Category Archives: Social Engineering

Heaven – The Selfish Mirage

As a child, I often wondered how would marriage after widow-ship fare with Heaven, if a person was supposed to remain with their spouse in the afterlife. Namely which equally legitimate spouse would be one’s eternal companion.

That, of course, was only one small question regarding this mysterious promised land of peaceful green pastures, where everyone, from infants to the elderly, would dwell until the end of time (or outside of it). Well, everyone minus most people on the planet, since the path to “salvation” is supposed to be so “narrow”, so narrow the troubled souls of the living would have to compete in arduousness in order to squeeze into the fortunate convoy.

Arguably, Hell is a much more grotesque and disturbing concept, yet in its own way, Heaven is as well. Atheism aside, if one is spiritual, the whole idea seems very unfair.

First of all, we should assume that arbitrarily, since God decides who lives or dies, he only allows some people a substantial duration of their existence (growing, maturing, becoming wiser), whilst for others that is cut short without the possibility of fully experiencing life on Earth.

Then, the status of children who die without having been christened comes into question: do they go to Heaven as well, and if not, how is this prospect not morally repugnant enough to make people doubt this religion? Some denominations, such as Orthodoxy, claim no one can enter Heaven without the ceremony in this specific rite. Recently, I’ve come across a fanatic online who didn’t deem such people worthy of a conversation on religion, regardless of their views, which is beyond medieval.

There’s something about clinging on to people who have died that seems a bit selfish, from a spiritual perspective – in terms of imagining they’re simply waiting for one’s presence, stacked on a vaporous shelf somewhere, looking down at the living they left behind.

As someone who believes in reincarnation, I find it more reasonable to think that when souls are freed from their mortal bodies they move on to different experiences and continue to grow through them. Reincarnation has long been studied and at times the search revealed cases where coincidence could only be claimed through the sheer belief that this phenomenon is impossible. The work of Dr Ian Stevenson alone is proof that this subject is anything but fiction or wishful thinking.

 

 

Enough Pandering To Actual White Supremacists

In every clash of ideologies there is a large palette of nuances of grey, usually overlooked by both sides when posturing on their key issues. Hence the idea of analysing all possible aspects in a neutral manner.

However, there is at least one exception – when the clash involves any ideology based on racial supremacy, which seeks to reduce humanity to no more than packs of mammals fighting over territory, a phase humanity is said to have transcended a long time ago (but apparently hasn’t completely).

There is no redeeming aspect or nuance in being a race supremacist. It is the absolute lowest denominator in any society. The drive towards tribalism can be understood in certain contexts, but not this one.

After the events in Charlottesville, US, when, at a white nationalist rally where violence erupted between marchers and protesters, a woman was actually killed by a disturbed right wing extremist who purposefully ran into people with his car, the reactions were, paradoxically, mixed.

As praised as the first amendment in the US constitution is, giving the right to free speech to anyone on any matter, one must rationally admit that a march based on racial supremacy is, in and of itself, incitement to violence.

Analyse and dissect it all you want – that it what is boils down to. And when such elements freely congregate and propagandise, nothing good comes of it. Because it simply can’t. It is the most base, irrational, anger-fueled drive a person can have, and should not be alimented by any means. It borders on (and sometimes even is) murderous rage, blended with the sickest type of utilitarianism.

There is no silver lining. As much as “free speech advocates” (whose devotion is questionable when joining ranks with the right) like to throw stones at the radical left, which overall has damaged its image through acts of violence of its own, this is not debatable. No one is blowing this out of proportion. These are actual racists. Not someone making an inadvertently offensive comment or a potentially offensive joke, to be picked on for no reason. Actual torch-wielding racists, looking for concrete results and political backing.

And still, commentators claiming to be moderate wrack their brains to defend Trump’s half-hearted condemnation “of both sides”. Because they support Trump. Normally, outside of these circumstances of belonging to a clique and having to defend it at all cost, I think those same people would be very quick to disavow any such gathering.

In the Trump-supporting-yet-supposedly-not-alt-right alternative media, especially online, things carry on as usual, with issues such as the demands of irrational feminists and “regressive leftists” being treated as a priority, when it is clear that at least in the US the radical right has become a major problem, emboldened by the establishment’s tacit approval.

