Posts Tagged ‘social media’

Leftism Replaces Responsibility With Conformity

Thursday, February 9th, 2017

Conformity has two parts: first, do whatever everyone else is doing; second, avoid offending anyone but those that you can rebel against because they are in power and therefore, whatever you do will not actually harm them. This allows the attention whoring individual to both have his cake and eat it too, being a rebel who is not actually a threat, and as a covert conformist, to be rewarded for his obedience.

To disguise his utter conformity, the individualist disclaims responsibility. To be cool is to be indifferent to the world around you and the consequences of your own actions, which every rebel acts out by thwarting or attacking the dominant powers, but never directly, instead spreading around the damage as externalized socialized cost.

Being cool however means being sociable in a way that makes everyone feel accepted. Indifference conveys this by asserting the absence of standards and purpose, which means that no one can be doing wrong. This takes on another dimension because the assertion of indifference becomes important in order to make people feel comfortable, and so even contentious acrimony has its place, if it supports the right ideas.

That in turn adjusts the meaning of “responsibility” from a duty to be accurate in what one does to a duty to not offend others while advocating indifference, which in turn requires obliterating any information which does not support the indifference narrative:

“Academics must understand that they are utterly responsible to [sic] whatever they post on their social media channels just as they are for the words they say in a classroom, and such reckless tweeting, clearly made by this lecturer is a prime example that some may be unaware, or indeed neglect their duties of responsibility when expressing one’s views.

“[We] would appreciate that ALL lecturers understood that whatever their comments, they will be held responsible for their remarks given their position of authority and trust.

Basically, be cool — avoid being right — so that everyone feels content and therefore, you can benefit from the advantages of civilization without the risks. That is the point of the petit rebel: take all that you can, and give nothing back, while justifying it with some vague sense of goodwill so that you fool all the other monkeys into defending you.

That mental virus destroys society as surely as Communism but slower because it is of a less intense degree. When standards are lowered, those who take on higher standards also make themselves inefficient in that they have assumed a burden which will not reward them. At that point, the rest become de facto free riders who argue that the lowered standards are in fact a moral good. This puts the onus on those who want higher standards to “prove” that those are necessary, which cannot be proven of course, and so the free riders reap the marginal difference between the minimum required for the illusion of civilization and the minimum required to maintain civilization by adopting the former. Their “cool” is a way of suppressing those who want higher standards.

When writers on this site endorse elitism, it means this: if you want civilization, you must constantly fight back against those who erode standards and justify the difference with socially popular illusions. That is the eternal death of humanity, and Leftism is one of its many faces. Where normal and sane people are responsible, Leftists are responsible to public image, and this is why they leave ruined civilizations in their wake.

Reddit Blames Content Censorship On Form

Wednesday, February 8th, 2017

Every message has content and form. Content is what it communicates, and form is how it communicates. A message can have perfectly good content, but be expressed in a form — for example, obscenities and epithets — that renders it into spam for most audiences.

When a social media site censors user-submitted data, the question is whether they are objecting to content or form. Consider these two messages:

  • “Multiple racial groups cannot coexist in the same society without destroying it.”
  • (string of racial epithets, obscenities, pejoratives and attacks)

Maybe they express the same idea, if we distill it to its absolute core. Maybe both are relevant. But it is more understandable if the latter is removed because it is closer to graffiti, linguistic vandalism or spam. This is not categorical so much as a question of its direction and intent. Does it aim to communicate, or to hammer people with a viewpoint in a form designed to provoke them?

Reddit claims that it removed the subreddit (sort of like a hashtag) “/r/altright” on the basis of form, as as co-founder Alexis Ohanian argued recently:

This is our trust and safety team enforcing a violation of our content policy regarding personal information—doxxing is the shorthand for it—but basically, these communities continue to violate our policy, and we shut them down.

However, Reddit banned three subreddits: /r/altright, /r/alternativeright and /r/identitarian. These were not engaged in the same behavior, but did share the same topic. This proves that Reddit was not censoring for aberrant behavior, but for content which did not fit within the narrative that Reddit is advancing.

In other words, Reddit admins disagreed with the content, not the form, and as a result used a claim of a violation — doxxing, which normally means revealing the identity of a user on the site, which did not happen here — to remove ideological non-conformists. They are doing this in order to provide a “safe space” for users to feel unchallenged, as if they were in a shopping mall or other commercial establishment.

