Author Archives: Maria

“Everyday Feminism” Revisited

One might think that due to the backlash received in recent years, feminists were slowing down or reconsidering what they’d chosen as priorities in their activism. One might also hope they come to terms with the role they have played in harming the causes they are promoting.

Intersectional feminism is an ill-inspired attempt to intermingle a vast array of social issues, some very real and pressing, with the so-called grievances of western women, not only failing to help but dragging these causes down. Activism addressing political asylum, the protection of non-criminal illegal immigrants, poverty and racial discrimination has now, in the minds of many, been conflated with  the voices of hysterical bra-burners whose main efforts, centred on trifles, cause general frustration.

Through this they have created a bridge between the increasingly radical Men’s Rights Movement and the far right, the first starting to adopt the positions of the latter in order to counter the pussy hat parades. In spite of their obvious role in “feeding the monster”, they’re taking it as confirmation of the validity of their claims (that all evils of this world can be traced back to “the privileged”, namely cisgender heterosexual white men).

Hence they are persevering.

Everyday Feminism, for instance, maintains its goal of coaching and radicalising those sympathising with its stances, and remains as absurd as ever.

To start with, here is a recent list of ten things every intersectional feminist should ask on a first date.Needless to say, it reads like an interview for joining a socialist organisation.

There is nothing reflecting a human being’s desire to engage in romance with another – but a cold and dry inventory of requirements. In real life, this conversation would raise the cringe level to the ceiling, unless it involved a radical male feminist as the interviewee. And yet, this is meant to be a guide with practical application.

1. Do you believe that Black Lives Matter?

If they are willing to learn and listen and make the space to decenter their whiteness (if they are white), that’s a good place to start.

The use of capitals suggests this is a reference to the BLM movement, though when verbalised it can be taken literally; in other words, she’s asking her date whether he thinks the lives of Black people are as valuable as all others. The question implies her suspicion he might think otherwise. You don’t suddenly ask people if they’re raging racists; it’s not only rude; it’s insulting.

Making space to decenter their whiteness is very vague; some preaching on her part is implied though, as in “I’m going to educate you about this and you’re expected to listen and react in a certain way”. In addition, she presumes that just because he is white, he needs to change his attitude for the conversation to go well. Presumptuous and insulting, again.

 2. What are your thoughts on gender and sexual orientation?

One out of many important elements to dismantling patriarchy is to abolish gender roles as well as the limited understanding that we have about sexuality and gender itself.

Now that we’re clear her date is expected to shoulder dismantling the patriarchy, I don’t get what sexual orientation has to do with abolishing gender roles.

Civilised societies are for individualism; there is no mandate to live a certain way, hence there are no imposed gender roles; they are only traditional. With no imposition there is no oppression against anyone who wants to live differently.

The need to change everyone’s mind about gender roles is solipsistic and difficult to understand. It’s not other people taking issue with how feminists want to live, but them taking issue with everyone else, for private choices. It’s nobody’s business how adults voluntarily associate with each other; whether they adopt traditional gender roles or not.

It seems he also has to acquiesce to the list of 300 made-up genders, which, sorry to burst your bubble, is a step too far even for many leftists.

3. How do you work to dismantle sexism and misogyny in your life?

I’ve met cisgender heteronormative (cishet) men who hate women. They say they love women, but that love is conditional on not having their toxic masculinity questioned or threatened in any way. And they love us as a monolith, they love what women have to offer, whether it is sex, food, love, care, emotional labor: they love us for what we can do for them, not because of who we are for ourselves. It is crucial for cishet men to learn how to decenter their male privilege in order for them to understand the multitudes of interpretations of femininity and womanhood.

Again with the insults, assuming his tendency is to be sexist and in order to be a decent person he must “work” against his nature constantly. That he’s got male privilege; that he (by default) doesn’t get what women are about and needs to learn (I can only hope she’s not dating a ten-year-old). Speaking that way to another adult is monumentally cringe-worthy.

And guess what – what you have to offer is part of who you are and someone appreciating certain aspects is not depersonalising or objectifying. Just because you might’ve run into some arsehole who discounted your other qualities does not mean “all cishet men are like that”. This whole BS has generated the famous AWALT in response (“all women are like that”) the Red Pill proudly brainwashes men with.

4. What are your thoughts on sex work?

You may scratch your head at this one, but much like racism and misogynoir, being pro-sex worker is a necessary pillar of dismantling the patriarchy. I don’t mean pro-sex worker in the sense where non-sex workers write op-eds and think pieces about how sex work is amazing and feminist.

I don’t see how that should matter; it’s a controversial subject, not for outdated religious reasons but the circumstances around sex work (poverty, exploitation, sustaining a drug addiction, forced prostitution etc). I doubt anyone grows up with this career choice in mind. It’s common sense that most sex workers would rather be doing something else for a living.

And I certainly don’t blame anyone for disagreeing that it’s “just a job”. There are parents out there who can’t help the visceral reaction at the thought of their daughters ending up in that situation. There is a difference between being pro-sex workers in terms of agreeing they should be protected and helped, and being pro-sex work per se.

I find it more misogynistic to consider women pieces of meat who should be encouraged to rent their bodies, putting their health at risk, for the day’s meal, as if they were incapable of using their brains instead. It’s nobody’s place to judge, but let’s not glorify this; it might just trivialise the very real problems around sex work. It’s a last choice for many.

But that’s feminism for you. It glorifies issues women are often forced into by circumstances (prostitution, abortion, wearing the hijab etc), as if they were freely made choices and proof of women’s liberation.

5. Are you a supporter of the BDS movement?

BDS stands for “Boycott, Divest, Sanctions” — an effort to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. (…) I shouldn’t even have to express that, but being pro-Palestine and BDS is a necessary part of intersectionality.

Of course it’s anyone’s prerogative to be passionate about a political cause and hope they can convince others to join; however, making it a prerequisite for speaking to a person is a far stretch. It’s like saying if someone’s not interested, for whatever reason, they are not worth your time or they couldn’t be decent people in a hundred different ways.

6. What is your understanding of settler colonialism and indigenous rights?

It required a good deal of my own research to really understand how settler colonialism works and how devastating the erasure and violence against Native Americans is and was.

Your date thinks Native Americans are tropes or relics of the past? NO THANKS.  A key part of intersectionality is having a complete understanding of how historical and current policies endangered the lives of millions of people, simply because of white supremacy and the colonialist entitlement to finite resources and land.

This seems to be aimed at Americans, yet obviously, it could apply anywhere in broader terms, as colonialism has impacted the entire planet. I agree to a point that a decent person would not discount the trauma it has caused (and continues to cause). Failure to do so might indicate insensitivity or callousness (unless the person simply isn’t knowledgeable or interested, which is also a possibility).

As always, there’s a “but”. Colonialism hasn’t been exclusive to white people throughout history. And since the author demands in-depth historical knowledge from her date (which he is not guaranteed to have), she should demonstrate the same.

7. Do you think capitalism is exploitative?

If your date says they’re anti-fascist and part of the resistance but they’re cool with exploiting labor from communities of color and they support the school to prison pipeline, then there’s a good chance they’ll only value you for your ability to nurture them without any reciprocation.

Again, this references American issues, whilst the guide is meant to be for any intersectional feminist. The exploitative prison system is an exclusively American problem, not to be associated with capitalism as a concept. Of course, it’s common sense that capitalism allows for exploitation – but where exactly does the last assertion fit in? What connection is there between capitalism and romantic relationships? Oh, right. None.