The idea that Trump’s election would cause such consequences was treated as ridiculous last year, with believable rhetoric – and yet it’s all happening. It seems the “ridiculous” “hysterical” left actually had a point.

 

 

 

The Trump Cult, Radicalising Instead Of Dissipating

Halfway through 2017, one could say the hopes of many who wanted to see the ‘system’ upturned through Trump’s election have been laid to rest in droves, akin to victims of the bubonic plague in the 1300s, so rampant it didn’t allow time for proper burial or mourning.

Arguably, Trump himself seems rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things (a figurehead behind the name of whom the same agenda can unfold, since no swamp was drained and no foreign interventions were stopped or diminished).

It seems that by engaging in numerous raids in foreign countries, his administration is not trying to stop terrorism but breed new waves of people seeking revenge for this untold wave of death and destruction, reported by western media outlets through numbers and statistics, as opposed to real human beings, their homes, their streets and towns. By doing so, these callous terrorist attacks in the west are almost guaranteed to keep happening, and it is not well-protected decision makers in fancy offices who suffer, but innocent people murdered or maimed in these attacks while going about their daily lives.

It is apparent that to the system overall, human beings, regardless of their location, are irrelevant. The engineering of wars and culture clashes in order to grab resources for monetary gains seems to be all that matters.

Meanwhile, people are distracted by media frenzies around what Trump does and the ever-changing structure of his staff. On a bureaucratic note, the ridiculousness of the events unfolding around the White House was depicted recently in the New York Magazine, in the most appropriate terms:

We were entering, it seemed to me, the Caligula phase of the collapse of the American republic. Pretty soon Trump would be announcing that the new FBI director would be a horse.

Remarkably, it is still too early to confine Kek to a side show oddity (perhaps a ragged piece of taxidermy). For some people, all that has happened since January is still not enough for them to see that this  – too – was a farce and that the ‘deep state’ was still very much in control.

For some reason, some keep feeding into this illusion of a revolutionary president with no background in politics, as if if politics itself, as a concept, and not cronyism, were the real problem.

When the image of a widely acclaimed personality or group crumbles and most followers become disenchanted, there is always that bunch of fanatics resembling the tail of a dead animal wriggling in the grass, independently of the carcass, as if it had a life of its own.

It seems the uncanny remarks made by Alex Jones on inauguration night, regarding the new president and a very friendly Holy Ghost, were not out of place in Trump’s America.

As RightWingWatch so often expand upon, voices in the US Christian community, regardless of denomination, expose their ‘flocks’ to rationalisations such as “God is behind Trump’s tweets”,”Donald Trump was sent by God to subdue nations that are threatening God’s purposes” or “God will punish those who oppose Trump.”

As proven by cults time and time again, fanatics will sink with the ship in delirium and consider it a privilege. The higher the water level, the more ecstatic they become, thinking the abnormality of the situation must be mystical. But alas, the UFO never shows up in the end. Neither does Armageddon, or anything of that otherworldly or colossal nature.

It’s far easier to claim the influence of a deity than admit the success of a sleazy marketing campaign on one’s own mind, so bold in its claims it has literally managed to sell polished manure for the price of pure gold.

By no means is the comparison to a fully fledged cult an outlandish one. There have been articles in GQ, The American Interest, The Independent, The Huffington Post, to count but a few, on this subject.

It was worth the wait to see how far people could march on in this charade and what particular demographics would persevere the longest.

The religious right, it appears, is gaining ground at the moment and thus has a vested interest in standing behind Trump, seemingly oblivious to the devastation caused abroad by his policies (the system’s unchanged policies, more accurately) as if to say war weren’t profoundly un-Christian. Private religious schools are gaining more funds, religion-inspired curricula are considered and overall, this long pushed under faction of society is manifesting itself in its full glory, managing to alienate those formerly supporting it as the underdog.

