Hidden Internet

Here you will find obscure interesting stories you will not usually find anywhere else. They are either written by the Travelers of Agora Road or cited sources from others across the web.
Years of Discovery: I'm going to make a small thread about this particular aesthetic, unseen by many; misunderstood by most. It is no vaporwave, and it surely doesn't have the popularity of it either. Popularized by a particular European rapper Yajubin and then carried off to its ultimate form by the internet. This is Xpiritualism; Or I'd rather call it Internet Surf Aesthetic. I only want to make a short thread (I have to study sorry.) to bring light to it, because I find it so interesting. It has many weird notes unlike many other aesthetics; It is brash, contrasting, and at times violent. It is absolutely unfiltered and that is why I love it. There's nothing like it. It is a call back to the days of the internet where you can go into google and begin your jouney and descent into being chronically online; going through websites starting off in newgrounds, clicking on an ad, and then enter the wild west. From playing flash games to seeing gore, and back to watching youtube videos; to then frequent a forum; and then look up the weirdest stuff on google. Nothing was curated for you for the most part, you had to go find it; you had to go on a journey. Many of the websites you frequented were handcrafted instead of using major presets. And at times, most of the websites, weren't of a high quality. But that doesn't matter. You were the first, you were the witness. An internet pioneer discovering websites unknown. Many of the known users within their own forums, usually utilized profile pictures of their favorite media. Something done today; but there was something more particular about it. From the blur in the memories, it felt as if that person was the avatar. That is all you can remember after all. Its been too long; You can only remember interacting with them but the sentences are opaque; however their profile picture is ingrained. Many of the individuals you interacted with back then, showed their love in the purest form. Displaying it. Love itself is the highest form of being. It shows no weakness and it is the light in the darkness. The game they enjoyed so much they displayed it; that game with the weird moon runes? They displayed that too! All of it; it didn't matter... it characterized their being. Many users were adamant about their opinions, regardless of what it was in defense of. Religion? Games? Society? It was there; no person said the samething, but many had to argue. It is a weird aesthetic, and I can't explain all either. Just what it means to me; and I suppose thats what makes it enticing. Its new.
This is an article that was published in Esquire Magazine in 1984. It was written by William Broyles Jr. In it he muses on the fascination men have with making war. You can read it here: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a28718/why-men-love-war/ Why Men Love War I last saw Hiers in a rice paddy in Vietnam. He was nineteen then--my wonderfully skilled and maddeningly insubordinate radio operator. For months we were seldom more than three feet apart. Then one day he went home, and fifteen years passed before we met by accident last winter at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. A few months later I visited Hiers and his wife. Susan, in Vermont, where they run a bed-and -breakfast place. The first morning we were up at dawn trying to save five newborn rabbits. Hiers built a nest of rabbit fur and straw in his barn and positioned a lamp to provide warmth against the bitter cold. "What people can't understand," Hiers said, gently picking up each tiny rabbit and placing it in the nest, "is how much fun Vietnam was. I loved it. I loved it, and I can't tell anybody." Hiers loved war. And as I drove back from Vermont in a blizzard, my children asleep in the back of the car, I had to admit that for all these years I also had loved it, and more than I knew. I hated war, too. Ask me, ask any man who has been to war about his experience, and chances are we'll say we don't want to talk about it--implying that we hated it so much, it was so terrible, that we would rather leave it buried. And it is no mystery why men hate war. War is ugly, horrible, evil, and it is reasonable for men to hate all that. But I believe that most men who have been to war would have to admit, if they are honest, that somewhere inside themselves they loved it too, loved it as much as anything that has happened to them before or since. And how do you explain that to your wife, your children, your parents, or your friends? That's why men in their sixties and seventies sit in their dens and recreation rooms around America and know that nothing in their life will equal the day they parachuted into St. Lo or charged the bunker on Okinawa. That's why veterans' reunions are invariably filled with boozy awkwardness, forced camaraderie ending in sadness and tears: you are together again, these are the men who were your brothers, but it's not the same, can never be the same. That's why when we returned from Vietnam we moped around, listless, not interested in anything or anyone. Something had gone out of our lives forever, and our behavior on returning was inexplicable except as the behavior of men who had lost a great perhaps the great-love of their lives, and had no way to tell anyone about it. In part we couldn't describe our feelings because the language failed us: the civilian-issue adjectives and nouns, verbs and adverbs, seemed made for a different universe. There were no metaphors that connected the war to everyday life. But we were also mute, I suspect, out of shame. Nothing in the way we are raised admits the possibility of loving war. It is at best a necessary evil, a patriotic duty to be discharged and then put behind us. To love war is to mock the very values we supposedly fight for. It is to be insensitive, reactionary, a brute. But it may be more dangerous, both for men and nations, to suppress the reasons men love war than to admit them. In Apocalypse Now, Robert Duvall, playing a brigade commander, surveys a particularly horrific combat scene and says, with great sadness, "You know, someday this war's gonna be over. " He is clearly meant to be a psychopath, decorating enemy bodies with playing cards, riding to war with Wagner blaring. We laugh at him--Hey! nobody's like that! And last year in Grenada American boys charged into battle playing Wagner, a new generation aping the movies of Vietnam the way we aped the movies of World War 11, learning nothing, remembering nothing. Alfred Kazin wrote that war is the enduring condition of twentieth-century man. He was only partly right. War is the enduring condition of man, period. Men have gone to war over everything from Helen of Troy to Jenkins's ear. Two million Frenchmen and Englishmen died in muddy trenches in World War I because a student shot an archduke. The truth is, the reasons don't matter. There is a reason for every war and a war for every reason. For centuries men have hoped that with history would come progress, and with progress, peace. But progress has simply given man the means to make war even more horrible; no wars in our savage past can begin to match the brutality of the wars spawned in this century, in the beautifully ordered, civilized landscape of Europe, where everyone is literate and classical music plays in every village cafe. War is not all aberration; it is part of the family. the crazy uncle we try--in vain--to keep locked in the basement. Consider my own example. I am not a violent person. I have not been in a fight since grade school. Aside from being a fairly happy-go-lucky carnivore, I have no lust for blood, nor do I enjoy killing animals, fish, or even insects. My days are passed in reasonable contentment, filled with the details of work and everyday life. I am also a father now, and a male who has helped create life is war's natural enemy. I have seen what war does to children, makes them killers or victims, robs them of their parents, their homes, and their innocence--steals their childhood and leaves them marked in body, mind, and spirit. I spent most of my combat tour in Vietnam trudging through its jungles and rice paddies without incident, but I have seen enough of war to know that I never want to fight again, and that I would do everything in my power to keep my son from fighting. Then why, at the oddest times--when I am in a meeting or running errands, or on beautiful summer evenings, with the light fading and children playing around me--do my thoughts turn back fifteen years to a war I didn't believe in and never wanted to fight? Why do I miss it? I miss it because I loved it, loved it in strange and troubling ways. When I talk about loving war I don't mean the romantic notion of war that once mesmerized generations raised on Walter Scott. What little was left of that was ground into the mud at Verdun and Passchendaele: honor and glory do not survive the machine gun. And it's not the mindless bliss of martyrdom that sends Iranian teenagers armed with sticks against Iraqi tanks. Nor do I mean the sort of hysteria that can grip a whole country, the way during the Falklands war the English press inflamed the lust that lurks beneath the cool exterior of Britain. That is vicarious war, the thrill of participation without risk, the lust of the audience for blood. It is easily fanned, that lust; even the invasion of a tiny island like Grenada can do it. Like all lust, for as long as it lasts it dominates everything else; a nation's other problems are seared away, a phenomenon exploited by kings, dictators, and presidents since civilization began. And I don't mean war as an addiction, the constant rush that war junkies get, the crazies mailing ears home to their girlfriends, the zoomies who couldn't get an erection unless they were cutting in the afterburners on their F-4s. And, finally, I'm not talking about how some men my age feel today, men who didn't go to war but now have a sort of nostalgic longing for something they missed, some classic male experience, the way some women who didn't have children worry they missed something basic about being a woman, something they didn't value when they could have done it. I'm talking about why thoughtful, loving men can love war even while knowing and hating it. Like any love, the love of war is built on a complex of often contradictory reasons. Some of them are fairly painless to discuss; others go almost too deep, stir the caldron too much. I'll give the more respectable reasons first. Part of the love of war stems from its being an experience of great intensity; its lure is the fundamental human passion to witness, to see things, what the Bible calls the lust of the eye and the Marines in Vietnam called eye fucking. War stops time, intensifies experience to the point of a terrible ecstasy. It is the dark opposite of that moment of passion caught in "Ode on a Grecian Urn": "For ever warm and still to be enjoy'd/ For ever panting, and forever young. " War offers endless exotic experiences, enough "I couldn't fucking believe it! "'s to last a lifetime. Most people fear freedom; war removes that fear. And like a stem father, it provides with its order and discipline both security and an irresistible urge to rebel against it, a constant yearning to fly over the cuckoo's nest. The midnight requisition is an honored example. I remember one elaborately planned and meticulously executed raid on our principal enemy--the U.S. Army, not the North Vietnamese--to get lightweight blankets and cleaning fluid for our rifles repeated later in my tour, as a mark of my changed status, to obtain a refrigerator and an air conditioner for our office. To escape the Vietnamese police we tied sheets together and let ourselves down from the top floor of whorehouses, and on one memorable occasion a friend who is now a respectable member of our diplomatic corps hid himself inside a rolled-up Oriental rug while the rest of us careered off in the truck. leaving him to make his way back stark naked to our base six miles away. War, since it steals our youth, offers a sanction to play boys' games. War replaces the difficult gray areas daily life with an eerie, serene clarity. In war you usually know who is your enemy and who is your friend, and are given means of dealing with both. (That was, incidentally, one of the great problems with Vietnam: it was hard to tell friend from foe--it was too much like ordinary Life.) War is an escape from the everyday into a special world where the bonds that hold us to our duties in daily life--the bonds of family, community, work, disappear. In war, all bets are off. It's the frontier beyond the last settlement, it's Las Vegas. The men who do well in peace do not necessarily do well at war, while those who were misfits and failures may find themselves touched with fire. U. S. Grant, selling firewood on the streets of St. Louis and then four years later commanding the Union armies, is the best example, although I knew many Marines who were great warriors but whose ability to adapt to civilian life was minimal. I remember Kirby, a skinny kid with JUST YOU AND ME LORD tattooed on his shoulder. Kirby had extended his tour in Vietnam twice. He had long since ended his attachment to any known organization and lived alone out in the most dangerous areas, where he wandered about night and day, dressed only in his battered fatigue trousers with a .45 automatic tucked into the waistband, his skinny shoulders and arms as dark as a Montagnard's. One day while out on patrol we found him on the floor of a hut, being tended by a girl in black pajamas, a bullet wound in his arm. He asked me for a cigarette, then eyed me, deciding if I was worth telling his story to. "I stopped in for a mango, broad daylight, and there bigger'n hell were three NVA officers, real pretty tan uniforms. They got this map spread out oil a table, just eyeballin' it, makin' themselves right at home. They looked at me. I looked at them. Then they went for their nine millimeters and I went for my .45. " "Yeah?"I answered. "So what happened "I wasted 'em," he said, then puffed on his cigarette. Just another day at work, killing three men on the way to eat a mango. How are you ever going to go back to the world?" I asked him. (He didn't. A few months later a ten-year-old Vietcong girl blew him up with a command-detonated booby trap. War is a brutal, deadly game, but a game, the best there is. And men love games. You can come back from war broken in mind or body, or not come back at all. But if you come back whole you bring with you the knowledge that you have explored regions of your soul that in most men will always remain uncharted. Nothing I had ever studied was as complex or as creative as the small-unit tactics of Vietnam. No sport I had ever played brought me to such deep awareness of my physical and emotional limits. One night not long after I had arrived in Vietnam, one of my platoon's observation on posts heard enemy movement. I immediately lost all saliva in my mouth. I could not