What she’s saying is “always date a socialist, anarchist etc”. Obviously, someone doesn’t necessarily favour capitalism for its exploitative side; they might just think other systems are worse.

8. Can any human be illegal?

White Americans stole this land, colonized this land, created so many borders, pushed out, killed and enslaved people of color and somehow they have the audacity to claim that this land is theirs and that black and brown immigrants are stealing their jobs, land, and homes? Miss me with that bullshit.

No, humans are not illegal. And I agree that scapegoating immigrants is a red flag, a rather ominous one, for a whole array of similar ideas.

The stretch of claiming borders could successfully be abolished makes you seem a bit detached from reality though; there can be a middle ground. People who advocate for this unfeasible utopia pollute the conversation around real ways of improving the situation of undocumented immigrants. Whenever such ideas arise, the right counteracts by quoting the radical left as a scaremongering tactic. They warn that showing clemency to a certain group would be a slippery slope towards having open borders and rally others against any helpful program.

Extremism halts the ability to compromise, which is needed in these situations.

9. Do you support Muslim Americans and non-Muslim people from Islamic countries?

Don’t waste your time and energy on dating someone who thinks that Islam is inherently violent or misogynistic. Instead, read some Huda Sha’arawi or Mona Eltahawy to educate yourself further on Muslim feminism.

Supporting Muslims who are unfairly subjected to prejudices is one thing. They are individuals who might have nothing to do with any stereotype thrown at them.

But supporting the inherently violent and misogynistic religion Islam has always been is another. Many religious people live peacefully by cherry-picking the best parts of their dogmas, whatever their  “label” is. But that doesn’t obscure the rest of those dogmas or their broader impact. This also applies to Christianity, of course, and feminists have no problem denouncing its misogyny or violence.

They spend their days “dismantling the patriarchy” and “abolishing gender roles”, and in the next breath defend an ideology which imprisons women in innumerable ways.

Downplaying the cruelty suffered by women because of Islam is the most anti-feminist attitude I can think of; it’s a paradox and proves the cognitive dissonance these activists are afflicted by. It just can’t get any crazier.

10. Does your allyship include disabled folks?

Disabled folks are subject to shaming and violence because humans are awful and lack empathy. Be mindful of others who mock disabled people; that kind of cruelty is inexcusable.

On a date with someone who uses ableist slurs? Walk away.

It’s fair enough to start disliking your date if you hear him needlessly insult others or refer to them in cruel ways. However, the article prompts me to think the interviewer/ feminist would simply ask, out of the blue, whether the guy is in the habit of belittling disabled people. And that is one weird question when not provoked, just like the one about race.

As some of the stuff above, it’s like directly asking “are you by any chance a complete arsehole”? Pardon this guy for being taken aback by her suspicions. And pardon me for thinking the first date will also be the last one.

Then there is a comic posted last year, containing shockingly little logic, not to mention hysteria, titled “5 ways we ignore children’s agency that perpetuate rape culture”.

Since I can’t post the comic due to copyright laws, I’ll merely describe the images and copy the text.

  1. The affection mindfuck (feminists just don’t understand it).

“Give auntie a kiss! She came all the way to see you.” Versus “Aw, after that nice dinner don’t I get a kiss?”.

Children are told that adults are owed their attention and affection. When that idea is internalised it can be difficult to accept that no one is owed physical contact or emotional energy.

No; they are instead encouraged to show affection in appropriate circumstances (towards family members etc). Not constantly, towards just anybody. Of course no one can force them to at any time. Homes where no displays of affection are present are cold and in my opinion, a thing of the past (when rigidity dictated every step someone took in public or at home). Warmth helps children (and adults alike) to feel comfortable around others.

This is just insane. It infantilises adults, as if they had no capacity of discerning whether they want to become close to someone or not, their interactions being reduced to running an old script.

By the way, asking for a kiss is not part of “rape culture”, just as asking someone out is not “sexual harassment”. That’s why it’s called “asking”. They are free to say no and that’s the end of it.

2. Submitting to just anything, by default (like some kind of vegetable).

“You have to do what I say because I’m in charge. No more arguments.” Versus “Why didn’t you tell him to stop?” “He’s my captain, my boss. I didn’t know how to say no to him.”

Children are told not to argue with authority and to accept commands without question. After growing up being told you must respect authority for authority’s sake it’s difficult to refuse requests from someone in a position of authority for your own sake.

It is known that children with a very strict upbringing, who feel imposed upon and bossed around, are the most likely to rebel when maturing, which makes this hypothesis a very weak one. When someone accumulates frustration for years due to how they’ve been treated, they become anything but a docile rag doll others can do what they please with.

Secondly, the image shows a man in a military uniform, discussing an unwanted sexual interaction (in vague terms) with a male superior, as a result of “not knowing how to say no” to an authority figure. I’m sorry but it makes no sense. You’re talking about a male soldier here – someone who is physically and psychologically tough. But he’s too weak to tell someone not to fuck him up the arse and lets it happen out of politeness? I don’t think so. The author couldn’t have picked a worse hypothetical example.

I needn’t mention that if the guy happens to be straight, someone would have to physically incapacitate him to carry out an act of that nature.

So no, there is no connection. People who were brought up strictly don’t just become Renfield types, especially to the point of allowing their bodies to be violated. Whilst this does happen to impressionable boys (in the catholic church for instance), it wouldn’t happen to a grown man or woman. The “Hollywood casting couch” does not fit in here either, as the women who let it happen, or don’t report it afterwards, do so for a reason.

3. Feminists don’t understand that men are physically stronger than women.

“Even if Bobby did hit you first, fighting isn’t the answer – find an adult to help you.” Versus : “I told her to stop but she wouldn’t”. “Well why didn’t you try to fight her off?”

Children are told that even physical attacks aren’t a good enough reason to resort to violence – as adults we aren’t practiced at defending ourselves but are told we are complicit in our own abuse if we can’t fight off an attacker.

Conflating the two situations is ridiculous. The first shows a girl advised not to continue a physical fight with a boy, whilst the second involves a woman sexually attacked by another woman, grilled by a policeman on not managing to fight back.

As a parent, one is more interested in making sure a child doesn’t end up in the hospital, than the principle of a thing, and 9.9 times out of 10, a girl doesn’t stand a chance of winning that fight. If she hits back, chances are she will be hit again (and again), until she is incapacitated. Getting away asap is the safest solution, really. Unless she’s had proper training and she’s confident she can manage, it’s just not a good idea.The father in question is telling her the truth, though masked by the feminist in a queasy “violence is not the answer”. And by the way, no sane parent would advise their child to “just take it”. It’s a matter of self-preservation in real time.

The second case, of sexual assault, involves two adult women, not comparable by any stretch. Of course a difference in physical strength is still possible; however the victim admits not having tried to fend off the attacker, as a matter of choice.  The author claims it was a result of her being brainwashed by parents into putting up with such behaviour.

Every situation and response is different; being hit once (when presumably able to leave) is not comparable to being sexually assaulted, which is sustained aggression and can only be stopped by force, if words  don’t work. Legally, self-defence justifies force, to the point of killing an attacker; we do not live in a “shut up and take it” culture.