The thing is… that model will not work. People need open spaces for interaction, and that interaction will sometimes be contentious. Debate and discourse originate not in conformity, but in people probing multiple different approaches and then bringing them together to create accurate portrayals of reality for as many aspects of it as are possible at this time. Over many interactions, this view gradually clarifies to a greater degree, but that requires the ability to dissent from whatever the dominant group opinion is at the time.

Social media has been unable to provide this space because social media is centralized. One corporation, such as Facebook, “owns” the space of interaction and censors it to create the type of inoffensive shopping experience that it is believed consumers want. However, that approach is incompatible with the internet, which is based on groups separating by perspective to clarify those views.

This is why social media is dying:

A new report has revealed that out of the total 66 ads that aired during Super Bowl LI, only 30 of them included a hashtag – while 41 percent displayed the firm’s URL.

The shift was a new strategy for corporations to bring more traffic to their websites, rather than just gaining popularity on social media – with just five mentioning a Twitter handle, and four a Facebook page.

Centralized media does not work because it tries to be like a publication, where strict editing is enforced, when it is more like the local pub. At your local, people debate hot topics and it grows contentious, which causes some to separate out into their own groups. The old internet, where people visited many sites for different outlooks, functioned by this principle.

However, profit demands getting as many warm bodies as possible into a single place at the same time. To make that happen, social media companies have dedicated billions toward removing any viewpoints which might conflict with the perception of harmony, agreement and safe shopping. That approach has died because social media companies, under the guise of removing objectionable form, removed merely controversial content.

People on the internet do not want the managed experience that they might expect in a regulated social space like a shopping mall. They want the interaction that a pub provides, and that can only happen when we redecentralize the internet and get away from the 6-10 really large sites that control most of the traffic, and have a fiscal interest in making it as bland and inoffensive (but salacious) as possible.

Dot-Com 3.0 Crash Gains Momentum

Tuesday, January 10th, 2017

As the ad revenues fall because people realize that a dot-com 3.0 collapse is coming because the advertising numbers are fake and the customers not buyers, the industry is waking up and taking notice of the grim fact that the internet industry is moribund and will soon fall as the markets devalue fake assets:

There’s a peculiar tone emanating from the social media space. It’s a little hard to hear, but if you listen closely, it’s there none the less. That sound is the sudden gasp of realization that the most dominating reasoning and defense that encompassed the entire social media space may in fact being laid-to-waste right before their screens. That horror?

The eyeballs for ads model doesn’t work.

…A 300% increase in readership didn’t mean squat to paying advertisers because – all they were getting was the bill for more “ad sales” and no sales. So they in-turn are now stating: Thanks, but no thanks.

The “ads for eyeballs” model reveals the core weakness of capitalism: it can be captured by commerce itself through the idea of consumerism, which is that it does not matter who the consumers are so long as there are enough of them. If a company needs 5% of the market to survive, under this theory, it needs only a certain number of warm bodies.

However, industry is discovering that not all warm bodies are the same. The ideal audience remains the American middle class, who shop carefully for good values and are loyal to brands. The new urban audience of beige people buying trendy products because of a media blitz is not working because their tastes are fickle and their loyalty non-existent. Companies will go to their graves for the mistake of choosing this audience.

In the meantime, the businesses that thrive are as always those who hit that sweet spot with the valued consumers, which means that who matters more than raw numbers. As in philosophy and politics, a wave of realization is hitting the West that “equality” is a denial of reality and will lead to our doom.

Media Blitz: #StopWhiteGenocide Trending On Social Media

Thursday, December 29th, 2016

Keeping pressure high on the cultural change wave that is carrying us into 2017 through the defeat of Leftist illusions, activists on social media are using the hashtag #StopWhiteGenocide to raise this issue against the general obliviousness and brainwashed complacency of the public. You can participate by going on social media and posting to the hashtag channel using the links below:

Remember:

The best content features stories about how white people are the targets of Leftist governments, insane corporations and the angry mob of Leftist cultist zombies who want to destroy us. They want to kill us off through soft genocide. Visit our newsfeed for some ideas and help wreak havoc on the big media with a blitz of our own!

Why Social Media Is Dying

Wednesday, December 14th, 2016

Over the past few months, it has become apparent that social media and real life are increasingly diverging. The proof of this is that people in real life — a wide range of classes, backgrounds and outlooks, but generally effective people and not mouth-breathing attendees to the civilization process — are interested in the stuff that social media ignores, and vice-versa.