talk; not a sound would pass my lips. My brain erased as if the plug had been pulled--I felt only a dull hum throughout my body, a low-grade current coursing through me like electricity through a power line. After a minute I could at least grunt, which I did as Hiers gave orders to the squad leaders, called in artillery and air support, and threw back the probe. I was terrified. I was ashamed, and I couldn't wait for it to happen again. The enduring emotion of war, when everything else has faded, is comradeship. A comrade in war is a man you can trust with anything, because you trust him with your life. "It is," Philip Caputo wrote in A Rumor of War "unlike marriage, a bond I that cannot be broken by a word, by boredom or divorce, or by anything other than death." Despite its extreme right-wing image, war is the only utopian experience most of us ever have. Individual possessions and advantage count for nothing: the group is everything What you have is shared with your friends. It isn't a particularly selective process, but a love that needs no reasons, that transcends race and personality and education--all those things that would make a difference in peace. It is, simply, brotherly love. What made this love so intense was that it had no limits, not even death. John Wheeler in Touched with Fire quotes the Congressional Medal of Honor citation of Hector Santiago-Colon: "Due to the heavy volume of enemy fire and exploding grenades around them, a North Vietnamese soldier was able to crawl, undetected, to their position. Suddenly, the enemy soldier lobbed a hand grenade into Sp4c. Santiago-Colon's foxhole. Realizing that there was no time to throw the grenade out of his position, Sp4c., Santiago-Colon retrieved the grenade, tucked it into his stomach, and turning away from his comrades, and absorbed the full impact of the blast. " This is classic heroism, the final evidence of how much comrades can depend on each other. What went through Santiago- Colon's mini for that split second when he could just a easily have dived to safety? It had to be this: my comrades are more important than my most valuable possession--my own life. Isolation is the greatest fear in war. The military historian S.L.A. Marshall con ducted intensive studies of combat incidents during World War 11 and Korea and discovered that, at most, only 25 percent of the men who were under fire actually fired their own weapons. The rest cowered behind cover, terrified and helpless--all systems off. Invariably, those men had felt alone, and to feel alone in combat is to cease to function; it is the terrifying prelude to the final loneliness of death. The only men who kept their heads felt connected to other men, a part of something as if comradeship were some sort of collective life-force, the power to face death and stay conscious. But when those men cam home from war, that fear of isolation stayed with many of them, a tiny mustard seed fallen on fertile soil. When I came back from Vietnam I tried to keep up with my buddies. We wrote letters, made plans to meet, but something always came up and we never seemed to get together. For a few year we exchanged Christmas cards, then nothing . The special world that had sustain our intense comradeship was gone. Everyday life--our work, family, friends--reclaimed us, and we grew up. But there was something not right about that. In Vietnam I had been closer to Hiers, for example, than to anyone before or since. We were connected by the radio, our lives depended on it, and on eachother. We ate, slept, laughed, and we terrified together. When I first arrived in Vietnam I tried to get Hiers to salute me, but he simply wouldn't do it, mustering at most a "Howdy, Lieutenant, how's it hanging" as we passed. For every time that I didn't salute I told him he would have to fill a hundred sandbags. We'd reached several thousand sandbags when Hiers took me aside and said "Look, Lieutenant, I'll be happy to salute you, really. But if I get in the habit back here in the rear I may salute you when we're out in the bush. And those gooks a just waiting for us to salute, tell 'em who the lieutenant is. You'd be the first one blown away." We forgot the sandbags and the salutes. Months later, when Hiers left the platoon to go home, he turned to me as I stood on our hilltop position, and gave me the smartest salute I'd ever seen. I shot him the finger, and that was the last I saw of him for fifteen years. When we met by accident at the Vietnam memorial it was like a sign; enough time had passed-we were old enough to say goodbye to who we had been and become friends as who we had become. For us and for thousands of veterans the memorial was special ground. War is theater, and Vietnam had been fought without a third act. It was a set that hadn't been struck; its characters were lost there, with no way to get off and no more lines to say. And so when we came to the Vietnam memorial in Washington we wrote our own endings as we stared at the names on the wall, reached out and touched them, washed them with our tears, said goodbye. We are older now, some of us grandfathers, some quite successful, but the memorial touched some part of us that is still out there, under fire, alone. When we came to that wait and met the memories of our buddies and gave them their due, pulled them tip from their buried places and laid our love to rest, we were home at last. For all these reasons, men love war. But these are the easy reasons, the first circle the ones we can talk about without risk of disapproval, without plunging too far into the truth or ourselves. But there are other, more troubling reasons why men love war. The love of war stems from the union, deep in the core of our being between sex and destruction, beauty and horror, love and death. War may be the only way in which most men touch the mythic domains in our soul. It is, for men, at some terrible level, the closest thing to what childbirth is for women: the initiation into the power of life and death. It is like lifting off the corner of the universe and looking at what's underneath. To see war is to see into the dark heart of things, that no-man's-land between life and death, or even beyond. And that explains a central fact about the stories men tell about war. Every good war story is, in at least some of its crucial elements, false. The better the war story, the less of it is likely to be true. Robert Graves wrote that his main legacy from World War I was "a difficulty in telling tile truth. " I have never once heard a grunt tell a reporter a war story that wasn't a lie, just as some of the stories that I tell about the war are lies. Not that even the lies aren't true, on a certain level. They have a moral, even a mythic, truth, rather than a literal one. They reach out and remind the tellers and listeners of their place in the world. They are the primitive stories told around the fire in smoky teepees after the pipe has been passed. They are all, at bottom, the same. Some of the best war stories out Of Vietnam are in Michael Heir's Dispatches One of Heir's most quoted stories goes like this: "But what a story he told me, as one pointed and resonant as any war story I ever heard. It took me a year to understand it: "'Patrol went up the mountain. One man came back. He died before he could tell its What happened.' " I waited for the rest, but it seemed not to be that kind of story; when I asked him what had happened he just looked like he felt sorry for me, fucked if he'd waste time telling stories to anyone as dumb as I was." It is a great story, a combat haiku, all negative space and darkness humming with portent. It seems rich, unique to Vietnam. But listen, now, to this: "We all went up to Gettysburg, the summer of '63: and some of us came back from there: and that's all except the details. " That is the account of Gettysburg by one Praxiteles Swan, onetime captain of the Confederate States Army. The language is different, but it is the same story. And it is a story that I would imagine has been told for as long as men have gone to war. Its purpose is not to enlighten but to exclude; its message is riot its content but putting the listener in his place. I suffered, I was there. You were not. Only those facts matter. Everything else is beyond words to tell. As was said after the worst tragedies in Vietnam: "Don't mean nothin'." Which meant, "It means everything it means too much." Language overload. War stories inhabit the realm of myth because every war story is about death. And one of the most troubling reasons men love war is the love of destruction, the thrill of killing. In his superb book on World War II, The Warriors,J. Glenn Gray wrote that "thousands of youths who never suspect the presence of such an impulse in themselves have learned in military life the mad excitement of destroying." It's what Hemingway meant when he wrote, "Admit that you have liked to kill as all who are soldiers by choice have enjoyed it it some time whether they lie about it or not." My platoon and I went through Vietnam burning hooches (note how language liberated US--we didn't burn houses and shoot people: we burned hooches and shot gooks), killing dogs and pigs and chickens, destroying, because, as my friend Hiers put it, "We thought it was fun at the time." As anyone who has fired a bazooka or an M-60 machine gun knows, there is something to that power in your finger, the soft, seductive touch of the trigger. It's like the magic sword, a grunt's Excalibur: all you do is move that finger so imperceptibly just a wish flashing across your mind like a shadow, not even a full brain synapse, and I poof in a blast of sound and energy and light a truck or a house or even people disappear, everything flying and settling back into dust. There is a connection between this thrill and the games we played as children, the endless games of cowboys and Indians and war, the games that ended with "Bang bang you're dead," and everyone who was "dead" got up and began another game. That's war as fantasy, and it's the same emotion that touches us in war movies and books, where death is something without consequence, and not something that ends with terrible finality as blood from our fatally fragile bodies flows out onto the mud. Boys aren't the only ones prone to this fantasy; it possesses the old men who have never been to war and who preside over our burials with the same tears they shed when soldiers die in the movies--tears of fantasy, cheap tears. The love of destruction and killing in war stems from that fantasy of war as a game, but it is the more seductive for being indulged at terrible risk. It is the game survivors play, after they have seen death up close and learned in their hearts how common, how ordinary, and how inescapable it is. I don't know if I killed anyone in Vietnam but I tried as hard as I could. I fired at muzzle flashes in tile night, threw grenades during ambushes, ordered artillery and bombing where I thought tile enemy was. Whenever another platoon got a higher body count, I was disappointed: it was like suiting up for the football game and then not getting to play. After one ambush my men brought back the body of a North Vietnamese soldier. I later found the dead man propped against some C-ration boxes; he had on sunglasses, and a Playboy magazine lay open in his lap; a cigarette dangled jauntily from his mouth, and on his head was perched a large and perfectly formed piece of shit. I pretended to be Outraged, since desecrating bodies was frowned on as un-American and counterproductive. But it wasn't outrage I felt. I kept my officer's face on, but inside I was... laughing. I laughed--I believe now--in part because of some subconscious appreciation of this obscene linkage of sex and excrement and 'death; and in part because of the exultant realization that he--whoever he had been--was dead and I--special, unique I me--was alive. He was my brother, but I knew him not. The line between life and death is gossamer thin; there is joy. true joy, in being alive when so many around you are not. And from the joy of being alive in death's presence to the joy of causing death is, unfortunately, not that great a step. A lieutenant colonel I knew, a true intellectual, was put in charge of civil affairs, the work we did helping the Vietnamese grow rice and otherwise improve their lives. He was a sensitive man who kept a journal and seemed far better equipped for winning hearts and minds than for combat command. But he got one, and I remember flying out to visit his fire base the night after it had been attacked by an NVA sapper unit. Most of the combat troops I had been out on an operation, so this colonel mustered a motley crew of clerks and cooks and drove the sappers off, chasing them across tile rice paddies and killing dozens of these elite enemy troops by the light of flares. That morning, as they were surveying what they had done and loading the dead NVA--all naked and covered with grease and mud so they could penetrate the barbed wire--on mechanical mules like so much garbage, there was a look of beatific contentment on tile colonel's face that I had not seen except in charismatic churches. It was the look of a person transported into ecstasy. And I--what did I do, confronted with this beastly scene? I smiled back. 