately and favoring certain ideas over others. If everyone else agrees that the Emperor’s new clothes are beautiful, when in fact he is naked and revealed thus as foolish, those who speak up against the new clothes will be pariahs. At the same time, an Emperor that foolish will lead the civilization into decline if not outright dystopia. The official narrative states that the new clothes are beautiful, and anyone who wants to succeed must repeat this dogma.
When contradictions to the official narrative or doubt of its validity emerge, the people become terrified. They take the path of least resistance: instead of opening up critique of the narrative, they gather together with others to reinforce the narrative. First they filter out disturbing thoughts and facts, and then they go on a witch-hunt for any who disagree with this new interpretation of what is real. Individuals can advance themselves by currying favor from this lynch mob by smashing down others who do not embrace the narrative enough, claiming them as deniers. In the grips of such a passion, the society quickly removes all but those who champion the official narrative.
Drink from the goblet, the goblet of gore
Taste the zombie’s drug, now you want more
Drifting from the living, joining with the dead
Zombie dwelling maggots, now infest your head
For the everyday person, it becomes important to avoid noticing glitches in the narrative. When reality contradicts dogma, the correct response is more dogma. It can be made more extreme and must be, because the farther it drifts from reality the more its errors show, and so these societies inevitable tend toward stronger lynch mobs and/or official voices who will censure or outright imprison those who disagree. It may even, like the first democracy in Athens, execute people for asking questions about the official narrative, as it did to Socrates. The defeat of those who disagree will be viewed as victory for the narrative and thus affirmation that it is correct, good, true and “the right side of history.”
Among the people neurosis and near-schizophrenic conditions will become the norm as they force themselves to believe what is patently untrue. Like the loyalty test question in 1984, where 2+2=5 to those who love Big Brother, the test of dogma exists everywhere, especially in everyday conversation. Those who enforce the narrative are safe. Those who do not must be shunned lest those who associate with them be thought to be critical of the narrative. All must obey not just in their actions, but in their words, which then program their minds. The result is that the average person lives in a world of political assumptions, programmed to see issues within only those narrow filtered questions and cherry-picked data sets.
This creates a fetishism of denial among the people. They compete to see who is most in denial, and by being more rabid and strident than the rest individuals can rise to prominence. They are cheerleaders for the narrative and make everyone else feel good because instead of pointing to doubts and fears, they issue a calming statement that all is well and nothing must change. Just keep on keeping on. And thus people can turn back to their jobs, their personal lives and their fortunes and avoid any thoughts that they are complicit in the creation of a tragedy. They are given the freedom to be oblivious, which is what they wanted in the first place: permission to stop concerning themselves with anything but themselves.
As denial intensifies, the recriminations accelerate and the opposition becomes weaker. It also finds it harder to defend any point of view but the prevailing dogma since all of the language that it uses is already framed in terms that are convenient to the narrative. Any thought except the narrative gets squeezed to the periphery and then excluded. The narrative becomes the new starting point for all thought and the assumption behind every statement. Conflicts with reality become explained as enemies, not errors in the narrative. For this reason, the society goes off on a path of its own chasing chimerae of political illusions and, when it finally collides with reality again, it is in a fatal and permanent correction.
Why is it that the greatest industrial power on earth cannot produce a decent cigarette?
Most of us are aware that the big brands are 90% advertising and 10% highly efficient operations converting cheap tobacco into a uniform taste, much like fast food joints turn horse anus into a burger that has that same great trademarked look, feel and flavor every time no matter in what city the restaurant is located.
But then when you venture off that beaten commercial, mainstream and socially-acceptable path and go to the Democrats of cigarettes, the American Spirit company who advertise “100% additive-free natural tobacco blends,” the cigarettes are just as bad? Another way to view this: if this is all natural, how are they doing worse than the big commercial brands when their flavor is only mildly improved?
I grant you that American Spirits are better than Marlboro, Camel, Winstons and the generics. Surpassing that low standard should be something one does before breakfast along with tidying up the kitchen counter. Camels are too sweet; Marlboros smell great from a distance but taste like fermented ash; Winstons seem to just aim for the middle of the road but still have that icky sweetness. Generics fill themselves with whatever they scrape off the floor later, minus the additives and conditioning that ensure that a namebrand cigarette always tastes like its trademark, burns uniformly and smells about the same in the pack and on the wind.
And yet, these American Spirits provide endless disappointment. They burn less evenly, which is not a problem. The problem arises when you attempt to taste them. They most closely resemble Marlboros without the sweet smell, but similarly taste mostly like ash. The flavor is gone. Did they boil out it? Tobacco that is additive-free does not promise that it is not over-processed. The smell is adequate from a distance but average, more like a Winston. As the cigarette progresses to the end, the taste gets greasier but never picks up a flavor of tobacco like you might find in a pipe, cigar or real cigarette like they have in other countries.