This suggests a widening disconnect between the online audience and the real world. As said in the past, the internet is the new daytime TV, and it has taken over media by turning into television-level clickbait, i.e. the lowest common denominator tabloid fodder that sparks human interest. This will only increase the polarization of America and Europe leading to Balkanization as democracy and its clever little plans fade.

All of this is dancing around the permanent dot-com doom, which comes from the simple fact that less than 10% of people represent nearly all of the internet activity. This means that all internet statistics are fake to the core.

For example, looking over social media, we can see the following over-represented groups: baristas, food service workers, the retired, the lonely, those on disability payments for mental illness, unsuccessful college students, basement neckbeards, people recovering from injuries and recently divorced people. In other words, just like daytime TV was in the 1980s, it is a solace for the lonely.

This means that people who are having successful lives — achieving goals, doing interesting things, conquering fears, meeting people — are nowhere to be found. They may stop in to check email and do some shopping, maybe read the news, but the most desirable audience for advertisers is totally absent from the net itself.

Looking at this, we can see that the coming internet industry collapse will be vast and result in massive economic damage as the economy adjusts to having lost hundreds of billions of dollars in formerly perceived value — overnight. The dot-com guys have known this was coming since 2008, when the first studies of this kind came out.

A cascade will follow as other over-rated industries, based on participation by people who turn out to have no money and no social influence, also collapse. Entertainment is on the chopping block. A “successful” album engages a third of a percent of the population. How is that anything but entirely fake, given that the rest seem busy with entirely different things?

Business leaders will find out too late that now that our country is no longer homogeneous, and that equality has driven the natural leaders away from most public spaces, the people they are counting on as customers are in fact not customers but lonely, broken people wasting time and waiting to die. In addition to being tragic, this is a failure of a business model.

How To Get Off Of Mainstream Social Media

Friday, December 9th, 2016

The news from the internet is not good: as ad revenues collapse, social media is becoming more extreme in its desire to present only happy content and drama — just like 1980s daytime television — so that it can attract the herd.

Although they think they are geniuses, they do not realize that this will fail, because where in the 1980s we had three channels (newspaper, magazines, television/radio) for ads, now we have gutted those traditional channels for a medium where people have no particular investment in staying on a site. That, and the fact that the group that came on the internet and pushed the others out with its idiocy is comprised of people earning under $40K per year who are far from ideal consumers, means that internet advertising is effectively dead except on highly-specialized sites that people read for the content, like The Wall Street Journal or Ars Technica.

Under pressure from the Left to remove non-Narrative content, the social media sites are already inclined to do this because even a few reality-based voices will ruin the experience of oblivion that they hope to offer, just like daytime TV did back in the 1980s. Corporate and government interests converge because both are interested in using the herd as a “personal army” to fulfill their own profit motives, one through advertising and the other through taxes.

With that in mind, it makes sense to begin a short list of alternatives:

Also consider dropping out of the corporate software chain with some software alternatives:

Twitter Censors Top Alt Right Accounts In “November Purge”

Tuesday, November 15th, 2016

twitter_purge

Flailing social media site Twitter, which seems unable to sell itself despite that being the endgame of its ruling junta, following the departure of its Chief Operating Officer Adam Bain and consequent dive in stock prices, embarked on a censorship tantrum targeting top Alt Right accounts today in what many are calling the “November Purge.”

Each account now displays the well-known Twitter “account suspended” page and all of the user content — years of witticisms, news, memes and conversation — has become inaccessible to these users. This shows the problem of social media and The Cloud, which is that when the powers that be choose to censor, the user loses all that they have contributed twice: first, in that they cannot see it, and second in that the others for whose benefit it was written cannot see it.

If this keeps up, the internet will decentralize from having a few big sites — Facebook, Wikipedia, Reddit, Amazon, Twitter and others — having control over the content, to many tiny sites which are independently maintained each having their own content. While this is positive, the next battle will be over thousands of SJWs writing to internet webhosts to demand cancellation of the accounts of “problematic” sites.

Twitter Goes To Stage Three Of “The MySpace Cycle”

Wednesday, October 5th, 2016

twitter_-_logo

Back in the second wave of dot-com boom and bust, there was a site called MySpace. It was a revolution, the media told us. No longer was big media in control. This was a new age where the old rules did not apply. Everything was different.