'as filled with bliss as he was. That was another of the times I stood on the edge of my humanity, looked into the pit, and loved what I saw there. I had surrendered to an aesthetic that was divorced from that crucial quality of empathy that lets us feel the sufferings of others. And I saw a terrible beauty there. War is not simply the spirit of ugliness, although it is certainly that, the devil's work. But to give the devil his due,it is also an affair of great and seductive beauty. Art and war were for ages as linked as art and religion. Medieval and Renaissance artists gave us cathedrals, but they also gave us armor sculptures of war, swords and muskets and cannons of great beauty, art offered to the god of war as reverently as the carved altars were offered to the god of love. War was a public ritual of the highest order, as the beautifully decorated cannons in the Invalids in Paris and the chariots with their depict ions of the gods in the Metropolitan Museum of Art so eloquently attest Men love their weapons, not simply for helping to keep them alive, but for a deeper reason. They love their rifles and their knives for the same reason that the medieval warriors loved their armor and their swords: they are instruments of beauty. War is beautiful. There is something about a firefight at night, something about the mechanical elegance of an M -60 machine gun. They are everything they should be, perfect examples of their form. When you are firing out at night, the red racers go out into tile blackness is if you were drawing with a light pen. Then little dots of light start winking back, and green tracers from the AK-47s begin to weave ill with the red to form brilliant patterns that seem, given their great speeds, oddly timeless, as if they had been etched on the night. And then perhaps the gunships called Spooky come in and fire their incredible guns like huge hoses washing down from the sky, like something God would do when He was really ticked off. And then the flares pop, casting eerie shadows as they float down on their little parachutes, swinging in the breeze, and anyone who moves, in their light seems a ghost escaped from hell. Daytime offers nothing so spectacular, but it also has its charms. Many men loved napalm, loved its silent power, the way it could make tree lines or houses explode as if by spontaneous combustion. But I always thought napalm was greatly overrated, unless you enjoy watching tires burn. I preferred white phosphorus, which exploded with a fulsome elegance, wreathing its target in intense and billowing white smoke, throwing out glowing red comets trailing brilliant white plumes I loved it more--not less --because of its function: to destroy, to kill. The seduction of War is in its offering such intense beauty--divorced from I all civilized values, but beauty still. Most men who have been to war, and most women who have been around it, remember that never in their lives did they have so heightened a sexuality. War is, in short. a turn-on. War cloaks men in a coat that conceals the limits and inadequacies of their separate natures. It gives them all aura, a collective power, an almost animal force. They aren't just Billy or Johnny or Bobby, they are soldiers! But there's a price for all that: the agonizing loneliness of war, the way a soldier is cut off from everything that defines him as an individual--he is the true rootless man. The uniform did that, too, and all that heightened sexuality is not much solace late it night when the emptiness comes. There were many men for whom this condition led to great decisions. I knew a Marine in Vietnam who was a great rarity, an Ivy League graduate. He also had an Ivy League wife, but lie managed to fall in love with a Vietnamese bar girl who could barely speak English. She was not particularly attractive, a peasant girl trying to support her family He spent all his time with her, he fell in love with her--awkwardly informally, but totally. At the end of his twelve months in Vietnam he went home, divorced his beautiful, intelligent, and socially correct wife and then went back to Vietnam and proposed to the bar girl, who accepted. It was a marriage across a vast divide of language, culture, race, and class that could only have been made in war. I am not sure that it lasted, but it would not surprise me if despite great difficulties, it did. Of course. for every such story there are hundreds. thousands, of stories of passing contacts, a man and a woman holding each other tight for one moment, finding in sex some escape from the terrible reality of tile war. The intensity that war brings to sex, the "let us love now because there may be no tomorrow," is based on death. No matter what our weapons on the battlefield, love is finally our only weapon against death. Sex is the weapon of life, the shooting sperm sent like an army of guerrillas to penetrate the egg's defenses is the only victory that really matters. War thrusts you into the well of loneliness, death breathing in your ear. Sex is a grappling hook that pulls you out, ends your isolation, makes you one with life again. Not that such thoughts were anywhere near conscious. I remember going off to war with a copy of War and Peace and The Charterhouse of Parma stuffed into my pack. They were soon replaced with The Story of 0. War heightens all appetites. I cannot describe the ache for candy, for taste: I wanted a Mars bar more than I wanted anything in my life And that hunger paled beside the force that pushed it, et toward women, any women: women we would not even have looked at in peace floated into our fantasies and lodged there. Too often we made our fantasies real, always to be disappointed, our hunger only greater. The ugliest prostitutes specialized in group affairs, passed among several men or even whole squads, in communion almost, a sharing more than sexual. In sex even more than in killing I could see the beast, crouched drooling on its haunches, could see it mocking me for my frailties, knowing I hated myself for them but that I could not get enough, that I would keep coming back again and again. After I ended my tour in combat I came back to work at division headquarters and volunteered one night a week teaching English to Vietnamese adults. One of my students was a beautiful girl whose parents had been killed in Hue during the Tet Offensive of 1968. She had fallen in love with an American civilian who worked at the consulate in Da Nang. He had left for his next duty station and promised he would send for her. She never heard from him again. She had a seductive sadness about her. I found myself seeing her after class, then I was sneaking into the motor pool and commandeering a deuce-and-a-half truck and driving into Da Nang at night to visit her. She lived in a small house near the consulate with her grandparents and brothers and sisters. It had one room divided by a curtain. When I arrived, the rest of the family would retire behind the curtain. Amid their hushed voices and the smells of cooking oil and rotted fish we would talk and fumble toward each other, my need greater than hers. I wanted her desperately. But her tenderness and vulnerability, the torn flower of her beauty, frustrated my death-obsessed lust. I didn't see her as one Vietnamese, I saw her as all Vietnamese. She was the suffering soul of war, and I was the soldier who had wounded it but would make it whole. My loneliness was pulling me into the same strong current that had swallowed my friend who married the bar girl. I could see it happening, but I seemed powerless to stop it. I wrote her long poems, made inquiries about staying on in Da Nang, built a fantasy future for the two of us. I wasn't going to betray her the way the other American had, the way all Americans had, the way all men betrayed the women who helped them through the war. I wasn't like that. But then I received orders sending me home two weeks early. I drove into Da Nang to talk to her, and to make definite plans. Halfway there, I turned back. At the airport I threw the poems into a trash can. When the wheels of the plane lifted off the soil of Vietnam, I cheered like everyone else. And as I pressed my face against the window and watched Vietnam shrink to a distant green blur and finally disappear, I felt sad and guilty--for her, for my comrades who had been killed and wounded, for everything. But that feeling was overwhelmed by my vast sense of relief. I had survived. And I was going home. I would be myself again, or so I thought. But some fifteen years later she and the war are still on my mind, all those memories, each with its secret passages and cutbacks, hundreds of labyrinths, all leading back to a truth not safe but essential. It is about why we can love and hate, why we can bring forth Fe and snuff it out why each of us is a battleground where good and evil are always at war for our souls. The power of war, like the power of love, springs from man's heart. The one yields death, the other life. But life without death has no meaning; nor, at its deepest level, does love without war. Without war we could not know from what depths love rises, or what power it must have to overcome such evil and redeem us. It is no accident that men love war, as love and war are at the core of man. It is not only that we must love one another or die. We must love one another and die. War, like death, is always with us, a constant companion, a secret sharer. To deny its seduction, to overcome death, our love for peace, for life itself, must be greater than we think possible, greater even than we can imagine. Hiers and I were skiing down a mountain in Vermont, flying effortlessly over a world cloaked in white, beautiful, innocent, peaceful. On the ski lift up we had been talking about a different world, hot, green, smelling of decay and death, where each step out of the mud took all our strength. We stopped and looked back, the air pure and cold, our breath coming in puffs of vapor. Our children were following us down the hill, bent over, little balls of life racing on the edge of danger. Hiers turned to me with a smile and said, "It's a long way from Nam isn't it?" Yes. And no.
/b/, I have a story It appears a stupid prank amongst co-workers gradually grew until my dumb idea for a joke caused a person to go insane, an attempted suicide, and nearly killed a completely innocent, oblivious pregnant woman. I'm going to tell this story, and for those of you interested, put on your reading glasses, it's a doozy. >work at a Menards >be a stocker, my time slot has a group of seven stockers >one of these stockers is named Ken >Ken is sort of a cunt, really isolated, snarky, plays by the rules and rats people out to the managers even though the managers don't give a shit about anything >another one of these stockers is named Deb >Deb is engaged because she got knocked up >I'm friends with three of the stockers, we hang out after work, get high together, get into all sorts of hijinks >one night we get super high and watch the Adjustment Bureau >discussing conspiracy theories after the movie for hours >I come up with a fun idea: >"What if we, just, like, kept sneaking some message to some random person until they went nuts?" >we discussed it for hours, coming up with dumb shit and giggling like retards >next day we're driving to work >one of my friends comes up with the idea >"Hey, guys. We should totally do that subliminal messaging shit to Ken" >we all agree >but what message? >I come up with the message >"We should just keep sneaking in killing Deb into conversations. Like, if we're talking to each other around him, somebody just mention it and if he notices pretend like it's nothing." >We begin that day >Every time we're by him and talking, somebody sneaks in some quick blurt of "so when are they killing Deb?" or something stupid >at first we keep snickering when we do it and Ken doesn't catch on, but after a few days it's already just a part of work >we instinctively sneak it in to as many things as possible >two weeks into this process we sneak one in as Ken walks by >but another coworker was stocking right by us >as soon as we sneak in the "so when's Deb getting murdered?" our coworker laughs and asks what the fuck we said >let them in on the joke >that coworker tells other coworkers >eventually everybody in our department is in on the joke except for Ken and Deb >even the fucking managers sneak it in when talking to us >this goes on like clockwork for a month >Ken starts getting weirded out, notices when it comes up but says nothing >one day I walk to go use the bathroom >I'm in another department, other side of the store, Ken is nowhere in sight >hear somebody say "Yeah, and then after you empty this pallet, we've got to work on the Deb killing." >wut.jpeg >the whole fucking store is in on this >there are hundreds of workers in this store >people just casually sneak in the Deb murder lines everywhere throughout the store >even on days ken isn't working >What the fuck have I done? >the joke starts to grow beyond my control >I hear casual references to Deb's baby being the spawn of the devil >we need to kill Deb before the portal to hell is completed >this goes on for another month >Deb's pregnancy is starting to show >one day I get a phone call at midnight >Don't recognize the phone number >"Uh, who is this?" >"It's Deb from Menards. Are you friends with Ken?" >"Uh, not really, why?" >Ken called her freaking out about her baby >Ken doesn't come to work for a week >walk into Menards one day >there is a bulletin board in the conference room >somebody has put up a chicken scratch note saying "baby-devil, kill it" >the fuck is going on? >when Ken comes back he's noticeably psychotic >he's lost tons of weight, stutters, darts his eyes everywhere, and keeps writing in a little notebook he keeps with him >keep seeing him staring at Deb, Deb avoids him like the plague >one day I find his notebook left at our computer desk >look around to make sure he's not anywhere to be seen >open it >he's been writing down names of people, sentences about Deb, trying to put together the story about the baby >oh_shit.gif It gets worse >one day at work, I'm talking with my coworkers, and Ken comes up to me >coworker tries to slip in a Deb line, stop him >"What's up, Ken?" >"I need to talk to you, it's important." >he makes me go all the way to our conference room on the other side of the building >asks me how well I know Deb >"Not very well" >"I think something's going on. Either she's in grave danger, or she's very dangerous." >i'm not even laughing, i'm legitimately frightened >"Last Tuesday at eight forty seven you said the baby's gonna be the key to the portal,' did you not?" >I remember the exact date and time because of what happens next: >"Uh, I don't think, I did Ken" >"Here," he handed me a sheet from his notebook >he wrote down every date and time he heard me say anything about Deb or babies >and some of them almost definitely did not happen >one said "December 12th, 9:16, 'We have to empty its blood or it will bring the end days" > did not work that day and DEFINITELY never said anything like that >What the fuck is happening? >I tell Ken he should get some help >he refuses and tells me I can't tell anyone >i tell my coworkers and they think it's hilarious >i'm seriously horrified about this >debate whether or not I should tell Deb >decide against it >try to stop as many people from continuing the whole joke >it's unstoppable >i have no control anymore >the joke has grown into a whole conspiracy >one day Ken is running around looking for his notebook >he cannot find it anywhere >that night I find out somebody from electrical stole it and sent an email with some of the important information Ken wrote down >people began to plan so that Ken's prophecies would come true >eventually somebody came to work in a black shroud and kept walking around aisles near Ken >Ken kept seeing him in his periphery >apparently, Ken wrote about a black shrouded figure destroying the baby >Ken goes home sick Shit's about to get real >be this week >Ken has December 31st through January 2nd off >he comes in the second >buys a few things >hangs around our desk and just acts creepy >ask him if he's okay, says "I've been better," and won't say anything else after that >today neither Deb nor Ken came to work >they were both supposed to >a worker from millwork runs over to me >"Dude, Ken fucking went crazy." >well, yeah, he had been crazy since this thing started >"What happened?" >"He tried to kill Deb. He broke into her house with a hunting knife and tried to stab her stomach but her fiancee beat his ass. He slit his wrists on their lawn. He's in the hospital." > oh fuck me Deb quit and is pressing charges and filing for a restraining order, she and her fiancee are moving. Ken is no longer working at Menards and is facing serious felony charges. Apparently he didn't cut his wrists too deep and is making a full recovering, physically I feel badly. I wish I could confess and take some blame for this, but how? What the fuck would I even say?