I submit to you this, dear reader: capitalism, while better than average-conformity-enforcing socialism, has its fatal flaw. That flaw is that what makes the best product is not what makes the best cigarette, for example. A good cigarette will have flavor and deliver a dose of nicotine without requiring over-processing, but most people will not notice and write down on those little checkmark-box forms that it has superior qualities. They will simply experience it.
If they are thinking, they will note what a good experience it is. If not, they will come up with a laundry list of complaints. The way to squash complaints is the utilitarian approach of capitalism, which is to make a fast-food style product out of the cigarette. That removes the peaks and valleys alike and gives you a nice fat average right down the middle that is a mediocre experience but, within that mediocrity, creates no downsides. There will be no variation in flavor. The experience will be exactly the same every time wherever you buy the cigarette. No one can complain because although it is insipid and mediocre, it delivers exactly what is promised. On that basis, most consumers will buy them and smoke them and keep doing so, even though for anyone who can tell the difference the cigarette will clearly be inferior.
There are no magic bullets. Adam Smith was off his rocker and the libertarians are insane. If you put any decision to the mass of people, they will fail to notice the good but will always complain just to hear the sound of their own voices, and you will end up with a compromise that while it has no flaws also has no excellence. This is the future of democracy, capitalism and crowd-sourced choices: endless perfect mediocrity, exactly identical, slowly squeezing out anyone who can tell the difference.
Every society possesses taboos. Healthy societies ban destructive things; dying societies ban dissent. In the distributed totalitarian system of modernity, citizens enforce rules on one another through ostracism and name-calling. In response to this, a community of “trolls” sprung up to bait people with forbidden knowledge and draw them into contradiction when they cannot confront the implications of this knowledge.
To explore this fascinating phenomenon which uses un-popular right wing and realist thought to torment the oblivious among other methods, we interview an internet troll. Identified only as “Iconoclast,” he has trolled the internet for over a decade with a palette of provocations including rightist views of race, sex and society. The language might be a bit rough but you can see why trolls attack — and the reason to their madness — with this interview with an internet troll:
What is the purpose of trolling?
Trolling doesn’t have a singular purpose; rather, it is a set of methods to create spectacle. Take in point the various types of trolling: concern trolling, fake personas, bullshit press releases, devil’s advocacy, social engineering, and etc. Not all of these will be done for the same purposes.
As for spectacle, a (good) troll finds a target to attack, absorbs its mentality, and determines the best way to undermine the opposition’s position. One of my former trolls — and one of my more entertaining ones — was pretending to be the culmination of stereotypes that white supremacists hold for Jews. With that one I was able to troll the entire planet, having both neo-nazis and far-left commies enraged. The goal, of course, was to provide humor while making both those groups look like the asses they are.
Another set of trolls I did was to create fake press releases under the guise of a conservative christian group exposing pedophilia on wikipedia. This troll was pretty interesting because a lot of the content in it was excellent investigative journalism, combined with some smear attempts against ideologically driven abusive wikipedia admins. The motive for this one was to attack wikipedia for its anti-elitist stances, bureaucratic bullshit, and autistic, ideology-driven editing.
I suppose, to summarize, trolling is basically cloak-and-dagger black propaganda in a world where people are incapable of intellectual argument, and if they are, they’re too ideologically stubborn to even accept any arguments whatsoever, blindly attacking thru nitpicking and bullshit. Intelligence is low: we live in a world where the formerly named “The Learning Channel” now broadcasts the Kardashians and Hoarders. I think that concept says something profound, in a very ‘tarded way. This world is not reason-driven, I am not going to reason with the average idiot.
What sort of topics do you introduce with trolls?
Race, sexual perversions, and leftism are my favorite targets. Everybody is so absolutely sensitive about race — I’d say many people are actually self-hating nowadays, regardless of race — it’s a pleasant topic to shove in peoples’ faces like a dog that pissed on the carpet. We live in a world where kids are introduced to pictures of people from, say, India, and are asked if he is black or white while not given the actual, real choice, and when kids of course get it wrong they use it as a “gotcha, race doesn’t exist!!” plate of bullshit. That said, I find the whole race topic to be overblown by both sides… it’s important, but it’s not worthy of being the zenith of political discussion. No, racial-separatist nationalism is not the answer, nor is cultural marxism. If you took the top 10% of people (nebulous defintion of what is “top,” but let’s just keep it that way) and put them on another planet, I really doubt racial issues would arise much if people were sufficiently intelligent and moral.
Sexual perversions are quite funny, and if you look closely a lot of leftists are very big into it as well. Of course, this stuff all ties together in a Gordian knot. Leftists like to use people’s sexual problems as some sort of political statement, of course to excuse weird, deviant behavior as some weird way of attacking majoritarian people, and for having their own failings be swept under the rug. A bit rany, I know, I once had a hilarious troll on collarme.com where I pretended to be a neo-nazi chick who wanted to enslave blacks and Jews. Oh man, the messages I got on that were beyond wild; I had one Rastafari guy google-stalk me a year later, paranoid as fuck, even though I had no interest in revealing personal info because I’m not a loser like failed troll Jason Fortuny.