Another die-hard ideological group seems to consist, confirming the left’s warnings (seen as hysterical at the time) of those who support imperialist agendas, with their bigoted and racially supremacist undertones, failing yet again to see how committing mass murder with impunity abroad attracts consequences on ordinary people in the west, through terrorist attacks. Each attack hypes them up more and more, driving them to call for even more death and destruction, the irony being lost on them completely. Those who envisage an imminent, bloody clash between civilisations fail to see how it’s being engineered and how their minds are played on a daily basis.

As unfortunate as some ways of manifesting dissent were for the left, it seems clearer every day that there was no hysteria involved around Trump’s election, but objective observation. It would bring out – and is continuing to do so –  the worst tendencies people experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will Most Christians Side With The Right Wing Again, As History Repeats Itself?

In the US at least, right-wing voices are intermingled with that of conservative Christians, all seeming to reach for the same goals, in the grand scheme of things. Of course Christians are greatly diverse, ranging from denominations and their hierarchies to individual believers.

This concern is mostly rooted in the declared support by the current administration of Christian causes, such as promoting religion (and creationism) in schools, stricter abortion laws or a halt in the progressive social engineering (the gender theory etc). While championing for these causes, Christians are being lured into supporting other policies which objectively conflict with their belief system – based on warmongering, xenophobia and corporatism. In terms of warmongering and xenophobia, this phenomenon is oddly reminiscent of the rise of the right in Europe during the 1930s and 40s, in the 20th Century. Though some claim this comparison is a crass exaggeration, there are parallels to be made.

Over the next few years it will be interesting to observe how they will react to the political shift towards isolationism and the ethnic purges envisioned by those favoured to reach power in Europe, as well as those already in power in the US.

Some reactions are positive (in terms of solidarity with the genuine underdog), such as participating in the creation of sanctuaries for immigrants who risk deportation. Indeed, many churches have joined this initiative, together with a number of synagogues and mosques.

The strong message from certain voices is not so encouraging, as many try to get people of faith to engage politically, putting all their support towards the new rise of conservatism, in a manner so uncritical one could compare it to the creation of a cult of personality.

“God will curse Trump’s opponents and their children and grandchildren”

Perhaps no type of rhetoric is more cringey and deserving of a spewing bucket than that of snake-oil-peddling Inforwars&Co, Alex Jones once claiming Trump had been touched by the Holy Ghost, on the night of his inauguration.

Christianity is, nowadays, in the positive sense, associated with humanitarianism, which stands in contrast with most reform ideas conservatives argue for.

Please pardon the minimal research and of-the-cuff nature of this post; the only certainty is that the following years will be very interesting and the true nature of many will be revealed, as individuals and collectives.

 

 

 

“Deus Vult”: Peddling “Jesus” To Support Israeli Expansionism

Here is a link, one among many Rebel Media “productions” which glorify the state of Israel and its (lawless) expansion of murder and displacement of Palestinians. You might think it’s in jest, judging by the tone. But it’s not, as proven by the cesspool-emptier-load of material produced by Rebel Media in support of Israel and towards demonising Muslims as a whole (yes, all 1.6 billion of them). It somehow seems their rhetoric for a good year or two, capitalising on the immigration problem in Europe, has been leading up to this.

Even if marginally interested in the situation, as often is the case in the west, one has to admit this is stomach-churning.

And Rebel Media, of course, is not alone in this.

The simultaneous rise of Donald Trump, as well as other political figures embracing far-right rhetoric, and the rise of support for Israel as a state is almost too odd to be a coincidence (and please don’t mistake me for agreeing with those who scapegoat Jews for all the world’s evils, out of the same drive as those who scapegoat Muslims).

Support for Israel’s expansionism seems to come from the Christian right; those supposedly rational and kind underdogs, so demonised and ridiculed by the far left for years, if not decades.

Of course, how people can be warmongers at the same time as devout Christians is rather puzzling, if they take themselves seriously. The support for massive deportations in the US falls in the same incompatibility, but that’s a different issue altogether.

I don’t know what part of ENOUGH OF MASS MURDER these people don’t get, after all that has happened in recent decades.

 

 

 

 

Free Speech Platforms Or Far-right Safe Spaces?

As news of politically-motivated censorship on large social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube spread like wildfire (this censorship of course being real), many started looking for alternatives, fearing that simply speaking their minds, even in polite ways, would attract negative consequences.