This is a communication I saw on the 'Letterbox' textboard, which I believe is a very cool perspective. Letterbox can be found at: https://afternoon.dynu.com/letterbox.html The thread was titled 'Moving On From the Culture War' and read as such: Here is something I tend to ponder on, and I wonder about your perspective on it: I think part of healing the Web after a decade of so of stagnation involves making a break from the current stagnant culture. I tend to tour the 'small web', (for lack of a better term; I hate it when people call it the 'small web or 'indie web', makes it sound like some poncey art movement.), and whenever I do I notice certain reliably recurring themes. Complaining about Big Tech, Bad New Movies, Awful new TV Shows, going on about russia this, US-political-party-I-don't-like that, incel this, nazi that, discord this, etc. Although many of us have moved on from social media, (Or never used it in the first place), we still seem to be circling around the same culture-war carcasses. The other day I was watching 'Revenge Of The Nerds' with one of my friends. It's a college sex-comedy from 1984. Perhaps you're not a fan of sex comedies, but the point is that it was one of those films that 'would never get made' today. There were lots of outrageously funny, lurid moments, and each time the laughter subsided, my friend would mumble some variation of 'couldn't get that past the censors these days...' If our object was escapism, that is, escapism from stifling modern culture, at least, I think it was rather hampered by this sort of aimlessly defiant anal intrusion of 'Real Life'. I mean, I doubt the makers of that film, back in 1984, were making it with the mindset of, 'yeah, we are SO going to OWN the libs!!!' People have spoken at length about the various ways Social Media has watered down the Internet and seemingly made everyone at least a little bit dimmer, but I think one less talked about aspect is how it has sort of trained us towards a narrowly-focused, all encompassing hypersensitivity, which leads us, without realizing, to continuously tread the same old ground. The same hot button topics that always coax a reaction. Always fighting the 'culture war'. They may not go 'viral' for it, or see any 'likes', but still they are compelled to write about 'hating coomers' or how 'woke' whatever that new movie is, or 'modern degeneracy'. Fair play to you if these are important topics to you, but at some point I think there is need to shut up about that sort of thing and instead start posting the sort of thing you wish WAS on the internet. I think it's a shame that many people make themselves places where they can do anything, practically anything, and then devote much server space to closely observing the bowel movements and tectonic shifts of the social media world. It is a sort of 'shadow conformity' where we are defined by our defiance to the mainstream, rather than making a clean break from it and actually doing our won thing. I saw the problem summarized well on a certain forum I browse: "Ultimately the idea is quite simple: why can't you write about a topic without inserting all kinds of special snowflake delusions on one end and "scandal du jour" on the other? By all means go blog about your day. If you want to talk about how seeing zigzag patterns gives you seizures, be my guest. But don't disguise it as an interesting discussion" "And this applies in the most general way possible because everything is like that, now. I can't checkout a Neocities site about 16-bit computers because it won't actually be about 16-bit computers, it will be about which hair color best matches the Commodore 64's replacement keyboard that came in the mail along with a dragon dildo or something. If it's not about that, it will be all about how much the author hates people who write articles like that, instead of just writing about goddamned 16-bit computers." I think a good example of how I wish things could be, at random, is something like this article, 'The Dream That Died: The Late 1980s Television Show Reunion Movies' : www.kevinmccorrytv.ca/reunion.html This article has a lot which I think is refreshing: -It is about a very niche topic, explained in great detail, such that it becomes a generalized cultural review. The topic is the sort of very specific thing thing you only think to put up once you stop thinking about bending things towards 'the algorithm'. I think a lot of people on the 'indie web' are merely in a phase where they are extending the sort of faux-revolutionary mindset inculcated in them by social media social engineering onto their own personal websites. In fact some of them are exactly refugees with an axe to grind, who set up their own websites as 'outposts', after being banned from numerous social media. This article the sort of thing that basically absent, or very rarely seen, on social media, since it's not hooked to any 'current trend'. It's rarely seen on the 'small web' too, since many people dedicate time to peeking through their blinds at the Social Median's movements. -It follows no current trends in cultural reviewing (I think because it's an old article). Despite being an article about older series, it does not sink into maudlin nostalgia, or else overexaggerated condemnation of the entertainment under discussion. There are no annoying sort of parenthetical asides, just so that the author can shove their opinion down your throat. Whenever I read a movie review from a site like Vox, for example, there are inevitably all sorts of opinionated, snide marginalia about how this or that celebrity is verboten, or this or that handling of the subject matter is not to the author's liking, which serves no purpose in the review, but serves the purpose of scoring the writer further points with their in-crowd, and pissing off members of the out-crowd. -It is well researched. Reading thru it you get the impression that the author has seen all the shows under discussion, and has a good grasp of the culture he is making review of. In fact he probably grew up then. I think this also contributes to the impartialty, a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, or proper historical knowledge leads to snide opinion-making and other lazy habits used to fill up a word-count -It is well-focused and unemotional. It is strange how personal discursive writing can get these days, especially on the internet. Even talk about movies can get very snippy. This article avoids that. The author introduces you to a left-field topic, and walks you through it in great depth, so that you can understand the topic. Its emphasis is on the information with no detour into, as the forum poster said, 'inserting all kinds of special snowflake delusions on one end and "scandal du jour" on the other.' It's an old article, so of course it wouldn't have the flaws of today, but I this is basically the level of quality I wish Internet writing would return to.
Christopher Aaron Morris was an 11 year old boy who lived at the Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls, TX. on September 25, 2000, his father came home from work to find the naked, mutilated body of his son in the dishwasher. despite extensive investigations, the case has never been solved. the gruesome story inspired numerous r*ddit threads and podcast episodes. web searches for "christopher aaron morris" bring up various sites that host user-generated content: plebbit, facebook, blogspot, ancestry.com, findagrave. what is unusual is that there are seemingly no news articles or police reports. of course, since the death occurred in the early days of the web and there haven't been any new leads, the original news coverage may have disappeared from the internet as domains expired and websites closed down. the first plebbit thread about the case seems to be "Unsolved Death in Wichita Falls, TX", posted by u/DontEatRazorBlades on January 1, 2020. the thread cites a 2005 article on the curiously named blog "Penile Code Avenger", which appears to be a radical feminist site focusing on violent crimes committed by men. the entry, titled "Child Abuse Deaths on Military Installations", is about a medical study on child homicides on US military bases. the article does not actually mention Christopher Morris - only the comments do. "Child Abuse Deaths on Military Installations" has 41 comments, and all of them are about Christopher. the comments are undated, but an early one mentions that the death happened "only 5 years ago", so the posts about Christopher must have began shortly after the article was first posted. the first comment, by "Catonya", sets the tone for many of the others: I lived in Wichita Falls, TX for a long time before returning to Oklahoma. Shepphard Air Force Base is in Wichita Falls. A few years ago, a young boy (can't remember his exact age, 5 - 7yrs old maybe) was found in the dishwasher of his family home which was inside the base. He had been sexually assaulted, tortured, murdered, then his body ran through a full cycle in the dishwasher- officials speculated the killer had done that to wash away evidence. After the initial report on the local news- nothing else was ever reported on it. very hush hush. not sure why I'm leaving this comment except that this entry reminded me of that. (may God watch over the children) many other commenters claimed to be from Wichita Falls and to have known Christopher. if you are like me, your schizo senses might be starting to tingle right now. what are the chances that all these people knew Christopher and just happened to stumble upon a post on an obscure penis-themed blog that doesn't actually have anything to do with Christopher? what is with the oddly similar writing style in all of the posts - the emotionally-charged, staccato tone, with proper punctuation and capitalization & sentences always beginning with I? the repetitive statements that the commenter "lives in Wichita Falls", or the mentions of specific names of streets and buildings in what seems like a conscious attempt to convince readers that they're telling the truth? and if all these people know and remember christopher, why are this random blog and >redditcostanzayeahrightsmirk the only places where people are talking about it? although websites that covered the news at the time might have gone down, the case would likely have been reported in local newspapers. i have a subscription to newspapers.com, which is a massive international archive of OCR'd newspapers. i ran a search for "Christopher Morris" and "Christopher Aaron Morris" in Texas newspapers from 2000-2001. there are 32 results for the former and 0 for the latter. several of the 32 results are about a Christopher Morris from Arkansas who was involved in a legal dispute with Mark McGwire. the rest is various bits and pieces about other randos named christopher morris. but there is nothing about the 11 year old child who was purportedly the victim of a gruesome and sensational crime. because there were 0 results for "Christopher Aaron Morris" in Texas newspapers from 2000-2001, I broadened the search to the entire US. in the September 30, 2000 issue of the Oklahoma newspaper Tulsa World, there is an obituary entry for an 11-year-old named Christopher Aaron Morris who died on September 25, 2000. according to findagrave Morris was originally from McAlester, Oklahoma, so it is understandable that his death was reported in a Oklahoma newspaper (although this should be taken with a grain of salt because anyone can edit pages on findagrave). the obituary gives no details about the manner of death, and no relevant articles were found by searching for "Christopher Morris" in Oklahoma newspapers. a redditor made an interesting comment about the findagrave page 3 years ago: Even his Find-a-Grave memorial is barren. He only received 7 "flowers", with 6 of them being in the past few days (most likely after people read this post). I would've assumed a case such as this would have gotten many more people wanting to pay their respects. the comments on the first plebbit thread are unusual and similar to the 'penile code' blog, with an astonishing number of posters claiming to have known Christopher and citing oddly specific details about the area and their relationship to the case. some posters noticed this and found it unusual: others speculated that the entire case was fake and everyone claiming to have known Christopher was participating in a bizarre hoax. however, one r*ddit commenter managed to find articles related to the case in the Burkburnett Informer Star and the Sheppard Senator. the articles do not give many details about the death, but the Senator article does seem to confirm that a dishwasher was involved. the tone of the article downplays residents' concerns and implies that Morris's death may have been due to mental health issues. considering all of the weirdness around this case, my first thought was that these articles were part of an elaborate hoax. however the r*ddit poster has a long and seemingly legitimate posting history and claims to be a librarian, which would explain why they have access to these old newspapers. in a later thread, a different user posted screenshots from an online newspaper archive. these articles went into detail about the case and investigation - the full album is available here. despite this, when the case was mentioned in later threads many users remained suspicious that it was a hoax. notably, some posters mentioned that they were unable to independently verify that the newspaper articles existed. i wasn't able to find any of these news articles using my own searches on various databases, but I did find a very brief article about the case through LexisNexis. (this is a subscription-only database, so I can't link to the article, but I assure you