That ties into another point: the troll also learns more about the bizarre side of human nature. When you can stretch absurdity as far as possible, and be able to intereact with others in that mode, you learn a lot about what people really are like. It’s quite disturbing and takes away one’s hope in humanity or belief in the viability of human dignity.
When did you become a troll, and why?
Hm. This reaches waaaaaay back to the limits of my memory. I think it involved getting falsely blamed for someone else crapflooding or trolling a “Find Luigi in Mario 64″ forum when I wasn’t even yet a teenager. I think that let to jihad on my part against them, and me and my brother were just better than them at it. Really hard to remember details. Not terribly important, training wheels for a troll, though.
More than that, though, was posting on gamefaqs.com and finding out I just didn’t really respect the average poster there (I’ve come around to not really respecting the average person in general. I’ve matured quite a bit since then). I became a somewhat legendary troll, social engineer, and pest on that site to the point where the site admin, CJayC, called up my ISP once and I was briefly taken offline.
I’ve always found the witty trolls of forums to be more interesting people, being less involved in social posturing and more on merit. When people “win” internet arguments by using big words and trying to seem intelligent, you realize that debating is pointless and verbal insurgency is far more effective. The trolls, I’ve noticed, never needed that posturing.
Who are the most famous trolls and what is their claim to fame?
Good question. Does this mean internet trolling, or in more general, a gadfly of sorts? I’ll take the latter as it’s a better question to answer.
Diogenes of Sinope was quite a good one. Telling Alexander the Great he couldn’t distuinguish the bones of his ancestors with those of slaves was extremely ballsy, if the story was true, though I really doubt it is.
Marquis de Sade I’ve always felt was more of a troll than a pervert (though he was still that).
Of course, Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” is probably one of the more brilliant pre-internet trolls, as well. All the marks of good trolling: false persona, absurdity, horrific satirizing of society’s attitudes.
As for internet trolls:
Sigvatr is one of the best trolls I’ve seen. Totally wild, great sense of humor, pissed enough people where he can’t legally enter Germany. Apparently he spawned a child and left the internet, but electricretard.com was great as was the competitive spree shooter site. His dedication to trolling was so intense he took pictures of him eating his own cum to shock the somethingawful.com boards. That’s only a summary off the top of my head. A+ troll.
During the republican primaries of ’08, a bunch of Ron Paul people made fake forums purporting to be the grassroots supporters of rival republican candidates, and the stuff they did was some of the best political trolling I’ve ever seen.
The GNAA did some good stuff, I’d say the best was the JewsDidWTC website that got featured on CNN. GNAA was always a little bit of an underperformer though due to a chaotic IRC channel.
Most recently, I’d say anons from /pol/ have done a lot of good work attacking social justice warriors, a group that I feel doesn’t get enough trollage. SJWs and feminists are dangerous neo-Marxists absorbing weirdos from the internet with a lot of support from academia, and I think they’re going to get more influential in the next decade or so as more broken people band together to angrily attack normal “majoritarian” people.
What led you to become discontented with this society?
The disparity in my intelligence and other people’s. Catholic school was especially harsh because you have a mentally broken baby boomer adult base coupled with kids in an environment that is hostile to childrens’ nature. Not to mention most of the other children were leagues below me morally and intellectually, I even had one teacher bribe other students with candy to hate me.
I remember once in elementary school I managed to get one of those red rubber balls before anyone else did because I never got a chance to play with one. All the “popular” kids began whining like babies and the teacher forced me to give them the ball, because –get this — “that’s democracy.” I shit you not, that’s exactly how it went.
As a child, it always was strange how other children had less of a moral base. So impulsive, willing to lie to adults to get what they want.
As I got older, I realized what mattered was not truth, but perception. The masses of worthless people only really care about social status, novelty, and maybe a little bit of cognitive dissonance here and there so in brief moments of lucidity they can make a half-assed attempt to atone without really putting in much effort.
Saying so, to me, is a bit amusing, because my morals have become less prominent in day-to-day life, nowadays. They’re still there, but I’m much more scummy now than I used to be. I don’t mind it, it is simply an adaption.
What are your aims in life?
Really? Drinking alcohol and passing the time. Hoping for an anarchic peroid of reboot for civilization. Too much noise, not enough signal, few things mainstream really ever catch my eye. There’s not much here, I think it’s way too degenerative and decayed for revitalization. We just have to wait for disaster to occur so things can be corrected. This is outside of our control. We hit the point of no return on leftism and idiocy.
We bred a mass of domesticated, selfish, boring people and gave them the ability to make their own bread and circuses. We just have to wait out for their self-imposed downfall.
As for my personal life:
I could get a career, but I don’t ass-kiss very well, I’m quite abrasive and don’t want to work for a higher-paying job while worrying what my mouth says to get me in trouble in an environment of beta-males and people more deserving of becoming the plaything of a coprophiliac serial killer with a love of the Human Centipede films.