Anyone who is opposed to censorship out of principle would, of course, gladly navigate to less restrictive online spaces, seeking a genuine exchange of information and opinions, sometimes in the most open, innocuous and politically neutral manner. However, recent experiments of this type beg the question whether that is truly possible on a large scale. After concluding that ideological groups don’t work, it seems discussion groups/ platforms don’t work any better.

The dynamics of attracting well-meaning people to these platforms is intermingled with the growing audience of the so-called impartial alternative media, which only claimed to be against political correctness and cultural Marxism, to then espouse increasingly right-wing views and later almost merge with the far right, championing its causes and political figures in the most nauseating way.

Commentators and comedians turned right-wing activists (without taking on the name) often brag about their audiences, their “culture war” against the mainstream media, as if talking about wild animals divvying up the spoils of a carcass in the forest. The cells of said carcass are our minds, the minds of the moderates they are trying – and succeeding – to radicalise.

Their main appeal, when claiming to only oppose the extreme left was in the term “extreme”, as many who believe in freedom of speech are in fact liberals; opposing censorship or manipulation is not part of a political persuasion.

My focus is on the justifiable frustration of those who truly are independent thinkers and are trying to find a bile-free, label-free, extremism-free, hysteria-free, indoctrination-free, groupthink-free, recruitment-free space for open conversation. In times of such possibilities in that sense, it just doesn’t seem to exist.

Whenever large numbers of people gather, groupthink appears and the need of one group to dominate another. It’s always a matter of we, our fight, our culture war, our political war. And all these notions seem to include, by default, a package of values and beliefs one must adopt in order to peacefully take part in the conversation. Overtime, radicals take over a platform and whoever disagrees with them is a “troll” who “belongs somewhere else”. That in itself is disturbing and I wonder whether this is how people really think (how intellectually lazy and dishonest they are) or merely how they behave online.

One “free speech platform” is Gab.ai, which, as the article details, has attracted those banned from Facebook and Twitter. Whilst I’m sure many were banned unjustly and welcomed the opportunity, the site quickly filled with alt-right propaganda and Trump worship (without inflating the word).

The same, to a slightly lesser degree, seems to be happening on Minds.com, also promoted as a free speech platform by popular content creators on YouTube. I registered in good conscience, never realising I’d end up sifting through endless bullshit about race realism, white genocide and the idea that far right candidates would save the world.

It’s like an infection; a virus. The right seems to have harvested the brains of many who have distrusted the political system for years, only to now embrace a Bush-style imperialism by praising Trump. As Trump’s administration embarks on a new massacre spree in the Middle East, planning to help itself to oil in Iraq, just like the Bush administration before it, former “conspiracy theorists” approve of, or ignore this reality, bragging about “taking on the left” and “winning the media war”.

Centrists seem to be the new communal enemy.

Some even peddle the notion that if you reject radicalisation by the left and the right, you’re just a pompous elitist claiming moral superiority or a fence-walker who is afraid of voicing controversial opinions. Which is, of course, the biggest amount of nonsense. Reserving the right to think for yourself and not join the ranks of any side is the only antidote to brainwashing.

Conservatives Using Bona Fide Pro-Life Voters

It’s a known fact that issues such as abortion, the nuclear family and values inspired by religion are still used as leverage in western countries by the political right, making it appear more humanist by giving it a spiritual, ethical dimension, which as a whole it does not possess.

Due to the contradictions listed below, this right wing stance seems a mere ploy to lure well-intended voters who feel increasingly cornered by cultural Marxism, as well as disenfranchised amidst rapid, radical changes to their societies.

After elaborating on their stance on abortion, conservative pundits or commentators immediately imply that in order for it to become the norm, conservatism must be adopted as a package, even if the rest of its precepts are harmful (and potentially murderous) to other vulnerable people.

It is my conclusion that abortion laws are not intended for change by the “system behind the system”, as whenever conservatives do reach power, this issue, so often brought up during campaigns, is cast aside and suffers no significant alterations in the end. As a side observation, they are probably aware that changing the law overnight will not end this phenomenon, after generations have already been brought up to be nihilistic.