that I'm not trying to trick you). at the end of it all, i am convinced that Christopher Aaron Morris was a real person and that his death happened roughly as reported. i'm not all that interested in the questions of who did it or whether or not it was intentionally covered up. what i find more interesting is how the internet has created a new layer of mystery around the original story. today, if you want to learn more about something, you're going to look it up on a search engine. you'll probably find a wikipedia page, a news article, or a thread on >redditcostanzayeahrightsmirk or stackoverflow. if you want a real deep dive you might click on the google books tab and download a book that looks relevant from libgen, or add "intext:forum "post"|inurl:forum|"posts:"|inurl:viewtopic" to your query. but what happens when something that you'd expect to be on google simply isn't, and even specialized databases have only the barest traces of it? we have come to rely on the internet for proof of an entity's existence. we've all heard of hoaxes perpetrated by people with too much time on their hands and access to platforms that let them post whatever they want, so we're naturally skeptical of sob stories and spooky mysteries that don't seem to exist outside of social media. but when you're stripped of the tools to verify things for yourself, you can only rely on word of mouth and social proof. the DEBOONKER is a product of the internet age. Christopher Morris was real, but his story slipped through the cracks. his death happened at a time when the internet existed and was fairly popular - yet despite its sensational nature, nothing of it remains besides a few questionable screenshots and speculation on dodgy websites. what other stories were lost to time as old websites decayed and search engines suffocated under an endless tide of SEO-optimized churnalism? what knowledge only survives in dusty newspaper clippings, weird blogspot comments and the hearts and minds of people who were actually there? and what the fuck IS with the comments on that penis site anyway? here's my theory. google's algorithm ranks blogspot posts highly, or at least used to. the blog post contains numerous terms that someone interested in morris's case might search for - "child abuse", "death", "homicide", "air force base", "2000". someone looking up these terms in 2005 would be pretty likely to stumble on this blog. then they write a comment about Christopher Morris, and the blog begins to appear in search results for Christopher Morris. because there is no other Google-indexed coverage of this case, everyone looking for information on it converges on this random site. i can't account for the similarities in writing style between the posts. i think it's possible that most or all of them were written by the same person - it's understandable that the trauma of this event might cause someone to act irrationally. whatever the story behind the posts is, it's clear that someone is trying to get the word out about this case. because the journalistic coverage of Morris's death has fallen out of reach of the average person, those who remember Morris were forced to become their own journalists. they found an outlet for their story not in the sunday paper or the evening news, but in the forgotten backwater of the comments section of a man-hating blog named after penises. and redditors called them liars. but today we remember Christopher Morris, and we remember the old internet.
This article was written by sadgirl.online which details the way the internet has changed and a path to move forward from our hell. :RedWojak: The internet has changed... It's surprising how many people equate "the Internet" with "social media". It's like having access to 1,000,000x the Library of Alexandria every day, and only being interested in keeping up with what people are talking about in the lobby. The internet used to be: a place for creative expression vastly customizable a space for people, by people The internet has become: a marketplace (and we are the product) a one-sided social experience a capitalist hellscape We, the people of the internet, have the power to transform the internet. The goal is not to go backwards, but to forge a new path forward. I wrote an article detailing the topic in-depth. What is the old web? The old web refers to the internet's former iteration. It includes Web 1.0 and the early parts of Web 2.0. It is known as the age of chat rooms, message boards, Myspace and Livejournal. The development of Web 2.0 emphasized user-generated content, ease of use, participatory culture and ease of use for end users. The early days of this era refer to a time when social platforms allowed the careful balance of an easy-to-learn interface and optional stylesheet customization. What started out as a huge leap forward snowballed into the SEO-crazed, overly sterilized internet we are faced with today. Early social platforms such as Myspace, Xanga, Livejournal and Tumblr offered a balance of visual editors for formatting blog posts with ease, the option of using a premade layout, or the option of customizing the look and feel yourself entirely with CSS. This was a crowning achievement of the internet in the context of genuine social development and expression of social creativity. What is the personal web? The personal web isn't a reboot or a revival. It's been here all along, overshadowed by fast-paced modern platforms. The personal web about making the internet into a satisfying, expressive and creative social space. It's about having a space of one's own that isn't dictated by arbitrary limitations of a platform (such as word count). A website of one's own Isn't there something exciting about having something that's all your own, that you can customize in millions of ways? Websites are a great medium for: sharing creativity (visual art, writing, music, comics...) spreading information or resources writing about things that you love (hobbies, media, yourself, philosophy...) meeting others with shared interests (via web rings, Neocities...) creating a virtual space with any kind of vibe that you want (or all of the vibes at once) A website is a blank slate that you can mold into anything. If the only barrier for making your own site is a lack of technical knowledge - don't let that hold you back. There are some great tutorials online, and also lots of websites that offer free layouts for you to use on your site. No coding knowledge required. How to start I can't recommend the platform Neocities enough, because of it's unique dashboard that connects every website on the platform. It allows you to follow websites, leave comments and receive updates on a dashboard in a social media/website fusion. Plus it's free! A Case Against Modern Internet The necessity of the personal web becomes even more relevant when the current state of the internet is analyzed. Search Engine Optimization Ever Google something and get a bunch of results like this? 10 Tell-Tale Signs You Need to Get a New Cat The Best Advice You Could Ever Get About Cats 11 Embarrassing Cats Faux Pas You Better Not Make The 12 Worst Types Cats Accounts You Follow on Twitter 20 Gifts You Can Give Your Boss if They Love Cats You can blame SEO for that. The sharp rise of search engine optimization, or SEO. If someone develops, designs and writes their website in a particular way, their site has a higher chance of being found higher up on the list of results when people perform a related Google search. To properly utilize SEO, you must follow a lot of rules, such as making 'punchy' headlines like the ones above, and peppering your writing with images. Since SEO is determined by a bot, many have found ways to 'game the system' so to speak, to bring their websites to the top of search engines. These websites have a lot of very shallow content, and much of it might even be labeled clickbait. Some of these sites are used by people as sources of passive income which they make via a combination of their large audience and ad revenue. This type of content drowns out real genuine content from people. Nowadays, if you want to see people-made content, aside from the personal web movement, the easiest way is via social media. Social Media or Social Marketing? Modern platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are free to use in exchange for giving up your data and consenting to be a commodity. When a platform has collected enough data on an individual (by tracking what the user reacts positively/negatively to), it builds a highly specific profile on that user which they can sell to advertisers - because advertisers always want to target specific audiences. This allows social media platforms to turn a huge profit while offering their platform for free. In the beginning, ads lined the sides and tops of a website. The more annoying ones would pop-up in a new window. Still, there was a clear separation between ads and content. Soon, platforms learned they would make more money by interspersing ads with a person's social timeline and they made it so. When the internet created 'celebrities', businesses and brands started using those celebrities to market their products and services. After all, these celebrities already had an audience, which allows the brand to skip all of the would-be salaries of their marketing team and assign the responsibility of gathering a sufficient audience to an individual. The Timeline Format and Why It Sucks Something all of these modern platforms have in common is the timeline. Sometimes this is called the dashboard or the news feed. This is usually a mix of content from everyone you follow (plus ads, but we'll get to that...) In the early days even on these modern platforms the timelines were reverse-chronological and simply showed the latest updates from everyone that you followed. On modern social platforms, that experience is much different. Instead, platforms use algorithms to determine which posts you will see, and which you won't. These algorithms are meant to filter out "irrelevant and poor-quality posts so that the highest-quality content gets through". Instead, one might argue that these algorithms take the power away from the person scrolling through them, and filters them based on data that has been collected from their activity. Even before algorithms and increasingly intrusive ads, the idea itself of a timeline was terrible. Timelines are designed to keep users on their platform for as long as possible (so the user sees as many ads as possible), usually scrolling vertically. This means that for the majority of users, they only see each post one time. Anyone who has ever mindlessly scrolled through Tumblr, Instagram or >redditcostanzayeahrightsmirk, it can be easy to simply like a post as a bookmark and make a mental note to go back to it later. I almost never go back to it later. Rather than user's posts being solely viewed on their own individual pages, they are neatly ordered into a single-file line for maximum advertising efficiency. In this way the user is also alienated from their content, their identity/person made secondary. This is because the modern timeline was not designed for creators. It was designed for consumers. It's no secret that it's getting more difficult to promote yourself as an artist online. Anyone who has read a guide to marketing yourself on social media knows that it's a full-time job which requires constant activity and new content creation to keep followers engaged. The timeline was designed for maximum profit The "Follower" Model Modern platforms use the terminology follow and follower to describe the interaction between two individuals. Following is a one-sided action - you can choose to follow an account but that account may not follow you back. In that situation, it's kind of like looking into someone's bedroom and reading all of their journals invisibly, like a ghost. Those who do follow you back are affectionately termed mutuals. The goal is, and always has been, to gain more followers. Gaining followers means your posts will reach a wider audience. At the most basic level, this may indicate that people like you. If you are a creator, it may indicate that people will see your creations. If you own a business, or start a Kickstarter or a GoFundMe, it indicates that people may give you their money. At its most sophisticated, brands and businesses will reach out to you to promote their products. Having a large following also has its consequences. The larger a group of people is, the harder it is to please everyone. But this is consequence is relatively harmless compared to the others. With more exposure and popularity, that person has a higher chance of being stalked and harassed, just like real-life celebrities. They also risk being doxxed, or cancelled (which tends to attract angry mobs). The follower model promotes social imbalance, a one-to-many kind of connection rather than many-to-many - which could be seen in Myspace's Friend Request model. The act of following another account is impersonal and one-sided. Building meaningful relationships with other people is second to amassing an audience. Possibly more coming soon... How you can participate Learn & teach others how to surf the web. Stop or reduce activity on modern social media (especially Twitter, Facebookand Instagram). Convince your friends to do the same! Speak out on social media about the harms of using those platforms & promote alternatives. Speak out about why the structure of social media & SEO is ruining the internet. Create your own spaceon the web. Convince your friends to do the same! Socialize with & collaborate with other webmasters & artists. Write your own manifesto. Most of all, never stop creating & making connections on the internet. We will never give up!