Most immediate aim is getting swole. Would be fascinating to understand the underlying animalistic power differential to other people when one is swole.
If you could create your ideal society, what would it be like?
I don’t know how to answer this. I’m not a fan of top-down solutions when it comes to society and economics. I think we need less people, better people, better art, and whatever else. The fundamental problem of our day and age really is just human nature. I don’t think any design in particular really matters, you just need people who are morally better, intellectually superior, and more focused-yet-relaxed than what we have now.
I’m always entertained by idiots who complain about capitalism. Capitalism, at heart, is the ultimate bottom-up economic model (when corporations aren’t given handouts or favoritism by government). Any flaw with it really, in all actuality, is a flaw in mass-human nature. When your entire population is composed of bitches, don’t be suprised at the stupid shit they elect with their dollar. No controlled economy is going to do any better when the average person is only one standard deviation of being entertained by separating the corn and peanuts within their excrement.
Somewhat disconnected, but I’ll cut the details obtained by experience, and to any younger readers planning on assembling a group to head out onto the wilderness and leave modern society: not gonna happen. Focus elsewhere.
What do you think will happen in the future to the USA?
Not entirely sure. An eventual collapse of some sort, there is no real plan or focus going on and it seems to just be special interests fighting for their own little ego puppet show all nilly-willy, without any real concern for the future. For the immediate, I see the left continuing to score “victories” in both government and culture, resulting in an alienation of the majority (by that I mean, those who generally are conservative and middle class, mostly white but I don’t think race matters much on this), but they’re definitely going to have much more control over academia, politics, and culture. The modern american right isn’t effective nor brave enough to do anything but smile and nod and bargain.
I don’t think it is important to focus too much on how things will unfold in 20-50 years. Maybe something will happen with technology that is a complete game-changer.
What is your outlook on dating, marriage and sex?
For the most part, modern women are only good for sex. Most are attention vampires, completely ego-driven with impulses of sadomasochism, concerned only with men in matters of novelty or social status. It is completely impossible to have adult conversations with the majority of them, they have no knowledge of history, no street smarts, hell, no book smarts even, either. They offer nothing other than their worn-out vaginas, mouths, and buttholes. I’d rather hang out with men, though sadly most men are complete weenies who take shit too personally.
Marriage is a godawful institution for modern men. I’d advise men to avoid it because the left-wing government is hostile to men and it gives men almost no legal advantages, instead it gives women the world to screw a man over. That said, I think good men should find some way of passing their genes on without becoming indentured servants to the government. I’ve not yet figured that one out, so I’m not the one to ask on that.
I think men need sex, and sex doesn’t seem damage a man’s ability to form attachments, so I think it’s fine for a man to have one night stands, and pump and dump. Whores have existed since the dawn of time, let us on the right stop pretending to be “volkisch pure-hearted chaste mega-mormons” because men who don’t get their wick dipped tend to go crazy. As for attachments, I think men have a built-in capacity of brotherhood (that can translate to loyalty in general) that women don’t have, thus, even a manwhore can settle down.
As for women, I don’t even know. Having a lot of sex partners as a woman definitely does seem to make her incapable of being loyal. I don’t know if women are even capable of loving men — they love what a man can do to and for them, but not the man itself. It’s transactional. I’d say that women are only capable of loving their parents, their children, and the small yappy dogs or cats they buy after they’ve hit the wall or the children left the nest.
Feminism is basically built up by failed, ugly, fat women, who have successfully poisoned the well, but not entirely have been able to turn sexuality into a witchhunt against men. If they get political power, that will change, but for the forseeable future women will continue to blow bad boys while taking nice guy’s money.
I think, in the future, as ridiculous as it sounds, once the articial womb is available, and sentient AI alongside realistic robotics, men will opt for their gynoid Stepford wives rather than deal with real women, who provide no intellectual stimulation and come with too much baggage. It does sound ridiculous, but thinking of me settling down with a subpar woman until I get divorced in 5-10 years and lose half my wealth alongside all of my kids sounds even more absurd.
I think the disparity in sexual values between men and women is among the more important problems in our little “equal” society, but men will win in the end, I think, insofar the leftist brainwashing reaches its limits. It’s hard to tell. I’ve known men better looking and in more shape than I who, despite my warnings, ignored my advice on women and yet had not the balls to even tell me what happened when their ignoring me fucked them over, so I cannot say where things are going to lead.
Is there any hope for humanity?
Very little as of now. This place is wacky. So much posturing. Such fake. So wow.
There is some cultural revitalization. Craft beer is booming, so good beer isn’t hard to find. Dubstep is the popular thing right now, and though I don’t listen to it, from what little I have, seems to be leagues better than what kids were listening to in high school when I was that age. Not ideal, but I would’ve expected kids nowadays to listen to Justin Bieber clones singing about how it’s okay to get fucked in the ass by a woman with a strapon.