The other two “slippery slopes” involve letting oneself be inappropriately touched because of the lack of sexual education and lastly, putting up with unwanted sexual acts because of… having to visit your mother on Mother’s Day. In other words, out of duty. These two are more plausible; it depends on the culture someone develops and lives in.

Consent is a skill that must be taught and learned consistently, so it makes no sense to raise children to ignore their own consent and flip it on like a switch as soon as they become adults.

Consent is a matter of real time intuition, not a learned behaviour or skill, unless actual abuse is involved (children being used to real exploitative acts and potentially going on to do so later in life). It varies from one interaction to another; people are not robots. Consent is simply a response to another human being; there’s no rule book to apply here.

Secondly, this comic seeks to deal with assault, which is a physical act. You can’t elaborate on assault without considering the physical characteristics of those involved (sex, age, strength, condition at the time etc). Here, all such differences are disregarded, as if they didn’t matter, when they are in fact essential.

Of course, these are just two examples of the same line of thought, which is creating, at least at a discourse level, a gap between men and women.

 

ESP – Misconceptions And Frauds

Unfortunately, this subject is very polarising, some people opting for a completely materialistic view and others leaving themselves prey to claims which hold no water (so-called service providers robbing them blind).

The extremes are a matter of either refusing to consider it at all cost, despite being told perplexing stories by sane people with no interest in lying, or wanting to believe just anything, even against one’s better judgement.

Of course, there is the middle path of those who know ESP occurs indeed, yet are equally aware of the mass deception by shysters who trade in illusions.

Which is why I think the following observations are in order.

  1. It’s a series of limited personal experiences, not an ability, or better yet, a profession.

Most people, sceptics included, have had an eerily accurate premonition, the odd dream predicting a future event down to details, or telepathic connection with someone else. What these phenomena tend to have in common is a purpose at that point in time, in the person’s life. Often that purpose is to warn of an incoming danger or prepare them for an unavoidable shock (the unexpected death of a loved one for instance).

The other commonality is that they do not happen constantly (which would be distressing, I imagine).

They are small glimpses into what should be the unknown – the potential future, the life of someone who is estranged etc. They come in grain size, not by the bucket; they are like droplets in an ocean of uncertainty and unpredictability.

Hence, when you hear a flouncy describe her nightly conversations with her spirit guide named Zorg, who tells her everything from the weather to who will get divorced in the neighbourhood, the suspicion that it’s verbal diarrhoea seems correct.

2. It occurs spontaneously, not on demand.

Perhaps a reiteration of the point made above – ESP is not an ability, as this term describes something you can control and use at your discretion.

The limited information you receive arrives unexpectedly when necessary, not as a result of you looking for it (that’s why fortune telling is such BS), let alone demanding it.

There is no unlimited database of the past, present and future people with ESP can tap into at will, to reveal hidden facts about themselves and others. If that were true, nothing would remain a mystery to them. Those who claim to have an access card to such a place, and charge money for a quick peek, are charlatans.

I’m sure many people with good intuition make an honest effort to gauge others’ problems in this manner, yet have no proof of their assertions being anything but a guess.

And I’m sure many who failed at demonstrating their presumed gift in a controlled environment had some genuine phenomenon over the years, yet could not artificially reproduce a natural occurrence. Because it happened to them, as opposed to them making it happen.

3. It is often verified in hindsight.

When someone claims the infallible capacity to predict the future because they’ve done so once or twice, they are mistaken. The only way to verify a prediction is after the fact, which is why people should not become hysterical when someone puts forth apocalyptic views.

The estimated number of daily thoughts crossing someone’s mind ranges between 50 000 and 70 000. Many of them will be irrelevant. Of the many premonitions someone might have, only some stand the test of time, whilst the rest are forgotten. Some will be steeped in subjectivity; their own hopes and fears. Dreams, likewise, can be useful in terms of psychological analysis, yet rarely do they actually reveal crucial information to be used in real time.

Don’t get me wrong, when it does happen it’s something to marvel at – yet that doesn’t mean every dream should be given the same importance a priori.

There are no prophets whose every word should be regarded as likely accurate by default.

4. To my knowledge, there has never been a way to establish where the information comes from.

In other words, we should all beware of those who claim to be in communication with divine beings or aliens, or anything of the sort. Or those who claim their occasional accurate predictions are proof of the existence of some deity.

5. The direct line to Heaven is a scam.

I’ve yet to see a psychic asked to contact a client’s dead relative, to shrug and say “sorry, dear, he wasn’t available”, or alternatively, “sorry, he’s in Hell and they only allow visitors on Saturday morning”. Isn’t it amazing how the departed are always calm and happy, wanting to reminisce about some fishing trip twenty years prior?

A couple were claiming the room was full of the client’s dead relatives, and that they wanted to make contact. It’s funny how it’s only the living who initiate these conversations through a paid medium and the dead, although present in such close proximity, are hapless in terms of communication. If it’s an open line, why don’t the dead ever ask for messages to be passed, of their own initiative? Can’t they afford the fee? No one thinks to ask “honestly; if they’re here all the time anyway, what do I need you for?”

6. The “paranormal” and “supernatural”

These commonly used terms alone are doing the study of this field (parapsychology) an enormous disservice.

They push these phenomena, in terms of common perception, into a realm of oddity and fantasy, when they are in fact very frequent, even if some people only experience them once or twice (notably) over an entire lifetime. That in turn causes them to be rejected as even plausible.

They are not “paranormal” or “supernatural”, they are the normal and natural.

It seriously annoys me to hear anyone claiming to operate in this field throw these words around in order to attract attention or be sensational, as if wanting to feed those around them with cheap thrills.

Ghosts – Misconceptions And Frauds

Throughout time, regardless of location or culture, ghost sightings have been a common occurrence. Phenomena presumed to involve the spirits of deceased people (haunting, poltergeist activity etc) remain of interest, not only to those experiencing them but to the curious in general.

Accounts of these phenomena are extremely interesting, usually connected to places and involving no reason to suspect those giving them of fabrication. They are isolated stories told by people who are not into making careers out of it. If anything, they risk being ridiculed for describing what they’ve witnessed.

Others, however, are set on using this mysterious side of human nature for personal gain, an easy con for centuries. They prey on the thirst for thrills, as well as the grieving, the latter being inexcusable.

Ghost hunting is the practice of observing a location believed to be haunted, in attempts to spot or/and make contact with the spirits thought to be lingering there. Paraphernalia is often used (cameras, motion detectors, devices based on measuring temperature etc). The “instrument” most sought after, however, is a medium, also known as a psychic or channel, claiming to facilitate this communication.

Whilst those reporting a haunting can normally be trusted and those seeking to observe it directly can at least be given the benefit of the doubt, most mediums are full of it.

Moreover, paranormal investigations produced for television, in order to cater to viewers, can be remorselessly suspected of BS. Whilst capturing phenomena on camera does happen, it happens spontaneously, and rarely, if ever, in a scheduled manner; that is just too convenient. The proof found is usually limited to noises and sensations experienced in the area. The chances of it all being staged are very high, even when based on a true story.

Identifying the deceased person

For the sake of keeping it brief by not constantly repeating the words “ghost”, “deceased”, “dead person” etc, let’s just refer to a spirit observed by the living as Bob.