Except it was not, as you might have guessed. MySpace followed the cycle that every other consumer product does: it started out promising, but as margins declined and its userbase was “democratized,” its quality plummeted and anyone with any brains escaped it if possible. That left a ruined shell.

This gave us “the MySpace Cycle” which seems to apply to all online services:

  1. Service starts out with promise and attracts power users. These users contribute content, making the service desirable.

  2. That in turn brings in the masses, who cause chaos with their behavior. The service fights back by making more rules and removing “troublemakers.” This drives away the power users, so the service doubles down on attracting grandmas, geeks, neckbeards, SJWs, welfare users and other mass culture zombies.

  3. The company, which has now grown big and fat with all is new hires, must save itself, so it finds a buyer — usually from big media — who is purchasing it for its existing userbase. This fails eighteen months later when the buyer realizes that the number of these users who are active is declining.

  4. The service is re-sold for a lot less. At this point, no one uses it but homeless people in public libraries.

Twitter has reached stage three: over the past two years, it has increasingly cracked down on non-conformists as a way to stop the “troublemakers,” a term it could never define so it fell back on easy definitions like trolls, non-Leftists, etc. This has caused not an exodus of users, but an exodus of content as people are unwilling to trust Twitter as the primary place to post new material; instead, they post it elsewhere and link to it on Twitter.

wells

The crackdown having failed, and with its new userbase of SJWs and homeless not generating it much income, Twitter is looking for a sugar daddy. This is all but an admission that its business has failed. Luckily, it has found some captive idiots who think they can monetize the dying regime:

Twitter Inc. is expected to field bids this week, and Marc Benioff has been building a case to Salesforce.com Inc. investors and others that his company should be the buyer, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Benioff is looking to make a splashy acquisition that would secure for Salesforce a treasure trove of data as well as a prized consumer brand, according to the people.

Mr. Benioff, whose recent approach to Twitter set off the bidding process, sees the social-media pioneer as an “unpolished jewel” with untapped potential in advertising, e-commerce and other data-rich applications he regards as important to the cloud-software juggernaut’s next phase of growth, the people said.

We now see that those who make it in business are often lucky more than intelligent. He is hoping to, as the people who bought MySpace were, put more ads on the site and then sell the users to other services as potential customers. In other words, he is buying Twitter for its userbase, who are already disengaging and will further do so as more ads and intrusive policies appear.

Even more, he has missed the demographic change on Twitter. Back in the day, it was cutting edge and attracted power users: people who do interesting things and generate content. By endorsing safe spaces and censorship, Twitter has driven those away and replaced them with people who buy little and know little, and therefore are not worth advertising to or using to attract other users. This is a death spiral for the Twitter audience.

The illusion among dot-com boffins is that people flee from one service to another. The reality is that, like most things human or monkey, the audience simply flakes out. They stop logging in so frequently, or use the service less, or use it less deeply by giving it a cursory check-in and then going to something else.

The real competition among online services is not other services, but the wide world of other ways to spend leisure time at work. People can get away with watching videos on their phones, chatting to friends, shopping at ecommerce sites, or even playing video games. There is no reason they should stay within the realm of social media.

After the recent explosion of Twitter censorship against ideological non-conformists, it is gratifying to see the service failing exactly as was predicted. Censorship drives away quality users and replaces them with low-value users. And now Twitter has no option but to sell itself by the pound.

Social Media Is Crowdism Made Easy

Friday, September 23rd, 2016

crowdism

Social media is dying. The primary reason is not because of its censorship, but because of what its censorship portends: it has given up on getting the cutting-edge audience, and wants instead to go out like MySpace, catering to the least competent users for as long as possible, then collapsing.

As an internet service, one has a choice. The service can be designed for the power users, and the rest will tag along as best they can, or when the power users leave, it can be designed for the lowest common denominator. The latter gets a larger audience, over the short term, but the former produces growth.

This creates the “MySpace cycle”: a new hip community grows from an elite of power users and early adopters, then becomes accessible to all, at which point the modern pattern occurs and the masses alter the character of the service by doing the same stupid stuff they do everywhere else. Quality declines.

With the fall of quality, the early adopters and power users flee for greener pastures. The company providing the service has grown and added dependents — more employees, lawyers, stockholders, and advisors — and is reminded by them of its need to kick up the profits. And so, in a classic MBA move, the service slashes costs and makes itself friendlier to the broadest section of its potential audience.