I know both are unimpressive, but, could be far worse with the way things have headed.
At any rate, the increasing proliferation of the absurd can be a bit amusing at times. I think a human zoo full of autistics on display would be neato. Wait…. I think there is one…. think it’s called “tumblr.”
As bad as things are, the future is opaque. I’d advise people to do constructive things instead of bicker on the ‘net about the what or the why for now. Focusing on the specifics of politics and theorizing about “traditional societies” and all that jazz isn’t going to do much to make you a better man. Ethno-nationalism isn’t gonna fucking save you. Leftism sure as hell won’t, LOL. Collective humanity is far too degraded. Let it collapse.
Where do people read more of your writings?
I don’t write much. So much noise on the internet, I’d just be one man in a room with a megaphone next to a very long human centipede, and if someone had dysentery in that ‘pede, the sounds of bowel movements would drown me out. Something like that. If people have interests in me writing more, I might give actual articles and such a chance,
Whoever wins on Nov. 4, few Americans will harbor any illusions about their national unity. No matter which pairing one chooses — red and blue, Right and Left, coastal elites and flyover salt-of-the-earthers — there is no getting around our status as a country divided, a people set apart from one another as much by regional culture as by religion or political ideology.
A perfect time, in other words, to talk about secession — which is what will happen when the Middlebury Institute’s Third North American Secessionist Conference convenes in Manchester, New Hampshire a week and a half after the election.
Good introduction to the issue: America is hopelessly divided between left and right, and subdivisions within those categories.
Looking at history, national secessionist movements are relatively successful. Numerically, most of them failed – but the ones that succeeded now run most of this planet. Considering the magnitude of their demands, the vehemence of opposition, and the bloodshed they usually engender, they seem a successful type of political movement. Yet in the same historical perspective, non-national (non-ethnic) secessionist movements are a total flop.
Now, if anyone can secede at any time, that means the end of the state, the government, on the usual definitions. And not just of tyrannies and gulags, but also of ‘nice’ democratic governments. The explanation might be simply the fear of bloodshed and chaos – anarchy in the most negative sense. This does not explain why national secession has been relatively successful: it is possible to take an ethical position that “all secession is wrong”, but evidently very few people do. Distinctions are made, and conditions are set, but some secessions are accepted.
Democracy relies on a prohibition of secession. A democratic regime assumes a ‘demos’ – a unit of political decision-making which is constant between decisions. If every dissident minority secedes after every opposed decision, then there is no democratic regime. (There would be no political regime at all – at least not for standard political theory).
So democrats have concluded, like President Lincoln in the 1860’s, that secession must be suppressed. Since modern democracies are nation states, secession is now treated as an issue of national unity, and national identity: Lincoln was one of the last politicians who had to address secession as a classic political issue.
This is what they’re up against: democracies, which in theory thrive on internal opposition, instantly disintegrate if they let anyone secede — unless that group is ethnic, in which the nation neatly fragments with the host nation filtering out a single ethnic group.
Some philosophers have distinguished between the question whether and, if so, under what conditions a group has a moral claim-right to secede and the question of whether and, if so, under what conditions a constitution ought to or may include a right to secede. For example, while acknowledging that secession may sometimes be morally justified (where this presumably means the group in question has the claim-right to secede), Cass Sunstein has argued that constitutional recognition of a right to secede is incompatible with the principles of constitutionalism (or at least democratic constitutionalism) (Sunstein, 1991). Sunstein argues that a basic principle of constitutionalism is that political institutions, including the constitution itself, must be designed so as to encourage citizens to engage in the hard work of democratic politics, where this means competing in the public forum on grounds of principle, with a minimum of strategic bargaining. Following Albert O. Hirschman, (Hirschman, 1970) he then contends that if the constitution acknowledges a right to secede then discontent minorities will be tempted to shirk the hard work of principled, democratic politics either by actually seceding when the majoritarian decisions go against their preferences or by using the threat of secession as a strategic bargaining tool as a de facto veto over majority rule. In either case, democracy will be undermined.
Neat thinking, but if a group is a minority with needs contrary to the majority, it’s never going to get what it wants in a democracy, anyway. Hence the reason that groups of a non-mainstream political alignment, or those who believe politics has become misinterpreted, want to secede — they are numerically inconsequential.
“The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable — it’s too big, it’s too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens,” said Rob Williams, editor of Vermont Commons, a quarterly newspaper dedicated to secession.
“Congress and the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war. If you care about democracy and self-governance and any kind of representative system, the only constitutional way to preserve what’s left of the Republic is to peaceably take apart the empire.”
What’s interesting is that these groups are from all over the political spectrum.
The League of the South wants the old Confederacy; Vermont wants to be a liberal free state; Christian Exodus wants a small Christian theocracy.
These different groups agree on one thing however: they can’t get along, so the best way to get along is to separate into smaller groups, so that they don’t have to come up with 1 rule to fit 2 or more different inclinations.