Whereas in some cases people are confident of knowing who Bob is, through some of the things he does (like moving or smashing certain possessions), in most cases, his presence is nebulous and he is connected with the place he manifests himself in, rather than those currently occupying it. He might appear partially, as a shadow, as a vapour, or be downright invisible. He might vociferate but never show any physical traits. Whilst he may inadvertently give clues about his reason to be there, identifying him is very difficult, and likely a result of meticulous research; even then things can’t be certain.

To think that someone can walk right in, off the street, and give an accurate portrayal is not plausible. Mediums are known to make up elaborate stories on the spot.

Making contact

This is presented as the medium calling Bob and expecting a sign; perhaps asking a question or two.

First of all, this is a person, not a house pet. You can’t just whistle and expect him to turn up.There are no guarantees he’s even there in real time, that he hears the medium or that he’s in any way inclined to respond.

Assumptions are made beforehand, due to popular culture:

  • He knows he is dead;
  • He spends all his time at that particular location;
  • He knows he shouldn’t be there and is aware he owes an explanation for his presence;
  • He is aware of the current year and of the people living there;
  • He wants to go elsewhere but can’t for some reason.

There are no guarantees any of these apply.

“Go to the light, Bob, go to the light!”

First of all, Heaven was a religious invention; there isn’t any way to know what lies beyond the material world and where people go after dying, if they go anywhere at all (they might just be here but difficult to perceive by the living). What the medium really means is “piss off”. Whilst many have seen ghosts, no one has ever seen Heaven. James Randi pointed out how funny it is that mediums never try to reach someone who is in hell, or, I assume, likely to go there if “passing on”.

Secondly, let’s assume there was such a place where spirits are supposed to go. Now, if Bob has refused to move on for, say, 300 years, he must’ve had his reasons all along. It’s unlikely that the medium saying “you must go home now”, with self-attributed authority, will suddenly change that.

If he is not aware he is dead (a hypothesis detailed below), saying that is pointless. And if he is aware of his circumstances and options, should there be any, he doesn’t need pointers from the medium; he is there because he wants to be.

Bob the public menace

When Bob interferes with the lives of the living, it is often assumed he is doing it on purpose; some people think ghosts are set on chasing the present occupants away. However, that needn’t be the case. Bob might be experiencing the living in the same manner they are experiencing him (fleeting, blurred interactions which are difficult to make sense of).

Some apparitions have indicated there just might be an overlap between the past and present. For instance, somewhere in the UK, the ghost of a monk was seen walking down a street. The observer only saw the monk’s upper half, and after researching the history of the area, realised the road used to be at a lower level, which would explain why the monk’s legs could not be seen (he was walking on the old road, the old and current scenery overlapping). That was one of the most interesting stories I’ve come across and indicates occasional glitches, as opposed to spirits deciding to haunt a place (which is not to say the latter doesn’t occur).

The same can be said for noises, voices etc inside a house; perhaps the living are simply getting a glimpse of past events, without any interaction per se. Of course, when it comes to poltergeist activity, there seems to be a clear intention, when objects are thrown around for instance. There are cases when people are physically attacked.

Yet lacking any indication of violent intentions, it’s unnecessarily distressing to make assumptions, simply based on Hollywood tropes.

Bring in the priest

When dealing with a haunting, perhaps due to culture or modern horror film narratives, someone might think that bringing in a priest to perform some ritual will make everything stop. If they have indications of – or simply imagine – Bob having suffered a violent death, to perhaps lie hidden in an unmarked grave, they think a service will bring him closure. Hollywood certainly portrays it that way – that merely reciting a few Bible verses can bring peace to the dead.

However, there are no guarantees Bob was ever religious, or that he, in fact, was not killed on the behest of a religious institution in the first place, as many have been throughout the centuries. Imagine doing that for victims of the Inquisition; it might just feel like a spit in the face (if they even become aware of it). I reckon that cross is the last thing they would want to see or be associated with.

And here’s a thought – what if some of the spirits out there, claimed by the religious to be demons for reacting negatively to religious practices, are actually just ghosts who hate the church?

This spontaneous thought calls for some research and a future post on anything I might find.

Mediums freaking out on camera

There are sensationalist programs showing mediums scared half to death in dark basements, squirming and squealing about being touched on the shoulder.

“I talk to the dead on demand; I even let them possess my body to speak through it, but if I think one is near me I scream and run away.” Makes sense, right?

There is one thing I know for sure about ESP – if you’re someone who experiences it regularly, you’re not afraid of it, regardless of how it manifests. You take it as a normal part of life.

Granted that if you reject the idea, you might be negatively impacted by such phenomena. But if you embrace it fully and call yourself a medium, it makes no sense to run for the hills, especially when you seek out such encounters. It’s all done for show.

Given the availability of such material, it would be a shame not to post a cringe-worthy example of poor acting, from those who pretend to contact the dead.

This is one notable instance, organised by BBC 3, of three “mediums” being taken to a chocolate factory to communicate with a spirit. The presumption was they had no information and were obtaining their findings through their so-called abilities. However, it turned out they’d researched the place and were regurgitating the fictitious narrative posted on a website a week prior.

One medium even pretended to go into a trance to obtain the false information. The cringe was at the highest possible level.

 

 

 

 

Puritanical Groups: Frankenstein’s Monster

A story emerged recently, not nearly as interesting from an ideological point of view as from a psychological one.

In a way it’s classic: someone founds a group or participates in its founding, based on a set of principles. Overtime, the disciples grow more radical than the founder, turn on this person venomously and take the reins, going as far as making false accusations or starting a smear campaign.

This happened recently to Cenk Uygur, the founder of The Young Turks but also co-founder of Justice Democrats, a group seeking to contribute to the success of its candidates of choice. Besides contributing to the very start of Justice Democrats, he gave them substantial popularity through his alternative media channel (perhaps the most successful on the left).

Their gripe with him? Well, it turns out no less than 18 years ago (19 in fact, now), he wrote some pretty unsavoury things on a blog, regarding his frustration with women, general opinions on them etc.

Almost two decades ago. If anything should still matter for incrimination after two decades, in the life of any individual, it would have to be extremely serious. Something in the vein of war crimes, murder, rape or child molestation. Certainly not blog posts written on a whim, showing opinions which evolved overtime into their polar opposites.

It’s a total witch hunt. Whatever you can call Cenk Uygur, you cannot call him sexist, racist or anything else they claimed. He’s one of the leading voices on the left (far left in fact), at least in the alternative media; anyone who has followed TYT even sporadically is aware of the absurdity of these labels. They called him “part of the patriarchy” and claimed “he perpetuated rape culture”; something along those lines.

They called those off-the-cuff rants “horrifying”. Which leads me to believe said characters must’ve reached their (presumed) maturity during the SJW culture and haven’t read much worse. As others have mentioned, my first thought was whether they were, in fact, still wearing nappies when these blog posts were written. And whether their lack of understanding of someone’s opinions evolving is due to their lack off opportunity, age-wise, to go through such changes themselves.

So they’ve known this guy for a year (at least), interacted with him frequently, and somehow “failed to notice” he was “racist and sexist”, until these old posts popped up. It doesn’t seem to strike them as odd. A switch was activated in their heads and, boom – their views on him turned on their head.

Ideology aside, there is no difference between these zealots and religious ones. This prudish, couch-fainting reaction to anything slightly unpleasant from someone’s past, however inconsequential. Either they are the embodiment of a perfect record, not old enough to have ever offended anyone significantly, or they are just as susceptible to the same type of attack (likely to come from their midst at some point).