When we see social media banning people for stating the obvious, this cycle is in operation. The company providing the service wants more people in, and the masses always like illusion and human groups fear anything that is not “we are all one” inclusive, so the service hires trigger-happy idiots to remove anything that generates complaints. That way, they can be a safe space and bring in more neurotics, fools, idiots, geeks and hipsters.

The use of bans and censorship shows that the service is no longer interested in being a community. In a community, people exchange conversation, and with it, points of view. They are able to handle having different points of view, including controversial ones, because there is an active dialogue and difference is respected because the issues are interesting.

A service run only for profit however has no interest in community. It is there to provide an illusion as a product, and the people who consume this product — like television watchers in a former generation — want only a reflection of themselves and their thoughts, mainly because people are solipsistic and the less intelligent ones even more so.

Twitter (for example) knows it is going to die, because MySpace died and Digg died. All social media dies when it becomes popular with the idiots and then the power users leave as a result. Twitter is just trying to squeeze as much from the lemon as it can before the end, which requires pandering to total idiots like SJWs — otherwise unemployables — and if it loses some smart people, oh well. Its new audience will not care or want them.

The point of this is what we are looking at is economic Crowdism: how audience demographic shift on the Bell Curve takes once-thriving products and converts them into the same thing as everything else, thus reducing incentive to use them and ending their life cycles.

Crowdism is terrifying because it says that our enemy is not government, economics, politics, etc. but mass thinking; with mass thinking, all things — regardless of discipline or origin — are made into the same low standard, low future-time vision social-type organization. In social organizations, people compete for attention instead of accuracy or moral goodness.

For example, Crowdism has infested the world of publishing. Most books are written on trivial topics, contain little content and have no relevance except for the first year when they are published. They are mostly surface works in that what distinguishes them is the setting of the story, the unique twist on known ideas, or a novel combination of past aesthetics and concepts. The surface changes constantly, but the content is the same, much as how a Crowd will take a new genre or discipline and quickly convert it into more of “the usual.”

When people in the last century referred to something as “typical” or “common,” this was what they were alluding to. Once you let in the Crowd, they make everything into the same thing, a vast field comprised of equal — because that is the social measurement, equal inclusion — actors doing roughly the same stuff and struggling desperately to make their own variant look different. It is like an IQ test: the people who cannot see through the surface get trapped at this level, which we might describe as Sudra or Thrall to use the old Indo-European caste terms.

Therein is the problem: we cannot say that social media is the problem, only that it is conducive to the problem. The same conditions and pathological behaviors can arise anywhere, as they have in blogs and before that, in dial-up systems.

Your average 1980s BBS, once it became popular, shifted Left because Leftism is the socially appropriate answer to any question, and most people do not care about the question or the consequences of action taken in its name, but how they look to others. Boys and girls want to hook up. Middle aged people want business connections. Lonely people just need someone to talk to. Drug addicts and neurotics want far-out stuff to talk about that makes their failed lives seem meaningful. The result is constant activity, and that requires an abolition of eternal standards so that there can always be “new” (old, recombined) theories and topics.

The prevalence of Crowdism in the blogosphere leads to noticings or observations like the following:

Time out gives a man room to think. It is why vacation is an important part of a work-life balance. It is why male only spaces were so crucial to the continued survival of Western Civilization – you had to get away from the nagging wife to concentrate on the bigger picture.

Since I posted my ‘Exit’ post I have maintained relationships with allies, talking to many on a daily basis. In recent weeks I have also kept one eye open on those still blogging. What I see is sad and disappointing.

The more popular publications in this ‘sphere’ are still publishing nonsense articles about topics we already discussed years ago…The masturbatory self indulgence that many crave is happening for them, they rehash the same dead topics, they continue to abyss gaze with the same sick fascination.

Bypassing the excellent observation about “male only spaces” which can be expanded to the ideas of solitude and leisure, essential to any cogent antiwork argument as well as the right side of the Bell Curve in any health society, we see an excellent point being made: the blogosphere rewards those who write about the obvious as if it were mindblowingly complex, which makes people with nothing to contribute feel important and gives writers a way to advance themselves at the expense of others.