I will explain this quickly because I lead a busy life, generally involving work that creates for my family stability outside of what is promised to us by the government, the good will of my fellow citizens and even the comforts of religion and friendship.
Our society is hell. It is a subtle hell, because it is not fire and brimstone. It is instead a conspiracy of many details that don’t add up into a whole. It is what happens when big complex things like civilizations fall apart.
There is no way to point to any specific facts, only a fact pattern. We no longer have anything in common. We rely on more rules and regulations to fix that. The more rules we make, the more they are evaded. This in turn leads to social chaos, more police and more cheating.
If any of you think democracy is going to save you, perhaps consider mental health care: democracy is demagoguery, or using pleasant and/or scary images to browbeat the population into reacting in knee-jerk ways. Your best leaders are the ones who have lied to you, and then done what needed to be done in order to protect their own families, friends and neighbors.
Some of you believe the media, and I’d pity you if I didn’t think pity was a disease. The media sells products. The best product is dramatic. This is why every week in the news there is a new Hitler, a new miracle cure, a new soft-hearted story and a new “deep” question for you to feel important talking about. Take this hint: there are millions of such stories possible, but the media chooses the ones they need when they need them to sell product.
Industry is not going to save you either. Industry has no fixed actors. It isn’t people; it’s people pulling a drive-by in which they invest, make money, and get out, because they’re not fools and they don’t trust society either. The only escape is wealth. If you own a private island and private security, no one can harm you.
They feel this way (as do I) because this society is unstable because it is built upon illusions. We are living off of the wealth of the past, that which our great-grandfathers invented and made. We don’t do anything for ourselves. We are decadent and permissive, have no standards, and nothing in common.
As a result, it’s a cross between a lottery, lynch mob and witch trial out there. If you do something the Crowd likes, then you’re a golden boy. If you do something it doesn’t like, and it doesn’t make up its mind until that instant, you’ll get run out on the rails.
Laws? Trials? It doesn’t matter, because everything comes down to popularity. Judges need to be elected, so do politicians. Products need to be bought. Everyone wants what is popular, as it will make them rich, and no one wants what is unpopular to get in the way of the money.
Almost everything you “know” is wrong. They don’t tell you the real reasons for the wars; the real reasons are usually legitimate, but too complex to ever be approved of by the voters. Thus they lie and they must keep lying, because the voters demand they lie, because the voters will turn down any sensible proposal and cling to any emotional one.
In democracy, a simple lie like bread and circuses always wins out over a complex truth. The first election, or the meta-election, was to decriminalize lying and in fact to make it the currency of the realm. Social problems persist because we cannot face them honestly, either to fix them or to admit they’ll always be with us, like poverty and alcoholism.
Any civilization that separates actual truth from “official” truth is heading downward. Corruption, distrust and manipulation rot it from within. A society without good leadership falls apart. If you want to see an example of a fallen-apart place, look at the third world. Most of those nations are what’s left of once-great empires.
How did our society get this way? It adopted liberalism. Liberalism is a mental disease spread by self-pity. The primary idea of liberalism is that the individual perception of reality comes before results. It does this in order to make everyone feel good, which is how you make a social event succeed.
If you want to be popular, go around and tell everyone about how they’re wonderful. Everyone is great, everything is great, it’s all going to be OK. There is no need to worry about the possibility of things going wrong, because we are all here and in agreement and we will all make sure that doesn’t happen.
The reason for saying this is to make each individual feel that he or she is not accountable for the results of his or her actions. Whatever method is chosen, and whatever results occur, the individual is not to blame because they are equal.
Liberalism constitutes a denial of actual reality in favor of thoughts which are pleasant in appearance. It works backward: you figure out what result you want, and then you claim that result is your method, leaving the question of the consequences of that method unknown.
Conservatism works the other way: we look at all known results of all known actions, and pick our method by its results. Liberalism is the first half of the decision cycle: you look at what you want, then figure out how to get it. Liberals omit the second half. Conservatives have both halves.
This difference is important because how your leaders and fellow citizens choose to act is determined by the shared values system they choose. They can choose liberalism (humans-first) or conservativism (reality-first). Naturally, liberalism is more popular.
How much of moral thinking is innate? Haidt sees morality as a “social construction” that varies by time and place. We all live in a “web of shared meanings and values” that become our moral matrix, he writes, and these matrices form what Haidt, quoting the science-fiction writer William Gibson, likens to “a consensual hallucination.” But all humans graft their moralities on psychological systems that evolved to serve various needs, like caring for families and punishing cheaters. – “Jonathan Haidt Decodes the Tribal Psychology of Politics,”The Chronicle of Higher Education
The liberal consensual reality is that “Everyone should be equal, and we should all be free!”
This sounds good, but we must consider more than one level of game play here. What are the consequences of doing this? Conservatism works the other way: we look at all known results of all known actions, and pick our method by its results. That is less popular.