All that said – the far left created this cannibalistic “monster”.

I’ve come across gloating on TYT about people losing their jobs over tweets (not necessarily from Cenk Uygur; I can’t recall), and this is very common in the progressive camp. This isn’t the same as he was volunteering there; however in terms of one’s reputation being tainted, it’s comparable.

What the Justice Democrats did was to apply what they understood as one their immutable principles (thoughtless condemnation and banishing of other people).

 

 

The Wankery Of Guaranteed Divine Protection

It’s quite funny when one mostly has atheist or agnostic pages in their FB news feed, yet somehow gets Christian propaganda every few days. Some groups actually target non-believers.

One recent example was an inspirational tale of how a young woman was nearly mugged on a back alley one night, the only thing keeping her safe being the two angels walking beside her.

It goes like this: when walking home on a dark street to take a shortcut, a young Christian woman saw a man in a doorway and immediately prayed for safety. He left her alone, but went on to mug someone else passing by, whose guardian angels must’ve been sleeping on the job. Oddly enough, the lucky girl heard about it the next day and went to the police to see if she could help identify the thug. As soon as she pointed him out, the thug confessed and told the story of her having had “two tall men by her side”.

Of course no location or names were present in the story; that might lead a person or two to try to verify it. Though such an outlandish story would need chances of verification in order to not be dismissed straight away.Apparently, the mugger was able to see angels (an extraordinary ability not many hardcore Christians have).

And of course it’s rather odd that being pointed out by the one he’d actually mugged was not enough for him to confess. She was the first to go to the police and give details, accurately enough for him to be found and taken into custody. But the climax (his confession) only occurred when the second one turned up. Not to mention the second one (angel girl) had no proof this had been the same person who had mugged the actual victim.

So basically, a guy who mugs women and doesn’t give a shit about the victim identifying him suddenly confesses when recognised by someone who has no proof of any wrongdoing on his part (who just passed him by in the street the same night). Makes sense, right?

But let’s indulge the story for a second. Even so, it would be no proof of the mugger actually seeing a couple of angels. Perhaps he was stealing to feed his drug habit; who knows what he was on and what else he might’ve seen besides the “two tall men” who weren’t actually there.

As a disclaimer, I’m not saying I don’t believe in apparitions; they are common throughout the world, yet equally enigmatic. I don’t, however, believe spirits can be brought into manifestation at the drop of a hat, by simply wishing for it. And I don’t believe in guardian angels who presumably allow all kinds of atrocities against innocent people daily, yet are credited for intervening sometimes.

The moral of the story might be either one of these:

  • Putting oneself in risky situations is fine provided you ask for protection from your guardian angels;
  • The victim of the mugging didn’t have God on her side;
  • We should thank God when others are harmed instead of us;
  • God loves people so much he lets anything happen to those who aren’t smart enough to pray to him in real time;
  • Angels are protection mechanisms needing activation (unless you ask them for help in real time they remain dormant or stand by and watch).

I wonder then why people are turned into martyrs for Jesus across the planet. Presumably they pray for safety as well, but the “two tall men” never show up.

Later Edit

The second inspirational story arrived recently; I’ve no idea if a Christian group posted it, the only clue being in the author’s fleeting “and that’s proof of how the Lord works”, something along these lines.

It was a moving story of two elderly people meeting in the same retiring home, after having spent sixty years apart, in perpetual loneliness (neither had married and they’d both been in love since their youth).

It goes like this: a bloke finds a wallet and in it an old letter, written sixty years prior, of a young lady parting with her boyfriend as her mother objected. He manages to track her down to a care home and finds the owner of the wallet living there as well, the two being unaware of each other’s presence (living on different floors in the same building). Then he helps them meet and so on, a happy ending.

Logistically, to me it seems strange that two people who’d been in love with each other for more than six decades, living in the same place, hadn’t crossed paths before to recognise each other. It just seems unlikely. You’d recognise the face of the one person you’ve ever loved, even many decades after. The guy was keen on wandering about apparently, as he’d lost his wallet on the pavement well outside of that care home. It seems strange to me he’d never wandered around in the building to find the lady in question. Plus, her letter was in his wallet, which he frequently lost, often found by staff – who were aware of both their names. Surely someone would’ve seen it and told the guy she was living there. It makes no sense.

But let’s give the story the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s true.

It still wouldn’t be the proof that God is kind and merciful. If he had been, he would’ve made these people cross paths earlier in life, when they could still get married and build a life together. The young lady wasn’t going to be 16 and under her mother’s thumb forever. It would be a story of elation yet depressing sadness in equal amounts. Sixty years of misery, so God could plan his great moment of reunification when they both only had a few years left to live.

If this actually happened, it was chance or whatever you want to call it, but not God’s merciful intervention.

The Law Of Attraction – Not An Absolute

For many years now, this law has been predicated as the key to ultimate success – attracting positive elements into one’s life by visualising them or reaching certain levels of inner peace.

To an extent, it’s verifiable, as is the reverse – pessimism is likely to keep attracting the negative, perhaps because an individual is unwilling to take steps in the other direction. However, there are limits to this theory, as there are limits to the idea that one chooses which body to incarnate into, which I don’t find particularly plausible.

There are methods of improving one’s chances which apply to anyone anywhere, yet they’re mostly related to physical care or skill development.

Hope also seems to help people stay alive; however, it doesn’t guarantee survival when greater forces are at play, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee the accomplishment of a person’s highest aspirations. There’s a theorising of hope going on at the moment, with systems of rules being developed and paces one must presumably go through in order to successfully apply it. It’s a coping mechanism and raw human emotion, not  an up-the-ladder strategy which is subject to regulation.

  1. This “thriving theory” is aimed at people with a pre-existing level of comfort. A level of subsistence (at a minimum) is necessary.

Whenever I hear a seemingly uplifting video on how life can be turned around through sheer attitude, I can’t help but think of all those who are stuck in famine-stricken countries or otherwise desperate situations they cannot change. I doubt a copy of “The Secret” would make a difference in their lives when they are struggling to subsist. Wishing on it will not fix a draught or a corrupt political regime.

Hence I conclude the theory is addressed to those who are doing well enough in terms of survival, but not well enough compared to their aspirations.

I hear people in conferences, in well-ventilated venues, going on about how each individual should live in order to achieve their full potential. How most people “are doing it wrong”. And I can’t help but think of those in a mud hut or a tent in a refugee camp, unable to access the “life-saving” advice on “how not to do it wrong anymore”.

This cannot be a universal principle if it doesn’t apply to every single person. If “the universe wants you to thrive and it’s all up to you”, why are so many trapped in hopeless situations?

2.An individual is, sometimes, not able to subtract him/herself from the conditions of a community.

Connected to the point above – we often hear that “it’s up to the individual to improve their chances in life through their attitude”. This certainly doesn’t apply to those living under genuine oppression, extreme danger, in war zones etc. An individual can only do so much but cannot help the impact of their environment, not even to the point of guaranteeing personal safety, let alone thriving. It certainly cannot be said they attract negative things into their lives when those things are common occurrences around them.

3.Hazards are a real issue.

There are, according to some theories, children “choosing to incarnate” into bodies which die before birth, during birth for lack of medical attention, or shortly after, when bombs happen to strike their houses. The only spiritual explanation would be the one religion is trying to forge – “God’s will, God knows what he’s doing”.