Progressive nihilism aside, the right-wing ideology in and of itself contributes greatly to the reasons abortions are sought.

Being pro-life, akin to many other stances attributed to a political persuasion, is not a partisan issue, but a human issue.

 

Berating single mothers and poor families, claiming they “breed for benefits”

Perhaps this should be the first (flaming) red flag when dealing with those who stand against abortion, at the same time incriminating people in a precarious financial situation as irresponsible for conceiving children, either willingly or accidentally.

Some of the main causes of abortion are economic instability, conceiving outside of marriage and the fear of a ruined future (disrupted studies, a diversion from the envisaged trajectory in life etc). Conservatives do nothing to encourage expecting mothers to preserve the hope that they can manage life in this situation. On the contrary – they continually berate them as failures, as promiscuous and future spongers off the state, thus making them think society will shame them if they carry the pregnancy to term. Voices on the far right are known to call for the sterilisation of poor or uneducated people (as the Daily Gutter Mail comment section demonstrates).

In fact, though the general impression is that Planned Parenthood is a product of leftist culture (due to its current support by progressives), its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a renowned eugenicist seeking to purge the US of categories she thought brought nothing to its advancement. She is now chucked in with the cultural Marxist threat, some conservatives failing to see many of their fellow right-wingers openly share Sanger’s views.

By demonising (or even demolishing) the welfare state and cutting assistance for pregnant women in difficult situations, conservatives are going to cause an increase in the number of abortions, not a decrease.

It should be noted that the “poor people should not be allowed to breed” mentality comes at a time when western countries are seeing a downward spiral in reproduction, to the degree of irreversible damage. And still, they insist having children is only moral within the (often temporary) confines of marriage and only when reaching a certain (often temporary) financial situation, which leads to high rates of infertility due to women postponing motherhood. Some of the same people argue women should be encouraged to stay at home and raise families – while aware one provider is often no longer able to secure a high enough income nowadays (not enough to meet their material criteria anyway).

Whereas the left paints the picture of its own utopia, so does the right, without recognising that the “quiet suburban dream” is no longer attainable for many.

Disdain for universal healthcare 

You’d think ideologues who care so much about every human being would extend their preoccupation to those who are already born (or pregnant). The reality is right-wingers abhor health care programs aimed at assisting financially disadvantaged people, whom they perceive (and publicly depict) as scroungers.

It looks awfully like they’d be willing to let people die unassisted so healthcare could be focused solely on “those who deserve it” (those who pay into the system). Of course, governments don’t ask for public consent when they spend money on foreign wars, yet when it comes to constructing an internal scapegoat, where taxes go suddenly begins to matter.

As a rational human being, one can only wonder why keeping everyone alive is not the foremost priority of any establishment, next to which anything comes second. Anyhow, claiming to be a supporter of everyone’s right to life and at the same time seeking to deprive vulnerable people of medical coverage is contradictory. 

Warmongering and disregarding civilian “casualties”

Equally perplexing, especially among conservative Christians, is the support for military operations abroad, as results are reported back in the form of statistics, after the dead have been counted, many of them innocent civilians, whose lives should matter just as much as those in the west.

One cannot argue for the sacredness of life since conception while turning a blind eye to the massacres committed, in real time, in the name of imperialism.

Disdain for immigrants who apparently “breed like rabbits” and their “anchor babies”

We’re being overrun. It’s like a locust invasion. It’s white genocide. We’ll be minorities in our own countries in 20 years’ time.

The fine, fine irony of this matter is that most of these immigrants come from more conservative countries, which have not yet taken the progressive route. But their traditionalism and strong family values are not wanted by these conservatives. I’m not referring to the warped idea of religious fundamentalists regarding family life, but to the fact that in poorer countries, hedonism and nihilism tend to be less popular. Let’s take Hispanics in the US as an example. In Mexico alone, according to the latest census, 93% of people are Christian and typically have more than one child per family. The type of traditional life US conservatives would approve of, if their own (nation, race) adopted it.

Meanwhile, their children are, when parents are undocumented, referred to as “anchor babies”, which is dehumanising and derisory, as if they had less potential than their peers. The right-wing public discourse is that they don’t deserve to coexist and study with native children, implying they were “born for the wrong reasons”.