Liberalism is the equivalent of schizophrenia. We create a fake reality, a consensual values system based on what we want to be true and not what is true, and then our society falls apart under us.
If we saw a patient behaving this way in a hospital or courtroom, we would categorize this person as having a mental disease because of their denial of obvious reality in favor of a fantasy world. Liberalism takes this insanity and dresses it up as “morality” by ignoring the second half of the cycle, which is the effects of its actions.
It is spread by self-pity because in order to deny reality you have to feel that something is wrong with reality. You invent a fantasy world because this world is horrible to you. Liberalism, by creating an unrealistic and dysfunctional society, makes more people self-pitying. It spreads like a cancer.
What you must do is decide whether you care about the future of humanity and all the species on planet earth. The choice is yours: either a third-world wasteland, or a first-world place that thinks about the results of our actions. It is a moral, scientific, political and ethical choice to be conservative.
Until we change direction, our fortunes will continue to slowly worsen. We will continue to be the species that consumes everything and leaves a ruin behind. We will continue to be neurotic and self-pitying.
The tide is turning, very slowly. The promises of liberal democracy have failed one by one. More war, not less; no economic stability; more work, less free time; more rules, less stability. Liberalism doesn’t work.
You’re going to see a lot more of situations like this. A law or rule is on the books, and it seems unfair to minority groups, so they protest.
In response, government gives them money. Mitt Romney notices they’re part of the 47%. The rest of the country wonders, “Uh oh. Can I actually say this? That the 47% is mostly non-white and the 53% is mostly white?”
Perhaps the Republican Party is slow to figure it out, but the people voting for the Republican Party are not slow. They realize that the Democrats have been using immigration and domestic minorities to pad the voter rolls, in addition to their homegrown cadre of the disaffected, neurotic, self-pitying and futilitarian.
(I should define: a “futilitarian” is any person who believes that humanity is screwed for any effort higher than self-interest, so society should just stop harshing on my buzz, man, and give everyone a chance to live an easy life of non-work jobs, free porn and lots of entertainment from Panem et Circenses, Inc. who is just coincidentally a government contractor. I digress.)
This election isn’t just about getting America back from the Barack Hussein Obama Socialist Agenda(tm). It’s about getting America back, period. Either the majority wins out, or they get replaced by big government, more immigration, a Soviet-style wealth redistribution plan and internationalist rule in the UN style.
When people figure out an inkling of this, and I just mean a little slice of it, doesn’t take much, they begin to freak out. First is that they are conditioned to “not notice” (which means force their brains to ignore) race and class issues. They’re already squirming because they are seeing something they are programmed to not accept as true.
Second they’re losing their marbles because they don’t understand it. “Why do they hate us?” asked 4.1 million well-intentioned ladies hired in middle management simultaneously. Burly outdoors types are wondering if this is the great race war.
The answer is a lot simpler. Think back to when you were a kid. How did you make it through school? If you were popular, you joined the future leaders of America types. If not, you made excuses for not being popular, and joined kids who were united by not being popular.
As any high school movie shows us this unpopular group includes at least half of the kids in the school and comprises many subcultures. Goths, punkers, white rappers, nerds, stoners, geeks and surfers.
When these different groups join together, they have the most power in the school by their sheer numbers. Unlike in the movies the popular kids aren’t scheming against the nerds, they’re busy being popular, getting into Harvard and planning how to spend all the money they’ll make at their future careers.
But what it takes to join all these different groups is a kind of social contract that says “because not being popular is part of who we are, we agree to accept each other totally and form a different type of popularity.”
This is what the Democrats, Communists, Socialists and any other non-majority party do. They unite different groups under the banner of anti-majoritarianism or first, not being part of the majority, and second, wanting to unite and take over from that majority.
I had this one job that rewarded people for sales made on the phones. This quickly separated everyone out like oil and water, between the go-getters (annoying tools) who had lots of sales, and the “slackers” who didn’t even bother to harass ordinary people with these stupid sales pitches.
When someone got enough sales to be part of the cool group, they kind of disappeared. This new identity was something they were proud of and they had a new social group. The rest of us just fell off their radar.
During one pre-Christmas rush, all the slackers got together and started just ignoring the go-getters. We wouldn’t transfer calls to them, or give them any information, or even talk to them. The result was total breakdown of the system and who did the burden fall on? The go-getters. For once the slackers were home at Christmas and the “winners” got to spend the night on the phone, explaining Windows 95 networking to the drunk, lonely and bitter.
The American majority is mostly white, middle class, socially conservative and economically classical liberal, religiousish, family centric and essentially nerdly. They’re not cool like the slackers, the minority groups famed for their music and colorful art and cooking, or the Democrats.
Most of them don’t understand yet. They hate you, the anti-majoritarians. They don’t hate you because you’re white, middle class, possibly Christian or chaste. They hate you because you’re the majority, the well-adjusted people who are happy here. You represent what they can’t have and they project their dissatisfaction with themselves onto you.