Whilst the real explanation is that some fuckers gave the orders for the bombs to be dropped. Are those people a part of God’s plan? I don’t think so. They make their own decisions. They could always decide differently.  If “the supreme creator” gives everyone free will, those bastards upon whom hundreds or thousands of lives depend also have free will. It’s human, not divine action. It happens in real time, not as a part of a “divine plan” “every soul agreed to beforehand”.

The same goes for natural catastrophes – was there a plan “up there” for thousands to incarnate in a certain area just so they could all be struck by the same tsunami? Or was it a random event created by tectonic plates, because this is the kind of planet we happen to be living on?

If this happens at all, it must only happen to some (I can’t dismiss a possibility I can’t invalidate). There are case studies overwhelmingly in favour of reincarnation. But there is nothing to indicate, to my knowledge anyway, that it is voluntary down to details.

4. It implies blaming the victim (of hazard, other people’s actions etc), just as religion does.

Fundamentalist Christians, some of them anyway, are of the conviction that if someone has enough faith, they will be healed of just about anything, and will thrive financially. That is how the “prosperity gospel” operates, church upon church collecting pensioners’ last savings, promising a better future through faith.

In a similar fashion, there are alternative healing methods out there, based on “making peace with life and everyone around you”. There are testimonials from those who claim to have been healed from deadly diseases simply by forgiving everyone who had ever wronged them.

I’m not disputing the role of the psyche in healing the physical body; a positive attitude certainly seems to help.

However, let’s not slide into (and some Christians do) insulting theories about how people who weren’t healed “just didn’t have enough faith”, or alternatively, “were not at peace with life and those around them”. Not everything, and surely not every disease, can be solved in such manners.

In conclusion, this doesn’t seem to work universally, regardless of a person’s conditions. It works for some people sometimes and that’s about it.

 

“Out Of The Fog” – Another Toxic Recovery Forum

After losing interest in the subject for a long time, I finally had a close look at another internet community based on personality disorders, a disciple of which I’ve seen trying to poison strangers online (for a couple of years and ongoing), perhaps out of reflex, with the idea that they are being emotionally abused by their partners or family members. When the response given to anyone succinctly posting a relationship dilemma is by default along those lines, something is awry.

Not having spent more than a few hours looking it up and reading through it, I do know what comes out of there, when one is immersed in this line of thought.

The difference between offering an opinion and proselytising is in nuance, in the ability to evaluate every situation on its own merits. When someone reacts like a person with a hammer, to whom everything looks like a nail, things are clear.

The forum is differently structured than PF and covers more than romantic relationships or marriages, which PF focused on. It doesn’t overtly demonise people with personality disorders, but claims to offer coping strategies instead (a misleading appearance, as detailed below). At a peek there is no mention of evil, demonic beings set on destroying their targets etc. However, a review of the book with the same name mentions black and white thinking, splitting humans into two categories: “the PDs” (personality disordered) and the “nons” (non-disordered) . And the acronym PD appears often on the site. Hence they don’t even have to pretend they are knowledgeable enough to identify a specific disorder.

To their credit, they declined to create a subsection for teens, seeing the problems that might pose (while PF targeted them directly in a marketing effort).

However, at a closer look, one can see a person is likely to be labelled disordered, or at least be suspected as such, for just any reason. And any reason is no stretch.

There is a subsection about friends, neighbours, acquaintances and coworkers, where I reckon most of the baffling stuff is, from what I’ve seen so far. At least in a close relationship one has a reason to over-analyse.

As an example, a member ended up thinking her roommate might be disordered because the latter asked her to hold her stuff at a bar, “as if she were a coat rack”. Because apparently, disordered people are known to be selfish and since this one momentary gesture of debatable rudeness bothered her, the roommate is likely to have a real issue, regardless of the lack of other indications. A thread was opened about this gesture and no moderator stepped in to even issue an opinion regarding how accurate this might be. Which is proof that anything goes. Perhaps this is a random exaggeration; however; there don’t seem to be any guidelines helping people differentiate between what is likely real and what is likely imaginary.

All this has nothing to do with a presumed expertise in personality disorders, but with people airing their day-to-day grievances and sometimes ending up sticking labels on others.

The specific language is present as well (abbreviations understood only by those who activate in these circles, such as NC, LC, VLC, PD, JADE etc). More interestingly, I found the abbreviation FOO (family of origin) in a few places, previously encountered in Stefan Molyneux’s cult lingo, as in “family of origin”. He is the “patent holder” of the term de-FOO, as in disassociating with one’s family of origin (and often friends who don’t share Molyneux’s political ideology, when it comes to his followers).

Very interestingly, there is this remark on a page listing “what not to do” when confronted with disordered behaviours:

Amateur Diagnosis – An Amateur Diagnosis is when a non-qualified individual confronts someone whom they suspect suffers from a personality-disorder and shares this belief with them, usually in the hope that this revelation will help to improve the relationship or the situation.

Excuse my French, but doesn’t that cover doing so behind the person’s back, based on unprofessional information, and sharing that with strangers? I’ve come across diagnosing people by proxy (the boyfriend’s ex-wife, because he claimed so, lacking any diagnosis per se, or the member actually knowing the person referred to as disordered).

What is ethical about the fact that there is no difference of approach between members who do have a diagnosis for someone and those who simply suspect someone of having a disorder, as if it were all the same?

More food for thought about this site not being what it appears to at first. The comments on the first site mention a few of these forums (recognisable with a bit of prior knowledge).

The Aftermath of the Psycho/ Narc Hunt Obsession

As predicted, amateur online content claiming to offer insight into psychopaths and narcissists has been multiplying for a few years.

Obviously, there are content creators out there who have done intense research on the matter and have analysed it from any angle, including the problem of false identification (off-the-cuff diagnosis based on superficiality). However, they share the platform with a sea of dross.

A few years ago, such content was relatively rare. Now a large array of blogs and YouTube channels predicate inside knowledge into the “minds of the disordered”. On a mere glance, the vast majority seem founded by individuals with  no qualification in this field or in depth study of the issue. I dare assume that many were started as a result of a sour break-up or childhood-related resentment.

Though the term “psychopath” is sometimes used, “narcissist” is far more prevalent. Perhaps because it has been a lay term before becoming clinical and appears more relatable.

A few quotes picked up just through a quick search on YouTube:

  • How to spot a narcissist in five minutes/ on the first date. Pardon my doubts yet I think that unless someone is extremely disturbed it’s very difficult to tell, and most people do manage to make a good impression on a first date, if for no other reason than their conscious effort to do so. Such guidelines would be better worded as “how to ruin a first date by constantly checking for signs of narcissism”.
  • Is the narcissist watching you right now (the narcissist may be stalking you in any number of ways). So you’ve successfully distanced yourself from this person and all you need now is a dose of paranoia regarding what they might be doing. Very healthy indeed (excellent for triggering people who have been stalked in the past, by the way).
  • 121 things narcissists say while gaslighting (collected from a support group of people believing to have been targeted; most are extremely common in arguments; one of these things is “whatever”). This is on a large channel, by the way. Predictably, the first comment is “OMG I’ve been told 90% of these”. Absolutely unrelated, unscientific crap.
  • How to torture a narcissist. Better yet, why try?
  • 6 strong signs you have narcissistic abuse syndrome. This is directed at women and invites them to imagine that if they have certain emotional problems that is a strong indicator of their partner being a narcissist (no mention of the possibility of preexisting problems at all, or them being caused by other factors). The first two are “feeling alone” and “not feeling good enough”, which are par for the course with abandonment and anxiety issues and not necessarily caused by others in real time.