 

For those who are pro-life, conservatism might look like the only option forward – if they believe that politicians and pundits are indeed sincere in their intentions, and choose to ignore the rest of the proposed reforms, seeing this one issue as the most important.

Personally, I understand this and sympathise, but I do not think for a second that it’s anything more than empty rhetoric on conservatives’ part.

If any legislation is passed, it will be punitive and not compassionate or educational, as a culture of genuine compassion is the last thing they seem to be interested in. They certainly do not consider every human being, born or not, a person. These are the same people who advocate for dropping bombs on foreign towns and villages; the same people who advocate tearing families apart through deportation.

The same people who manifest visceral disgust towards the underprivileged, whether they are poor, uneducated, ill, unfairly stigmatised as dangerous or undocumented. What would lead us to think they are really preoccupied with the unborn?

My logical conclusion is that it’s an issue of supply and demand, of securing a voter niche; securing the loyalty of those who reject progressive views in that sense. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

MRAs And Feminists – Finally Equal (In Giving Up On the Species)

Far from claiming finding a partner is the paramount of happiness or a sine qua non, I must admit the prospect of half-arsed, semi-contractual romance as a default for the future is indeed dystopian.

Regarding the opposite sex with distrust, as a habit or acquired reflex, diminishes (or destroys) the chances of natural bonding, which has been known as unreserved throughout history, at least as a matter of principle. When this is caused by the effects of artificially created conditions (laws, education which pushes women to believe they are typically victimised etc), acquiescence to an “us and them” stance is capitulation to this transitory, blatantly artificial nonsense.

Nature will obviously prevail in the end, as it always does. But given the general consensus that we only live once (though I don’t personally believe that), does it make any sense to sabotage our lives by not fully engaging, mentally and emotionally, with the opposite sex, just because our current culture prods us towards distrust?

Convincing yourself that this is how things genuinely are – that the opposite sex is disingenuous, profiteering, destructive and downright dangerous – is a bit like shackling yourself inside Plato’s cave, with the full awareness that there is another world outside, one of infinite nuances and choices, allowing you to be selective without barricading yourself for presumed self-preservation.

As humans, we are all aware (well, most of us anyway) that we are more than a cluster of basic needs, and that the people around us are more to us than those who happen to meet those needs at one point in time. Otherwise, we could all safely (clinically even) refer to ourselves as sociopaths. Which most of us, I dare hope, are not.

 

Given that third wave feminism was the first to poison the well in recent years, one morally tends to empathise with men’s activism as a stance of supporting the underdog, considering how much influence feminists have garnered lately. Except, when analysing their discourse, one can’t help but detect this tinge of bitterness, even anger.

The MGTOW movement for instance generates the most peculiar mixture of repulsive arrogance, heartbreaking defeatism and underlying psychological issues you can ever imagine.

Just like feminists picking on innocent men, these men have the full potential of rejecting (not necessarily sexually but as a chance of bonding) and vitriolically mocking women who have nothing but the best intentions towards them.

Cui prodest, you might wonder? What do men or women actually gain out of thinking this way? Who are they really getting back at by hardening their hearts in this manner?

My experience of life is, of course, subjective; by no means do I claim everyone naturally places the same empahsis on being open to others.

But I suppose if ever there was an actual effort to destroy the nuclear family, this would be the ultimate goal – getting men and women to give up on each other.

Some people acknowledge that and still play the game.

 

The Anti-SJW Movement, Degenerating Into Alt-Right Rhetoric

The last two years have seen an explosion of justified rebutting of third wave feminism and identity politics, after seeing them embraced by young people in particular as a result of far left influences on their education.

What started as grassroots defiance against language policing and exaggerated victimisation gradually morphed into vacuous entertainment, to later develop a rather dangerous side-effect: desensitisation to the threat posed by right wing divisiveness, by focusing solely on the division caused by the left. Naturally, desensitisation slowly turned into acceptance and then sheer enthusiasm, as right-wing ideas saw the perfect momentum during the US presidential elections and have continued to reel in more enthusiasts for “change” ever since.