(WARNING NOT SAFE FOR WORK) Contrary to popular belief, Cannibal Cafe is not a hidden .Onion Site. It was a clearnet site back in 1994 – 2001 run by a cult leader named Perro Loco. On the Cannibal Cafe's website, they have forums that were about men looking for men, men looking for women (the ideal: short, buxom, thin redheads) and women looking for men—very few posts, if any, were for women looking for women. There were people who wanted to be eaten and people who wanted to do the eating. There are stories, artwork, and users seeking advice on the best to way to cook someone. "I am ready!" announced that the poster was prepared for slaughter. Entire threads were devoted to "human meat for sale fresh frozen." Email addresses were freely exchanged, with posters using handles like "Pigsl*t" and "Masochist Mr. Waye." Interestingly enough, the site was shut down by the German authorities from DDOS attacks when one of the users named "Franky" met up with another user to eat and slaughter the user. I have looked through the website and took screenshots of their interactions below and I have translated what they are saying in google translate because I do not speak German so if it is incorrect blame Google. Also, they have a "Human Livestock" section where Perro Loco would have pictures of females to be sold and used as slaves to be eaten. Some are actually do it voluntarily, like Perro Loco's own own daughter. I also included the screenshots down below. HOWEVER, somewhere along the lines the Cannibal Cafe is brought back to life, and they rebranded themselves as Dolcettgirls It seems much tamer than the old website. I have been browsing around their forum and it looks like all they do is larp and roleplay like cumbrains :SoyU2:. What it appears to me is now just a a simple fetish community, I dont know the psychology in cannibalism and I may never know but that ends the chapter of the internet's infamous Cannibal Cafe forums. I found an interesting image of this Mister Perroloco (WARNING NOT SAFE FOR WORK) Of course that is just for entertainment purposes only and a historical archive of the early wild west of the internet. Here is a link to the archived version of the website. http://web.archive.org/web/20020805154156/http://www.necrobabes.org:80/perroloco/forum/ccforum.html Just so you know before you click on the link it will automatically download a music file called StairwayToHeaven.MID it doesnt do anything to harm your computer though. Hers is their new website https://forum.dolcettgirls.com (WARNING NOT SAFE FOR WORK) This is their new website
On March 18th, 2022, a >redditcostanzayeahrightsmirk user named "slava_ukraini_live" posted a video to r/volunteersForUkraine. The video showed a Ukrainian soldier playing a song to several dozen other soldiers Initially, the comments were very supportive One redditor said it was "like a Quinten Tarantino film playing out right in front of us" Amongst the circlejerking, one redditor expressed concern that posting the video publicly would leak their location. u/Nordansikt basically said that was bullshit After all, there's no way posting this video publicly would lead to Russia discovering their location, right? A couple days later, a user on 4chan posted the metadata of the video that u/slava_ukraini_live had posted, which pretty much gave away their exact location They were bombed, and the dozens of Ukrainian soldiers there died Let me repeat that. Lives were lost because of a dumbass redditor who wanted some heckin' updooterinos 4chan reacted pretty much how you'd expect People then went back to the original >redditcostanzayeahrightsmirk post and mocked OP Sometime later, this information was shared on Twitter, and they reacted similarly Now then, let's check up on the original redditors who praised OP before the bombing. Many of them deleted their comments out of shame The "Quinten Tarantino film" guy deleted his comment, but not before another redditor quoted him Remember u/Nordansikt, the guy who called people crazy? This is how he responded So then, what happened to OP? Did he die in the bombing too? Well, his account was shortly suspended around the time the bombing happened, so I can't check his account history for an answer Imagine this though: If he did survive the bombing, he has to live with the knowledge of what he did for the rest of his life Hope the internet points were worth it
This is pulled from the Biggie Cheese wiki page. I'm not sure how exactly this lore was created but I find it extremely funny Biggie Cheese Biggie Chester Latorace Cheese (August 4th 1954 - September 17th 2019) was a Gangster Rapper and former U.S. Army Lieutenant made famous for his cameo in the 2006 film, Barnyard. Biggie is considered one of the best rappers to ever inhabit this blue marble that we call earth. He released over 50 songs throughout his musical career before his death in 2019 his most popular of which is a single that dropped in 1993 titled, Orphanage on Fire, which currently has over 4 Billion streams on spotify and apple music combined. Early Life and Vietnam War Service Biggie Cheese was born at some hospital in Detroit on August 4th 1954. We do not know the name of the hospital because it was stolen shortly after Biggie's birth. As an elementary school child child Biggie excelled in school, staying out of trouble and being awarded honor-roll awards on numerous occasions, however in middle school he was suspended when it was discovered that he had shit in the school bully's backpack after being called an "Overweight Fag". Upon Biggie's return he apologized to the school bully and gave him a new outlook on life and made the bully a better person. In high school Biggie accidentally invented a new drug, cheese, while in his AP science class. Biggie started dealing Cheese in secret and made thousands, buying his first of many mansions at 17. Shortly after graduating high school, Biggie Cheese was drafted into Vietnam. Biggie attempted to bribe the army to reconsider countless times but the army eventually got tired of his bullshit, came to his house, and forcefully dragged biggie out into boot camp While in Vietnam shortly after being drafted Biggie was almost fatally wounded after single-handedly saving his entire combat unit in 1972. Biggie Cheese was honorably discharged and awarded a purple heart medal for his bravery that day as well as a commemoration from president Richard Nixon. 1992 - 1995 Post War/Early Music Career After the events in Vietnam Biggie suffered from severe PTSD and could not live with his life anymore. After numerous suicide attempts, he cleaned up his act and decided music was the answer. He released his first single in 1992 at the age of 38 titled: "Intercourse with an AK" which was about his time in Vietnam. Upon the release of Biggie's first single it was not received well. Biggie then dropped his first album in 1993 featuring Intercourse with an AK as well as 2 all new songs, "Guns Sex and Bitches" and "Orphanage on Fire". Also in late 1993 Biggie would be picked up a newly formed record label, Big Cheese Records, which was created to exclusively release songs produced by Biggie Cheese. By 1995 Biggie Cheese was a household name after the release of "Mr. Steal your Girl" which is his 3rd most successful song. 1996 - 1998 Rise to popularity/Boombastic era In 1996 Biggie Cheese would produce a cover of the song Boombastic by Shaggy which would go on to become one of Biggie's most successful songs, outselling the original made by Shaggy. Biggie Cheese would go on to release his 2nd album in may of 1997 titled Biggie Cheese's Beats to Have Sex and Commit Federal Crimes to, which was a collection of all of his songs up to that point. 16 to be exact. Also in 1997 Biggie cheese would go on his first world tour, Traveling to California, New York, Japan, Germany, and Mexico. While on tour Biggie Cheese's private jet crashed into an Orphanage in Florida, instantly bursting into flames. Luckily Biggie and his crew were able to escape and record the official Orphanage on Fire music video. 87 children would die during the incident 12 of which died on impact. (the orphanage where the Orphanage on Fire music video was shot) In 1998 Biggie Cheese would release "Everyone i know is JFK" which was originally intended to be called "Everyone i know wants me dead" but Biggie got high off of Cheese when it came time to record and fucked everything up. Biggie's record label thought it was funny and released the song despite Biggies wishes. This would be the beginning of the end for biggie cheese. 1999 - 2005 Fall to obscurity/Bribery, Hostages, Nazism and Murder Controversy In 1999 Biggie collaborated with Anshul Kumar and DJ Khalid to make the song Nigg*'s in India, upon the songs release only 2 people had listened to the song world wide (those being Biggie and Anshul) and it remained this way for over 6 years. Later, 5 months after the songs release Biggie was fed up with the songs performance and blamed it on Anshul for "Making an absolute dogshit beat", and on june 4th 1999 Biggie would shoot and kill Anshul while eating dinner with him at an olive garden. Biggie avoided arrest by bribing police with a sum of over 69 billion Japanese Yen. Things would only get worse for Biggie in the years following. In 2002 it would be revealed that Biggie Cheese had holding multiple musical artists hostage since 1996, those being, The lunas, Young Deaf, Young Potter, and Young Absint. The latter 3 died of starvation in 1999. Biggie would avoid arrest again by bribing police with a shit ton of money. In 2005 Biggie Cheese would accidentally resurrect Hither after reading the entirety of Mien Kampf in German backwards a total of 69 times and screaming "SEIG HEIL" on April 30th. Biggie Cheese tried to kill Hitler right after he was resurrected but it was too late, so Biggie took advantage of the situation and decided to make the song "Hitlers Resurrection (TOP SECRET)" in addition to commanding Hitler and an army of Nazi zombies to assassinate the president. Biggie would be arrested for his actions that day, however his sentence would be shortened to only 1 year due to the fact that he had supplied the police force with billions of dollars years prior. 2006 - 2010 Rise from obscurity/Barnyard era Biggie Cheese would be released from prison in late 2006. Shortly after Biggie's release he would be contacted by Paramount Pictures to make a cameo appearance in their upcoming movie, Barnard. Within Biggie's Cameo he appears singing his cover of Boombastic in front of a live audience. Biggie's appearance in Barnyard made his music career rise from obscurity and skyrocket in popularity beyond Biggie's comprehension, and so in 2010 Biggie Cheese announced that he would be taking a break. 2016 - 2018 Return, Modernization and Retirement. In 2016 Biggie Cheese would return from his 6 year hiatus and drop modernized versions of all of his greatest hits the most notable of which is the 2016 version of "Orphanage on Fire". In November of 2016 Biggie Cheese would be recognized by People magazine as the "Sexiest Man Alive" and for a 2nd time in 2017. After preforming Orphanage on Fire at the 2017 Superbowl halftime show Biggie would announce that he would be retiring from making music for good. This sparked riots that lasted for nearly 2 months. (November 28 2016 Issue of People magazine declaring Biggie the sexiest man alive!) Assassination Attempt In 2018 while ordering food at a Chick-Fil-a drive thru an unknown individual opened fire on Biggie's car. Biggie was struck 3 times and was rushed to the hospital. The doctors pronounced him dead after 5 long hours of trying to heal him. Biggie was buried in his tomb the next day and a funeral was held for him. Unfortunately the doctors gave up to soon and Biggie was accidentally buried alive. A fan was visiting his grave a day after the funeral and they heard him screaming to be let out. The fan quickly called the authorities and they dug him up. 2019 Ohio Mansion Raid, Death and Legacy On September 27th 2019 at 10:24 AM Biggie Cheese's Piqua Ohio Mansion was raided by the FBI and an armed SWAT team after they had received an undisclosed tip that there was Cheese dealing going on inside. On site over 400g of cheese was found and Biggie Cheese was shot dead after trying to escape. A funeral was held for Biggie on September 30th of the same year. Biggie's current resting place is at the Lake View Cemetery. A memorial was built outside the Chick-Fil-a where the 2018 Assassination Attempt took place and Biggie's Ohio mansion along with all of his other belongings were auctioned off to a lucky fan who paid a sum of over 800 million dollars. https://loraxian.fandom.com/wiki/Biggie_Cheese
Lately, I've been hearing and seeing all over the Internet that the reason why skeuomorphism was the main software aesthetic at the dawn of smartphones was: People weren't yet accustomed to touchscreens, therefore, to make navigation easier and less confusing for an average user, icons and control elements were designed to closely resemble real-life things. For example, voice recorder looked like a microphone, the "Newsstand" app - like a bookshelf, notepad... like a notepad. You name it. Also, it is often argued that the purpose of the then popular nature-inspired approach to software design was to make interfaces friendlier and "more familiar", hence imitating real-life materials like wood and metal became a big part of the design code. Earlier iOS and Android are the most mentioned examples: At first, it sounded plausible. Now, however, I doubt it. I doubt that, without a camera icon looking realistic (and, despite this, still having "camera" written right under it), people would have been so lost and helpless trying to navigate their iPhone 3G/Galaxy S2/whatever. Why? Simply because, by that time, practically every person on this planet who owned a sim card had already went through a "dumb phone" boot camp. Let's take a look at the interfaces of older mobile phones. Sure, skeuomorphism was already there, right in the main menu. Indeed, it made it easier to find whatever you were looking for. However, sub-menus were mostly text-based and definitely weren't trying to make navigation super-duper-intuitive. Despite that, I suppose you guys never found it hard to figure out and remember where to go for your photos/messages/games etc. Sony Ericsson main menu on the left, an example of a sub-menu on the right. At times, phone manufacturers didn't even shy away from minimalism! And these were the 2000s, mind you, still pretty far away from flat design becoming trendy: Similar-looking abstract themes came pre-installed on some Sony Ericsson models. No nature in sight, pure tech and pleasant minimalism. Still comprehensive and easy to use. And don't forget that simply putting a finger on a glass over a menu option was not the way to select it. A phone owner needed to understand which buttons correlated with which action. Not rocket science but surely somewhat more complicated than how you do it with touchscreens today. Finally, I don't remember a single person in the 2010s saying how they would've failed to do something with their smartphone if it weren't for skeuomorphism. On the other hand, a lot of people expressed how they liked their vibrant, cute, and beautiful screens. And flexed their brand new live wallpapers, of course, who didn't? In other words, it was fashion that was praised, not function. To sum up, my main point is: The notion that skeuomorphism's mission was to teach users how to navigate their smartphones is effectively a retcon. We were more than well-prepared for iOS and Android after years of navigating not-so-intuitive good ol' button phones. Even with less realistic design, people still would have figured it out. I believe that the real reasons behind skeuomorphism's popularity are: Realistic and detailed elements were perfect for highlighting the advantages of new big screens while also stressing the disadvantages of outdated small screens; Nature is great for demonstrating how high your new big screen's refresh rate is and how many colors it is able to display (hence live wallpapers with falling leaves and drops of water everywhere at the time); Skeuomorphic icons were an ultimate version of the Sony Ericsson/Nokia/Samsung main menu icons: more realistic, more detailed, more colorful. In other words, the overall look was superior, hence worth upgrading to. Nothing more, nothing less.