Moreover, this “support” has seeped into neutral environments. After watching someone seek out confused people to “help” on a forum, where they would pop up to  ask for relationship advice (being told each time they were being abused, regardless of the details), I did a quick Google search with specific keywords, to try to see how prevalent this is.

Doubtlessly, some who soak up this material, with a clear self-gratifying intention, try to sway unsuspecting strangers into thinking they are in a hopeless situation or even in danger. They actively search the internet for psychological fodder in other people’s temporary problems. And unlike content creators, who often have a financial interest, they gain nothing but the satisfaction of having potentially “saved” others from “Cluster B types”, regardless of how little they know about them.

Hence, some disciples of sites such as Psychopath Free, Out of the Fog & Co now try to influence people outside of those environments, who are merely looking to vent online or obtain objective advice (which is an illusion as most respondents simply project their own life experience). Disorders were not even an issue in discussions I’ve witnessed until said faithful disciples brought them up.

If sifting through broadly-themed forums was too time-consuming and lacked efficiency, I did have a look on other platforms. On Quora, for instance, there are many threads enquiring about the new general obsession with narcissism.

It’s definitely a mass phenomenon, not reserved for platforms one only ends up on when specifically seeking answers. Many reputable publications have covered the lists of behaviours and red flags, though to their credit, they tend to seek out professionals when putting out articles.

 

 

 

 

Embracing The Right Is Not The Answer To Disavowing The Radical Left

The past couple of years (at least) have seen a surge in criticism towards the radical left and the left in general, with media channels, big and small, suddenly erupting out of the ground like mushrooms after it rains.

Much of it, in its initial phase, was justified – it was, as declared, a campaign against speech policing, thought crimes, false accusations of bigotry based on imagined microaggressions, exacerbated feminism, the safe space culture, the doxxing and swarming of ideological opponents and so forth.

However, with all the political division and impending elections in a few countries (the US, the Netherlands, France), this freedom-loving camp started shifting right, too much for comfort, from a neutral humanist and fairness-loving position. And fairly rapidly, it ended up in the far right camp, taking its large fandom with it, where it all continues to this day.

I apologise for the anecdotal nature of this post – however, I am sure that many, at least in my generation, have undergone this process through this sudden rise of the right. Since mainstream media has become highly distrusted, people have turned to alternative media channels and got burnt just as much.This alternative media tide seemed organic at the time, yet in hindsight, seems increasingly suspicious, given how it played out.

Some of us genuinely did not see it coming. This was meant to be about standing up to feminist fury, man-hatred, irrationality and SJW demands. But it turned out to be about the worst aspects of conservatism, promotion of Christianity, xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment and race instead (yes, race, in the very worst way).

 

Choosing to only follow channels of a certain ideological persuasion can guarantee just that – being trapped in a bubble and poorly informed, potentially missing out on crucial data. What makes you think your favourite news commentators would be fair and impartial and wouldn’t outright deceive you, for their own purposes?

Some people saw this early on. The “fight for freedom and individualism” turned into the formation of another tribe, which allowed itself to coalesce with an ideology which is so extreme and unrelated to the issues initially stood for. An ideology most people would not associate themselves with, yet in droves, were incrementally dragged into. Day by day, “anger pill” after “anger pill”.

So below I will detail some of the commentators and channels which have led people down this path, week by week and month by month, while seeming rational and innocuous at first. To my knowledge, anyway, as there must be many more. However superfluous it might seem since they only operate on social media; they do have substantial influence, especially over young people (young voters, more like it). The numbers listed represent YouTube subscribers alone. The real figures must be much higher, since not everyone listening is an actual subscriber.

This is not an attempt to throw invisible spitballs at successful people, from the small standing of a nobody. It’s an attempt to paint the picture of gradual radicalisation, now that time is putting it in perspective.

Paul Joseph Watson, with a following of 1 114 637.

First appearing to be the sane and articulate side of Infowars, he became very popular by putting together scathing videos on feminists, nihilistic art, pop culture and so forth, which were excellently done. When the Trump campaign was set in motion, however, everything became pro-Trump propaganda, to the point of nausea. After the election this continued, with him supporting the Alex Jones mandated narrative and attacking everyone who disagreed with Trump’s measures or behaviour, down to fine details. Whereas his perspective on Islam seems accurate, coupled with the dehumanisation of refugees it reveals a clear xenophobic agenda. Not surprisingly, he activates in the newly tightened group on social media (with some of the individuals mentioned below), pretending not to be far right yet approving of everything the far right tries to push.

Rebel Media, with a following of 861 033.

This channel rose to popularity by claiming to defend freedom of speech, opposing the PC culture, censorship and the so-called Neo-Marxist agenda. They brought cases of political persecution to light, feminists overreacting, the gender pronoun issue etc. It was easy to agree with them on many of these carefully chosen matters. Fast forward to the height of the Trump campaign, and shortly after (and ever since), they’ve been busy spouting anti-immigrant rhetoric and defending the so-called “identitarian” movement (translation, white). They even took a trip to Israel promoting the expansionist policy and even claiming “it’s crusade o’clock in Jerusalem”; “let’s take Jerusalem back for Jesus”. One of their activists interrupted a play last year, about Julius Caesar (with some Trump elements included) by rushing onstage to cause a scandal, in the vein of SJWs protests. She was arrested and their founder, Ezra Levant, tried to rip donors off for her legal costs, by attempting to ask for more money after they’d been covered by donations. Two of her colleagues followed suit and interrupted the play on subsequent occasions (it makes you think whether mooching off Rebel fans was Levant’s intention). Another former reporter, Faith Goldy (specialising in xenophobic rhetoric), was at the Charlottesville incident, on the side of… you guessed it; the white supremacists. Rebel Media has lost many of its prolific propagandists, who were let go or left around the same time.

A few months ago, Rebel Media put out a video criticising white supremacy, presumably to distance themselves from it. The response was as amusing as it was predictable – down-votes in droves, and definitely not from leftie anti-racists. But from racists themselves – their own followers.

Lauren Southern, recently departed from Rebel Media to go independent, with a following of 391 0817 (which will increase due to her popularity there).

At first, Lauren Southern was seen as a courageous young woman who stood up against the far left, even being physically attacked at protests at times. And whilst she remains all that, presumably, she has congregated with the likes of Richard Spencer, a declared white supremacist, and has participated in anti-immigrant activism in Europe with a bunch of folks describing themselves as “identitarian”. Adding to that, she often pushes Christian traditionalism to the point of inducing vomit, and reminisces about the “good old days” which were long before her time, and were anything but good in terms of how minorities were treated. She seems preoccupied with how everyone should live, claiming to have found the answer to human happiness (Judaeo-Christian values).

Gavin McInnes, recently departed from Rebel Media onto the money-making machine of Infowars, with a following of 176 660 (which will increase, presumably).