Begging your indulgence, perhaps we can review the writings on this site which have covered this topic in the past:

<blast beat>

  • “Neoreaction hits choppy waters” (April 4, 2015):

    The same writers who gave Neoreaction its early strength pulled it apart as they competed for audience with blogs, books and YouTube videos. To differentiate their product, they had to each invent unique theories and viewpoints. These in turn created confusion about the core of Neoreaction, and drifted farther away, which meant they lost their conservative core and as a result became increasingly liberalized.

    If we listened to the liberals at the outset, Neoreaction was doomed because it was not liberal enough. As it turns out, it was too liberal, but not by ideology but rather by the behavior of human individuals seeking to profit from it. All those blog hits, video watches, and book sales became a goal in and of themselves, and the idea of Neoreaction got lost in the muddle.

    Thus the movement became moribund in the same way a civilization does: it becomes a vehicle for individuals to express their own self-importance, not a cooperation toward a qualitative end. Neoreaction became assimilated by liberalism because it adopted the methods of commerce and popularity, part of the demotism that makes up modernism.

  • “Neoreaction in reverse” (April 17, 2015):

    That essay raises the question of goals. If the goal is to be Neoreactionary, that should be done, in full. When that goal gets supplanted by another goal, like money or power, then the goal of Neoreaction is inescapably lost.

    Endure a metaphor, if you will: when an artist writes a book to tell a truth, he creates a story, characters, metaphors and setting to express that truth. However, if the same artist realizes that people look forward to confirmation of their existing ideas, and writes books to that end, the method of making money has replaced the goal.

    We are all familiar with this process. It explains why a brand that produced good solid products a decade ago now makes flimsy plastic crap, banking on its good name. It explains why every rock band goes to a terrible place after three albums. It explains why promising political candidates, once they get into office, suddenly turn their backs on their own beliefs.

    This is the nature of politics: it reverses our thought from acting toward a goal, to acting toward the reward that normally comes from achieving the goal. This means that instead of acting from cause to effect, we are acting from effect (money) and inventing a cause (the book) to match. It is a form of corruption of will.

    This is what has happened to Neoreaction. In the struggle for individuals to differentiate themselves and gain an audience, they have moved from writing about relevant topics to writing about that which they know will cultivate an audience, and for that concern alone. This has distorted their message and created entryism by demotism.

  • “Neoreactionary fragmentation” (April 11, 2015):

    [I]n an effort to attract a popular audience, [Neoreaction] reduced itself to a form of individualism. This happens to all internet movements as people want to join so they can appear “edgy,” but fear getting too far from socially acceptable ideas.

  • “The Neoreaction/Dark Enlightenment tantrum” (March 27, 2014):

    My point to the DE/NeR was basically that if your philosophy is functionally similar to conservatism, and you don’t admit it, you’re avoiding the truth out of some personal pretense. Further, this confines your thinking based on the taboos of liberalism, which means you’ll end up back at liberalism. Then I pointed out many of the liberal aspects of the DE, namely that its crusade against the Cathedral is a liberal-style revolution, e.g. an attack against the institution and its replacement with people power. What we actually need is an idea of what we want and thus a competing vision to the current set of pretenses held by our new elite.

  • “Exceeded By The Alternative Right, ‘Official’ Neoreaction Struggles” (July 7, 2016):

    Most of Neoreaction and many of the Right choose to ignore my 20-plus year history of writing on the same topics they now approach. This is not solely because I am obnoxious, but because I threaten them. If someone else wrote it before, and possibly better, others become irrelevant. In turn, I find it hard to link to much of “Neoreactionary” writing because it is simply going over old ground and often, doing so with more of a robotic outlook.

  • “Neoreaction Goes Off The Rails Just Like White Nationalism Did” (June 29, 2016):

    In the past, I have warned Neoreaction that it veers too close to become a Leftist-style ideology because Neoreaction has come to include the principles of collectivized individualism. Any time you find yourself arguing that there is a “system” which will manage people and come to good results, you have left behind the fundamental distinction of Dark Enlightenment societies: they believe in hierarchies and moral codes, and therefore, they select the morally best as leaders.

  • “What is Neoreaction?” (April 15, 2015):

    What is subverting Neoreaction is what Neoreaction was designed to avoid: “demotism,” or a substitute for leadership where whatever idea is most popular is chosen. Demotism occurs in politics through democracy, in economics through consumerism, and in socializing through flattery. Neoreaction has been subverted by its inability to purge its opposite from itself, because when emerging from a political system the most common tendency is to carry over unseen elements of that system into the post-revolutionary future society.