The preoccupation to be anti-left has taken such proportions that the anti-SJW movement has become a self-contradicting one, equating its initial fight for freedom of speech with a return to conservatism, which is equally fixated in its rigours as cultural Marxism and attracts the same amount of blind, fanatical devotion.

Suddenly, these former defenders of free speech saw an opportunity for leftists to be vilified beyond redemption and rejoiced, perhaps as some sort of vindication. Suddenly, those who had argued so compellingly for diversity of opinion became fixated on shutting up the left altogether, towards a “bright future” of conservative conformity.

Which proves once again that virtue and pacifism are apparels of the underdog, to be shed when said underdog reaches a position of power or at least has the illusion of being able to socially annihilate its opposition.

That is why solidarity with a group or movement should be questioned by the sympathetic individual every step of the way, lest it might degenerate into something completely different from what was initially intended.

Needless to say, many social justice warriors are easy targets. Whereas it makes sense to call out (with trumpets blaring) the abhorrent practice of destroying people’s livelihoods for perceived thought crimes, it also makes sense not to use disoriented teens as hate targets in anti-SJW videos.

In that sense I think it is a stretch for grown people to berate (down to nullification) 15 or 16-year-olds who post content on the internet without realising they are not mature enough to understand what they are propagating. For many of them this will undoubtedly be a phase in self-discovery and it seems unfair to conflate them with the genuinely dangerous individuals brainwashing them. The ugly side of this movement consists of running these kids through the mincer just to produce more of the same conveyor belt “look at these cretins”, self-indulgent type of entertainment.

While blowing social media duels out of proportion, people’s attention is being diverted from the reality of what a shift towards the right will really bring, much of which is cause for great concern.

In conclusion, this might have started out with the right intentions yet has become another mental trap, keeping many from seeing the broader picture and shifting the focus from important issues onto inconsequential minutiae.

 

Internet Cult Posing As A Philosophy Group

People who have recently been exposed to Freedomain Radio podcasts and videos probably accessed them for an in-depth analysis of current events, as the material seems quite popular with the sceptic “community”, as well as the alt-right (the two seeming to fuse nowadays on social media).

Unbeknownst to new listeners, this group is a proper cult aimed at reaching young people at the age of individuation; it used to convince them to separate from their families by cutting all contact, a practice known as “defooing”, which has its dedicated website for members, defoo.org, reminiscent of Scientology or the Exclusive Brethren. Although apparently the advocacy for this has stopped (perhaps for legal reasons) the consequences remain.

The young people lured through discussions about politics, ethics, dogmas and so forth were encouraged to analyse their entire lives in ways which would lead them to think their families were morally corrupt and sabotaging them psychologically, at an age of being prone to rebelling naturally, which exacerbated the effect. They were encouraged to move out of their homes, which led to homelessness in various cases and at least one suicide, leaving behind dumbfounded families who only understood what had happened when discovering their children’s interest in Freedomain Radio.

From the start, members were told it was their duty to “get out there” and “become active” in order to help create a better world, and that occasional support such as the odd donation or product purchase was not enough for them to consider themselves “part of the conversation”.

As former members recounted, the group went way beyond what abuse recovery forums do, as it encouraged them to publicly berate the families trying to bring them back, even reading out private letters and emails for the world to hear, which reaches a deeply disturbing level of arrogance. Instead of the promised liberation, young people found themselves increasingly depersonalised, at least two describing a loss of interest for anything outside of group discussions.

Ad-hoc psychoanalysis was used by the leader to mimic a deep bond and understanding; it was also employed towards “recovering repressed memories”, in order to further antagonise them against their parents or even siblings and friends. They even used to provide those who wished to leave their families with a standard “goodbye letter”, in case they felt they could not formulate their own. Moreover, some of the most dedicated members ended up living together after “defooing”.

The group remains very popular today, continuing to attract those who consider themselves anti-system. Akin to any cult, they reject what their former peers have brought to light and berate them for being “weak enough to return to their morally corrupt families”.

There is plenty material on YouTube and dedicated sites, consisting of testimonies from former members and their loved ones, as well as the input of cult experts, confirming the nature of these dynamics.