Anti-majoritarianism reflects self-doubt on the part of those who hate the majority. If they had the ability, they would either join the majority or find another way to have what that group has. Obviously they have not, so obviously they can not, and this secret in plain sight makes them enraged.
They won’t stop until you the majority are destroyed and replaced with people more like them. Again this is not race, but the mere fact of your majority status, that they will use against you. They don’t care what the truth is. If the facts don’t agree, they’ll fake them. If the newspapers don’t agree, they’ll start their own. They will do whatever is necessary to gain control.
The American majority slept through all the liberal social experiments because the majority believed that these were legitimate ideas to advance society, in the interests of the majority. Instead it turns out to be a replacement and destruction program. The majority now is figuring out that even if they attain minority status, they will still be destroyed through violence, wealth redistribution and lots of hateful laws.
I have observed that almost nobody understands just about anything during this election. People are telling you stupid stuff, like to write-in George Washington or stay home. The real fact is that you can’t afford to. This election will determine whether this country destroys its majority and thus becomes a third-world war zone, or reverses course and regains its former greatness. There are no other options.
Having been a man of the world for over a decade now, I have spent some time observing the sleeping habits of American and European females.
Over time, a few notes have been etched in the back of my brain. For example, modern women must maintain the illusion of control at all times, so let them tell you what to do and then do what you must. They will test you in public to see if you’ve caught on. Pretend you haven’t for five minutes.
Then there are the common sense methods of staying in control. Never show up on time. Never apologize unless you were mistaken. Don’t argue; work around them. Always ask them what they want to do, so they don’t put the onus on you. If they make a suggestion, make both of you do it no matter how stupid, so they can’t criticize you later for not having acted on the “obvious.”
Toward the most recent end of my career as an observer of the modern woman, another truism has emerged. Beware of sudden touch. Modern women like to retreat into their happy places, which usually have degradingly immature symbols like stuffed animals and kitty pictures, because the grim reality of the meat market is too much for their minds. This means that much of the time they’re not here in reality with you. Be careful when you touch them, or you may jolt them back.
When they are asleep this is most obvious. Modern women don’t sleep well. Not only are they drugged on caffeine and brain-warping food additives, but they are extremely unsettled. They live with more doubt than certainty and tell themselves comforting lies. When they sleep, they are restless, but if you touch them before they are prepared, be ready for a freaked-out and possibly violent female.
A modern woman asleep is both resting and escaping. She is in her happy place, she thinks. In her dreams, teddy bears and fluffy kittens cavort under inexhaustible sunny blue skies. But to have a happy place, you first need to have something to run away from. She is running away from so much that a sudden touch may launch her into panic.
I don’t think this is the result of sexual abuse. For one thing, the touches don’t need to be sexual. If a girlfriend touches her, a woman may freak out just as much as if a man does. What seems more obvious is that women are expecting interruption by a reality that they fundamentally do not like and want to keep away from as long as possible.
Many of us know why modern society is hell, an equal combination of permissiveness empowering only the lowest common denominator, and a nanny-state enforcing a paint-by-numbers version of work and culture that dumbs everything down to the meaningless and boring. We know that its roots in egalitarian altruism make it a social control mechanism, replacing governmental control. We know not to trust its motivations since it is in the hands of the merchant classes of international origins. And finally, we’re cynical because democracy is a farce since the largest section of any population isn’t bright enough to be anything but narcissistic, self-deluding and thus easily manipulated by dollars or temporary popularity points.
Most people are aware of this on some level, but can’t face it head-on. Instead, they create hiding spaces for themselves. Their default behavior is to go to their happy space when they’re not required to do something, like go to class, or work, or figure out their income tax or go shopping. They just withdraw.
Most American and European women had parents like this, and the parents treated them like expensive dogs as a result. Parents did not want to be interrupted from their happy space, so they started to see their kids as interruptions who needed to be managed. Put in front of televisions, distracted with toys, forced into activities. This made another generation of people who are reality-averse.
The result is that people are basically constantly watching a television tuned to their own channel. When you touch them and interrupt this, it upsets them because you have violated their “right” to be in their happy place whenever they can. In their view, it’s just not fair.
The guiding principle of modern society, equality, quickly becomes “my needs come first and no one can tell me no.” This leads to us each becoming islands of our own selves, isolated exchange when we need to engage in some transaction. Sex, which is a surrogate for love, is one of those transactions.
Women raised in this time are used to other people having a my-needs-first outlook and so have adopted it for themselves. The result is that when they’re in a relationship with you, they’re using you and expect you to be using them. When you touch them outside that script, it’s like a shocking confrontation with reality.
That shock makes them feel ashamed, ignorant, foolish and delusional because suddenly their happy place just isn’t as real as the rest of reality anymore. It has been revealed as a facade. When they get angry at you, the source of the anger is in having lost their facade, not any actual sin you have committed.