    The same conflict that crushed Napoleon crushes Neoreaction. He wanted to be a King, but with the revolutionary ideology of egalitarianism behind him. These two ideas conflicted, and so he became a tyrant, using the advertising of the ideology of altruism to justify his seizure of power and wars to enforce these ideas on others.

    Neoreaction has stopped moving in a linear direction toward a goal, and instead is circling itself, trying to rid itself of an entryist it cannot identity.

</blast beat>

I came from another tradition of writing about these topics: European philosophy, starting in the late 1980s, with a somewhat idiosyncratic take — as is appropriate for any philosophical exploration, to avoid the confinement of crowd-defined language — on society. I posted rants to hacker bulletin boards, published an ezine, raged across USENET, then began distributing my writings through an early underground website, the American Nihilist Underground Society, then CORRUPT which pre-dated the “alternative right” idea with a similar concept, many web bulletin boards back in the day, and finally transitioned to Amerika.

My influences were Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosophical and literary canon, underground (heavy) metal, and life experience. In addition, newer writers like Michel Houellebecq and Ted Kaczynski were massively influential, as well as the rants and outlook of outsider communities like the hacker underground and the heavy metal underground.

Others from the same era picked up the pen and began waging war — words are bullets — through increasingly clarifying statements. One of these, Bruce Charlton, recently penned a pointed critique of the Alternative Right (a silo in which he includes Neoreaction, probably because Neoreaction has been absorbed by it) which was widely ignored by online reactionaries because it hit too close to home:

The (online) excitement among the Alt-Right since they were mentioned in a speech by Hillary Clinton – and since it becomes clear that Donald Trump is (de facto) running unopposed – is palpable.

And it is natural; since the secular Right always sells-out, and opportunities for the secular Right intellectuals to be bought-off, co-opted and in general sell-out (for power, status, cash, sexual opportunity etc.) are looking very good, just at present.

No wonder the leading Alt-Right bloggers are so cheerful!

His point is that political movements default to a focus on people and material concerns when they do not have some transcendental goal, which we can observe happening in Neoreaction and the Alternative Right because to succeed as a blogger there, one must dumb down the message and tell the Crowd that it is the victim. This re-starts the liberal cycle under a new name, in a classic Crowdist gambit, and is not deliberate but is even more destructive than if it were, because the people who now think they are solving a problem are in fact bearing a mental infection that will reproduce the problem.

Inversion, in other terms.

Earlier on, this post mentioned how the threat of censorship and bans on social media services like Twitter destroys the prospect of community. To last, a community requires a transcendental goal, such as the idea of accuracy in information itself, or that problems can be beaten and beauty, goodness, truth and excellence restored through realism plus a gumption that demands a higher aesthetic quality of life; pleasure, even.

When dissident movements become inverted, they lose this sense of community and replace it with a false sense of community based on universal inclusion. At that point, they become Leftist in all but name, and many of the recent attempts to control the narrative are done solely in this aim, even if they state otherwise.

As one writer recently noted:

Any incoherence or challenges must then be met, unless they present such a challenge that the model proves wrong. As a result, strict and active management of new ideas must be enacted, prior held ideas which are incompatible must be dismissed, strong discipline must be maintained intellectually to such a degree that those who undermine the tradition are made aware of this issue and encouraged to correct, or stop claiming to be part of the tradition. Relaxing of intellectual rigour and doctrine for mere social requirements should be dismissed as rank stupidity.

…Much of what gets released under the neoreaction banner is intellectually incoherent.

Crowdism has infested social media, but it will infest any platform, and it has infested Alt Right and Neoreactionary blogging. The solution is simple: return the focus to ideas and action, not people. But that will never be as popular as social thinking, so instead, focus on the quality blogs like New Alternative Right, Atavisionary and many of the others listed in our blog list.

In the meantime, all of social media is having a sort of MySpace moment, as we see first and foremost in the backlash against using cell phones to constantly “stay in touch” (appeasing Fear of Missing Out, or FOMO) with social media:

Last week, superstar Kanye West tweeted: “I got rid of my phone so I can have air to create.” Singer Katy Perry replied: “unplug to connect.”

Stand-up comedian Brett Kline got so frustrated with smartphone selfie sticks that he made a video of him snipping them with bolt cutters all over New York. It turned out to be a prank, with fake phones and actors as the victims, but the video has more than 1.3 million views on YouTube since Sept. 1.