The user /u/Civil-Try-31-41 has made the same post on several sub-reddits over the past couple of days, including /r/OntarioUniversities, /r/WLU, /r/Paramedics, /r/UofT, /r/CarletonU, /r/LawSchool, /r/Algonguin_College, and /r/JordanPeterson. In each post, which are identical, the poster claims that as a result of their interest in the paramedic program at a Canadian college, they they have been plagued with hallucinations and mental illness. This includes what appears to be the coordinator of the program astral projecting into the poster's mind, using vague technologies that supposedly are patented. You can find the user's profile here, as well as the statement they keep posting below for archiving sake. Good day, I think it's important for me to start this off by saying I do not believe in conspiracy theory and I have a firm believer of the scientific process. From my understanding 'faculty of Algonquin college's paramedic program' visit students on a 'yearly' basis. Coupled with a presentation from a respective teacher. When I was in high school (Carleton place, Ontario) a remember a few of the presentation put forth by my teachers. At this point I began to suffer from mild depression (2005) When I was 19 (2007) I went to Wilfrid Laurier university where I was enrolled in an undergraduate biology program. As a young adult I was curious about becoming a paramedic and researched Algonquin colleges program. A few weeks later I had a psychological breakdown where 'Algonquin college paramedic faculty and respective 'nerds'' spoke to me through electro magnetic resonance (I do have the applicable American patent handy and was explained several times at WLU about the technology and the paramedic program ) as I continued my university experience I was burdened with a series of psychological issues for 2 years where my grades plummeted and my mental health continued to spiral out of control. Eventually my mental health began to recover. I went on to graduate from Laurier. A few years went by, where I worked a few dead end jobs. One day my father slipped on the ice and had a seizure causing me to move home. Approximately in 2015 I applied to Algonquin college for their paramedic program. I had an offer and didn't take it. A few months later the auditory hallucinations from my young adulthood reappeared (teachers and nerds from the Algonquin college paramedic program) I had another mental breakdown and let's say learned more about the technologies capabilities. A few years went by and I randomly met the Algonquin college paramedic faculty at a bar. They explained ALOT of things to me that I am not comfortable explaining through email. Let's just say a they made a prediction and explained the 'computer program' In 2019, I had a dream about a floating head of the program coordinator. Which for whatever reason drove me to re apply and pursue paramedicine. I went to Algonquin college in 2019 where I experienced the actual course and was then burdened by tinnitus and a series of signs and symptoms that would be on par with marijuana use or benzodiazepines withdrawal symptoms (clearly more severe than marijuana ). This includes auditory hallucinations, that a computer like in sound. Because of the auditory hallucinations (all of which are teachers at Algonquin colleges paramedic program) I dropped out and have experienced the hallucinations (which seem rather understanding at this point in time) from October 2020 to Today. Meanwhile my mother is ill from liver disease and is awaiting a liver transplant. I don't really have any questions or expect a reply. I just want you to know that essentially a decade of my life has gone down the drain, due to psychological testing.
(Article from this site ) As part of my job here at BlogMutt, I look at a lot of stock photos. Like, a lot. All told, I probably spend nearly the equivalent of one full work day each week trying to find photos for our customers' posts and ours, sorting through the boring and the bizarre to find that one picture that will work perfectly for the content it's to be paired with. It can be pretty draining. At the same time, though, the world of stock photos is super fascinating to me. Most stock photos are designed to be generic: show me one picture of a smiling couple walking through a park and I will show you at least fifteen different blog posts it could accompany. Stock photos are supposed to represent universal experiences, activities, and emotions. For that reason, we rarely consciously think about them out in the world, even though we live surrounded by them. They're background noise. But when you look at hundreds and hundreds of stock photos in a period of a few hours, you start to see the same people in multiple scenarios – which reminds you that they are, in fact, real people who are somewhere out there living their lives. These are not snapshots from some parallel universe made of stock photos. The photographers made certain decisions about setting, lighting, and theme; the models made the decision to let someone take their picture for a few hours, make certain faces, hold their hands a certain way, sit or stand. Compounding the weirdness, for whatever reason, no matter what you search for (at least on the photo service we use), there will be at least three different hugely pregnant women in the results. And as far as we can tell, a lot of them are actually pregnant, not just wearing fake baby bumps. All of those women eventually gave birth to real-life children who may one day see a picture of their mothers, pregnant, chopping vegetables or juggling their business responsibilities in ads for vitamin supplements or maternity clothes. I am endlessly curious about these women's lives, and the lives of the many stock photo models whose faces are as familiar to me as my own at this point. But there's one who stands above the rest, the queen of the stock photo models. I am perhaps unhealthily obsessed with her, but I'm not the only one. Because she is everywhere. But no one knows anything about her. THE OVEREXPOSED STOCK PHOTO MODEL Okay, we do know some things about her. According to the only profile that has ever been written about her, in Esquire Philippines, her name is Ariane, she is Chinese-Canadian, she has a law degree, she loves to smile, and she runs the creative side of the stock photo business that has resulted in her face being plastered on billboards, magazines, and virtually every other kind of media all over the world. But that is literally it. Billions of people see her face on a regular basis, and no one even knows her last name. In an era where it seems privacy is impossible, she is an irresistable mystery. There are a lot of elements that make her such a popular stock photo model, not the least of which is that she has devoted her career to it. There are simply more pictures of her in existence than probably any other single person in history. Most models don't aspire to stock photos, but she has turned a gig that is usually a stepping stone to bigger things into a global empire. But she's also inherently appealing on a visual level: she is very pretty, for one, but she's also accessible. Her smile is just a little too big – almost cheesy. It says, "I'm really enthusiastic about these coupons/plane tickets/mops/vegetables" in a totally unthreatening way. She has the perfect body type for advertising athletic clothes and gyms. She can also pull off the motivated career woman and the young, excited traveler with ease. She is vaguely "ethnic," enough to satisfy advertisers paying lip service to diversity. She makes us feel comfortable. She and her boyfriend take selfies all over the world. She laughs alone with salad (just like so many of her stock photo sisteren). She meditates on the beach, and then cuts loose later with a pink cocktail. Why not? She's young, happy, healthy, beautiful. She is the smiling paragon of our collective subconscious. She was recently in an ad on the bus I take to work, playing "Mary Lu Chang," a student holding up her free college bus pass and pointing to it, thrilled. I would look up at her wide grin every morning and feel her enthusiasm for free bus rides spread over me like a warm blanket. At this point, she's like an old friend. Every time I'm searching for photos, there she is with her friendly, slightly goofy smile, doing yoga or going for a run or having a power lunch. She makes me aspire to greater things. Naturally, I want to know everything about her. I've spent good chunks of time scrolling through the Facebook group dedicated to spotting pictures of Ariane, imagining what she's like in real life, what we would talk about over a glass of wine. Is that weird? A commenter on a recent photo writes: ...is it? No. Of course not. Right? Right. PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE-WATCHING As much as I want to know about Ariane, I also totally respect why she would want to remain relatively anonymous. I'm sure there are actual creepy stalkers out there who might pose an actual threat to her if she were to reveal more about herself. And I do feel a little weird about how curious I am about her, but then, I think a lot of people are more curious about strangers than they let on. It's why most of us love people-watching. And when you think about it, looking through stock photos is just a strange kind of people-watching: glimpsing the lives of others in snapshot form, making them fit our narratives and preconceptions. Ariane is the person you always see in random places around town – the coffee shop, then the gym, and then the next day at the grocery store – almost like she's following you. You see her so often that you almost start to feel like you know her. But she's still a mystery.