To start with, as usual, he was a freedom of speech advocate, decrying the uber-feminised PC culture and resulting tense atmosphere. He was sharp, witty and humorous, and his rejection of censorship seemed appealing to many. However, his perspective had a clear streak of misogyny. Overtime, he obviously “campaigned” for Trump and subsequently went to Israel on the above-mentioned trip, lauding an eventual takeover of the entire Palestinian territory… “for Jesus”. He seems to glorify the “angry alpha male” the identitarian movement and so forth, which means that his entire rhetoric was actually meant to stir up anger and fuel this unhealthy drive, step by step.

 

Steven Crowder, with a following of 1 029 115.

The former abstinence campaigner, set on Christian values (hypocritical, impossible, artificial standards of behaviour), portrays himself as a comedian, often ridiculing the excesses of the left. He is very successful in that regard, sometimes infiltrating leftist circles and exposing their superficiality. His core message, while so many are enjoying his comedy, should not be overlooked. A conservative Christian message, blending in with other conservative-turned-far right voices.

The first time his commentary made me sick was when he made fun of deported undocumented immigrants to the US, some of whom were brought there as minors. “It’s not our problem they decided to have kids here…” That is so far removed from how life works, how relationships and having children works. And pardon my french, so un-Christian.

Tommy Robinson, with a following of 59 345.

There was a high degree of sympathy for him, which I did share for some time, based on the conditions of his imprisonment and what happened after, in terms of what he described (being targeted by authorities for opposing radical Islam). What he described, basically, was political persecution and anyone with a sense of fairness would feel compassion for him.

However, the guy truly is far right. He is participating in setting up outposts in other countries. In Ireland he was recorded encouraging his mates to use violence on intruders to their meetings, provided the cameras were off. There’s no doubt in my mind that his claim that “the EDL had been infiltrated by unsavoury violent characters” was a lie. Violence is what he supports, even against innocent people, such as dissenters at a far right meeting.

Dave Rubin,with a following of 555 842.

He used to be a part of TYT (The Young Turks). Back when he was a liberal. I’m not sure where he stands anymore, as he claims to be sort of in the middle, yet increasingly gives a platform to the right and far right, wherever that differentiation may stand nowadays. He does so pretending to give a platform to any opinion, yet increasingly siding with the right.

Stefan Molyneux, with a following of 697 501 (and a community of ex-cult members describing his real intentions in detail).

Well, what transpires out of Mr Molyneux’s endeavour is a modern day cult, with him positioned as a leader. It’s quite frightening actually, the influence he has managed to have over his young disciples. Mr Molyneux is quite intricate in terms of delivering a political message. By not vocally assuming a stance he is well understood to have assumed before his interviews and  half-surreal talks, increasingly focused on the so-called white genocide, so-called race realism (with an emphasis of presumed IQ differences between races), giving a platform to the extreme right as often as he can.

This guy must think he is able to put a verbose mask over his racist, xenophobic and extremely mysoginistic message. Someone can well be lost in his well-acted, hours-long monologues, mimicking emotion and often outrage. However, he fails to share the emotion regarding the lives he has ruined or nearly ruined with his indoctrination. He is a strong proponent of cutting contact with family members by default (or should I say de-foo, as in disengaging from one’s family of origin), as well as anyone who does not share his anti-statist views).

His rhetoric is laden with cognitive dissonance, on the one hand rejecting the idea of a state and law enforcement, and on the other hand, using “law and order” as a justification for pushing hatred against minorities, going as far as praising Trump’s authoritarianism. It should be obvious that the two perspectives cannot coexist. The far right, which he’s been supporting for a good couple of years (at least), is far removed from libertarian ideas, as authoritarian and libertarian are diametrically opposed concepts.

He’s full of shit, to put it bluntly. He gives his followers a radical perspective to embrace, and some of them end up destroying their lives over it. And unfortunately, that pays off.

Dave Cullen (Computing Forever), with a following of 266 616.

He started out, as most on this trajectory, by criticising the far left, or cultural Marxism, through the exposure of people being victimised for not joining the ranks in their left-dominated environments. An honourable thing to do, in and of itself, of course. However, as his audience shifted to the right and far right, so has his content, a technique which I trust proved rather profitable.

To his credit, he has criticised far right groups such as Britain First. It wasn’t for their hateful ideas though, but on a tangent (in this case, Christianity). He does argue, as a non-believer, that “secularism lacks moral fibre”.  This is a very strange position to take (and increasingly, I am seeing it in a variety of environments). He is very much “in that camp”, minus his reaction to the rhetoric of fake religious zealots such as Britain First.

Milo Yiannopoulos, with a following of 692 000.

Milo can be charismatic, at first, with his unapologetic criticism of “special snowflakes”, although he has gone too far on many occasions. His activism tends to be regarded as flamboyant trolling for the sake of it; some of the ideas he puts out there, however, are far from innocuous.

What sets him aside from other content creators, who might just be surfing the wave of the market, is his collaboration with Breitbart – a far right publication known to distort events in a manner likely to manipulate people and stir up anger towards minorities. And whilst you might think Milo might be kidding at times, seeking to superficially stir up debates in a bid to elevate his self-absorbed persona, those at Breitbart are certainly not kidding in their endeavour. They don’t just marginally support the far right; they are the far right.

Alex Jones, with a following of 2 190 754.

I left this guy for last, even though it appears he’s had the largest impact, because he is not surreptitious in the slightest; people find his channel when first figuring out “things are not as they seem” and usually don’t stay long, when realising he is inducing hysteria in order to peddle his bullshit products. Some, however, get addicted to fear porn and stay, to be told daily that the world is just days or hours away from imploding.

Whether Alex Jones believes a tenth of what he puts forth is a good question, given that his enterprise is geared towards selling worthless paraphernalia, in the vein of those who peddle post-apocalypse merch in churches.

His propaganda, however, is very dangerous, given his large platform.  What he does is manipulate any major event (murders in particular) in order to suit his narrative of conspiring “enemies of the people” who “must be defeated” by a communal effort of his listeners (voting for whomever he tells them to, for his own purposes).

The reason behind listing the audience count, on YouTube alone, is merely to prove that these people do have considerable impact.

It should be evident to anyone that what started out as the rejection of groupthink and authoritarianism should not end with the formation of a “warrior tribe”, willing to compromise on crucial issues (getting into bed with white supremacists while claiming to disavow racism, for instance).

These people are contributing to the normalisation of the far right, whether they share those views all the way or not (and I have a feeling many of them don’t).

They have gone from criticising identity politics and the resulting division, to supporting “identitarianism”. Orwellian, what can I say.

Their followers must have a short attention span. They shouldn’t.

Identitarian Religion – A Small Conundrum

Increasingly, there is talk of people abandoning mainstream religions, particularly in Europe, to return to ancestral traditions, namely Paganism. And whilst that sounds interesting (a return to communion with nature and spirituality without the constraint of dogmas), something does puzzle me.

It concerns the enmeshment between this revival and present day ethno-nationalism.

Namely, it is not uncommon for Pagans to believe in reincarnation. Which entails accepting the possibility of having been born multiple times in multiple locations, overtime. In fact, many people who describe their past life memories recall having lived in a different country than the one they were born in in their current lifetimes.

Obviously, that is at odds with claiming to have roots in a single ethnicity, culture and tradition. Not to mention claiming racial purity (which, when tested, often doesn’t prove biologically accurate anyway, not in one lifetime, let alone many).

It seems to me those who believe in reincarnation and spirituality based on natural archetypes (not a limited dogma) should logically be more inclined to consider themselves “citizens of the world” than those of other religions.

Just a thought.