“Technology is making people sociopaths,” says Buddy Bolton, a comedian who recorded the selfie-stick clip-and-run incidents with Mr. Kline.

These people do not mean they literally got rid of their phones, but that they are using their phones as phones again instead of small portable computers ideally suited for social media.

In fact, widespread support for exit from social media has been gaining steam.

This is a result of the Myspace cycle described above, but applied not just to the aging big social media services (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit) but to social media and the internet itself. Once, it was a new frontier, because the Crowd had not arrived. Then Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft made it brain-dead easy to get on and use it, and then social media arose. At first, that was a new space, but then all the people that the people on social media were trying to flee showed up there as well.

Now, it is a bother where most of what is being posted is the same brainless drama that is spoken of at the water cooler, at family dinners or shown on daytime television. People want out as a result. The exact same phenomenon is happening to Neoreaction and Alternative Right, and those who care about the power of those movements should flee the dying zone and head toward a higher level of behavior immediately.

Shut Down Social Media to Win the War On Terror

Friday, July 22nd, 2016

social_media_and_terrorism

Contrary to what is commonly believed, the tactics which have succeeded in the war on terror are those which were most aggressive and overwhelming. We succeed when we behave like raging barbarians, and fail when we act like wimps.

The original blitzkrieg orchestrated by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Operation Shock and Awe) was extremely effective and drove Saddam Hussein from power in a matter of weeks. The surge (Senator John McCain’s idea) was also effective in keeping terrorists from having strongholds. Then the US tried to hang around to police and rebuild. More passive and theoretically humanitarian methods like drones have been less effective, and have also caused much more backlash than our barbarian tactics.

Social media has played a huge role in the war on terror because terrorists use it to recruit, coordinate and publicize their activities. When ISIS slices off another head, the video hits social media within hours and is worldwide inside of five minutes, serving to both radicalize the already alienated and to create an allure of danger and escape from the tedium of modern society. So far, our approach to social media — “surveillance” — has failed alongside other soft tactics like Iraqi reconstruction, troop drawdowns and political appeasement.

Several incidents show us the failure of our approach. During the Orlando Pulse nightclub slaughter, the terrorist paused many times to update his social media presence while he was shooting unarmed people. Twitter served as an indispensable communication channel for ISIS during recent months, and now we learn how the truck-kamikaze from Nice posted to Facebook in anticipation of the attack. Add this to the network of people spreading jihadist publications, instructions, steganographic encrypted communications and propaganda, and social media serves terror quite well.

It is important to remember that the objective of terrorism and guerrilla warfare in the postmodern environment is to influence the media. The Vietcong knew this, which is why they waged a militarily losing campaign with the Tet Offensive, knowing that the panic induced by media reports would make it a political victory. Terrorists used hostage standoffs to get as much media attention as possible, creating a spectacle that would dominate the airwaves. School shooters did the same thing, leaving behind manifestos and mementos for human interest stories. Since the news is our centralized source of information on the world, it has become a target for manipulation.

Social media is best understood as a different form of media, but still a form of media. Most younger people get their news through social media currently, and this trend is increasing. Monitoring and taking down celebratory posts by terrorists will not stop or mitigate terror. The time has come to decide whether we are serious about winning the war on terror. The only way to do this is to take down social media itself until the war on terror is won.

“But muh First Amendment!” people will say. The fact is that Twitter and Facebook have a first amendment right to say what they want, but that does not apply to running a service where others do the same. Twitter and Facebook can issue press releases with their opinions. The speech of people on those services is what is in question, and since these social media services are being used to further terror, we can force them to take their speech somewhere else. This is akin to shutting down a vacant lot where terrorists gather to swap tips and deliver loud ranting speeches, rather than censorship of the speeches themselves.

I would rather live in a terror-free world than have the convenience of posting selfies to casual acquaintances with the ease of a throwaway comment. Social media acts as a key tool for terrorist recruitment and has a corrosive effect domestically as our homegrown radicals, from Black Lives Matter to God Hates Fags, use it to spread their notoriety and influence.

In times of war, sacrifices must be made in order to achieve victory. The recruitment and propaganda arm of the enemy is largely executed via social media. We need to break their encrypted networks as well and bomb their headquarters tents, but we should start with what is already under our control. Terrorism is largely motivated by the desire to influence the media. Shutting down social media will deprive the terrorists of their most powerful weapon and we should do it, until this war is won.