I worked a prison in a remote area in southern Iraq miles from umm qasr. At the time I was there it detained 30k prisoners and an additional 3k that no one except people working there knew about. They'd put us in blacked out window commercial buses and drive us an hour away for days at a time to guard the facilities. We were never allowed to speak with anyone on the main prison FOB and forbidden to tell anyone about it. We referred to it only as "Jurassic park,"one of the black prisons run by "contractor" medical personnel. The facility itself was a facade of mud/brick buildings resembling a small village. The place was complete with villagers, us, dressed up in man dresses and a small area for goats on the outskirts. From a distance it looked legit but up close you could see the bulges from our combat gear underneath the clothing. All of us there were picked for our darker complexion and allowed to grow facial hair you also had to be military police with TS and PRP or Yankee white clearance. I couldn't see um qasr from the facility so I have no idea where we were, just that we were in the middle of nowhere. We had to park the gun trucks and buses away from the area and use netting to cover them. the trucks were manned by a PMC so they looked like civilian vehicles beside being armored variations of normal vehicles. Usually a small fire team would be tasked with security and a terp. The rest of us had to put the clothing on and start a small patrol to relieve the other guards. In late 2007 we were woken up early and recalled to go the facility three days earlier than our normal rotation. We bitched got ready and headed out to get in the buses. This time around we arrived to a lot full of newer up armored humvees told to stfu and get in, there were already drivers in each truck and off we went. The drivers drove in a tight group which is unusual for convoy ops. They also didn't talk to us the entire ride. Its pitch black out and all you can see is blackness, but this is the first time we were allowed to see where we were going because the humvee windows weren't blacked out like the buses. I'm trying to orient myself but can't see much beside the little red lights of the vehicle in front of mine. The Windows are thick armored glass so its impossible to see anything in the nighttime desert with no illumination beside the convoys. We drive for little over an hour and you can see a faint glow in the distance. We start to get closer and its the facility that's on fire. the Lt comes over our comms and relays that anyone not wearing American DCU pattern mopp4 is to be eliminated via deadly force. None of us are wearing MOPP gear. The drivers stop the vehicles and were told to dismount and rally around a group of LMTV's that are waiting for us. They start calling out SSI numbers and handing out mopping gear that is already our sizes. My WTF is going off hard. NCO's come around and tell us to gear up. We start putting our mopp gear and are abruptly told to stop and strip back down to our regular uniforms and take out our military id cards, driver license, and any other form of photo identification on our person or gear. Little teams of PMC (private military contractor ie. Blackwater etc) start collecting and searching us. One guy would cutaway our name tape, military branch tape and unit patches. Once they finished another team of them would come by and try to find anything the first one missed. Lastly our NCO's did the same thing to see if the first two missed anything. Officers start rallying up our NCO's for the OP order (operations order, tells them what the plan is) and the rest of us are told to rally back up around another set of LMTV's (armored supply trucks like a newer deuce and a half) and start unloading boxes filled with ammo, magazines, and newer NVG's than the ones we already had in our gear. these ones had a rail system that attached in behind our optic so we could wear a gas mask and still shoot and see in the dark. We're told to load as many magazines as possible and put the spares in our 3 day assault packs ( fancy military for backpack). We already carried a basic load of 210 rounds and m9 pistols with 45 rounds in our ammo pouches on our IBA's (individual body armor). We're taken over to another area to zero our weapons at a makeshift little range made of hesco blast barriers. with my NVG's I can see that there is a security perimeter around us made up of PMC'S. We shoot, zero, then rally back up to hear what the plan is. we are to provide personal security for a team of contractors and are to follow any and all direction from contractors unless it's basic combat tactical decisions. We start forming up into squads(12 people) then break down into fire teams (about 4 people) and designate who will stay with the contractor, who will provide external security, and who will be clearing rooms. We then are briefed via rock drills (literally a fucking map made up of rocks and lines in dirt) for which squads will assault at what entry points or defend entry points. We're leaving in platoon size (about 5 squads) and the rest of our normal security detail will provide overwatch with heavy weapons/marksman on the external perimeter once we start to sytematicly clear the village/underlying prison facility. After all that a team of 3 contractors wearing those pressurized suits that push air outward when it rips join my fireteam. i want to say they had dupont logos on the suit itself but idr. we start to move toward our objective. The patrol there goes smoothly and we setup a perimeter and recon the area. Only a few buildings are still smoldering the fire itself had gone out during all the B.S. of just gearing up. a majority of the village is intact, there are also bodies strewn about but with the gas masks and only Night vision it's hard to make out if they are insurgents or the guys we normally relieved wearing local clothing. Their is a small IR beacon (infared) flashing at the base of one of the larger buildings and wants out team to shift to cover/clear that building. Plans are adjusted and the assault begins. it is damn near impossible to move with all mopp suit on. that combined with sweat pooling in my mask and low visibility is making something relatively complicated in itself even more difficult. fireteams make progress to their respective areas, are building is on the opposite side of the town so it takes us a minute to get there. we bound and take positions making it even more tedious as we move. i'm running to take up the next position and each shit into the ground landing on top of a body. the face is caved in and the gore gets all over my mask and suit. i notice he is armed with an m4 meaning he is american military and there are shell casings and magazines strewn about his body. my guess is i tlost footing when my foot hit the shell casings and like marbles they made me slide and lose balance. The guy behind me bounds up and drags me up by my assault pack back up to my feet and we continue. small arms fire is going off sporadically but in controlled bursts meaning that other teams are running into opposition but handling the situation. we arrive and stack up on our building and wait for the last team to get in place and set off two flashbangs to signal for all the building clearing teams to start. Im covering my area of responsibility but can barely see shit with the sweat stinging my eyes and my inability to wipe it away because of the gas mask. the gunfire has quelled and the flash bangs echo throughout the village to signal the rest of us. im first in as leadman in my fireteam. im having trouble seeing in the darkness and the fucking mask is making it worse. i swing my weapon up and clear my area of responsibility. The rest of the fireteam follows. first room clear so i stack back up on the next door and wait to feel the pat on my back to assault the next room. my eyes are stinging at this point and i really cant see shit. all im hoping is some prick doesn't get the drop on me and i get lit up. feel the slap on my gear, shove open door. I swing right and see a silhouette in the corner. he first cowers away from the light coming from my surefire flashlight then rebounds. i cant see if he has a weapon or not but he starts to run toward me. reach to squeeze the trigger but the rubber from my mopp gloves is caught on the trigger guard, something so simple and quickly taken care of becomes an action long enough to get me killed. two shots go off and my ears are ringing, the third man in saw the threat and neutralized it. We start to stack on the next door after securing the assailant with flexi cuffs. Contractor comes in and tells us to standby. walks over and starts fucking with the dead body, wtfisthisniggadoing.jpeg. starts swabbing the mouth with qtips and prodding the body with other instruments, i cant really focus on what he is doing as im responsible not to get us killed if someone comes through the next door. the other two technicians come in and start consorting with the contractor. The head guy walks over to my fireteam leader and tells us to stop clearing immediately and standby. contractor gets on his radio and starts relaying a message to his people. sitting there waiting, letting whomever is waiting for us to get into position cause they know were there now, and every minute wasted is a minute for them to prepare for our entry, i'm getting antsy thinking about it and want to keep moving but cant until im told. contractors radio goes back off and he mumbles something into it then addresses my fireteam leader. we are told that anyone inside the facility is to be considered hostile and dont try to identify weapons just shoot. umokherecomewarcrimestribunal.mp4 contractor tells us to continue. Get to door, feel slap, rush in, room clear. this is the deepest into the building any of has ever been. there is one last door with a keypad and badge reader. there is a dead guard in the corner with boils on his exposed skin/black blood pooled around him and his clothing soaked through his clothes. The contractor follows us in when we secure the body. he repeats the process again but doesnt call it in again. we wait in the room for a minute and wait for other fireteams to finish their way up to their respective entrances. waiting...waiting.. then one of our guys asks the contractor if we're suppose to shoot other american personnel. hmmm, what a dumb question i think, but then this prick looks at us and says, "yes. anyone in this facility regardless of affiliation." WHAT THE FUCK, i cant even believe im hearing this shit. had it been our rotation instead of those guards then the higher ups would of just had us offed too? with the downtime im starting to connect the dots. something bilogical was in this place and now they are worried it will get out. my heart starts to race, i have blood on me, im wearing a shitty mopp ensemble from some lowest bidder government contractor probably had made in fucking puerto rico. im starting to shake a little bit, my gas mask is starting to pulse on my face from the deep breaths im taking. i'm starting to freak out, "how well did my buddy checks really check this fucking thing to make sure im sealed up right?" i ask the contractor if im safe inside my mopp gear, he responds yes nonchalantly. i yell at him that he has a fucking suit that looks its out of the movie outbreak and thats easy for him to say. My leader tellls me to chill the fuck out. i proceed to chill the fuck out, sort of. radio goes back off, other teams are ready. contractor walks up to door and takes out restricted area badge, swipes it, then enters his pin. door hisses loudly and retracts backwards with a hydraulic whir. enter next room, sterile, one way glass to my right, little corridor not really a room. shove muzzle into one way glass to break it in case someone is going to light me up from the other side. muzzle makes contact and the solid glass doesnt even wobble, the shock hurts my wrist, continue toward end of corridor, another key pad. Contractor does his thing. we assault into a long hallway with rooms on either side. fucking room clearing nightmare. contractor assures us all these doors are secure and walks ahead of us to a specific door. i can hear movement and voices inside the rooms, realize they are where the detainees are kept in cells. contractor talks to leader, contractor wants us to force cell extract the prisoner. we dont have any riot gear to do this, have to do it anyway. Stack up on door and he inputs a code to open it, door unlocks, rush in. my first step in i slip and am shoved forward by my teammates pfor the extraction, im knocked out briefly, wake up back outside cell. im covered in blood and teammate is wiping blood off my face shield, contractor is hovering over me and asks me to check the seal on my mask to make sure it didnt tear. seal is fine, doesnt even ask if im alright, walks away talks to Sgt. look inside cell, covered in blood and vomit, detainee dead in the corner. overhear contractor address one of the techs, tells them to stay out of the cell and that he was hoping we'd find him here and wouldnt have to go another block of the facility. Restart assault, and get to end of cell block, another key pad, inputs code and we go in. the room is round with a guard shack in the center of the circle room, cells align the entire room with another keypad door at the end. some of the cells are unsecure with doors open. vomit, blood, shit line the walls and floor. gate shack is one way glass, cant see inside. hear beeping from inside, american steps out. none of us have the balls to kill him. i recognize him, one of the guys i normally relieve but he is down here? he starts to bable, he doesnt recognize who we are behind the protective suits. sees contractor shuts up immediately. Contractor is waiting for us to react, im waiting for us to react, no one reacts, i lower my muzzle and look to sgt for guidance, he just nods his head no. contractor asks to speak with sgt and two other techs, take opportunity to ask guard what happened, tell hiim my name, he remembers me from doing changeover. relays that four days ago "five of those fuckers came up and told us there was a riot going on that the guards inside were being overwhelmed by. said that we didnt need suits like them that it was a precaution. they lied, we need to get out of here man." looking into his eyes notice they are bloodshot, his skin is yellow, gums pale, and he keeps rubbing his stomach. One of my guys starts talking to him, he turns around to face him, the back of his pants are covered in black shit, as in fecal matter matting and hardening. he passes a long winded gas but doesnt even break stride talking to the other guy. pauses looks at the ceiling abruptly, snaps his head back forward and vomits all over the guy he was speaking with. he starts to talk again like nothing happened. Arguing starts to get louder behind me between contractor and Sgt. start to step back a ltitle bit. shit pants guard starts telling vomit guard to take of his mask so he can see his face, vomit guard is freaking out trying to clean his face shield while crouched on one knee. shit pants starts stepping closer to his crouched body and reaching for his mask. what the fuck is he doing? start yelling at him to back up and leave the other guard alone. ignores me, throws up on guard again, still reaching for his mask and they start to scuffle, shit pants is screaming for him to take off his mask so he can see his face. I run up and hit shitpants with the butt of my weapon, he rolls off gets to his knees and continues to shit and vomit himself screaming at vomit guard to take off his mask. Istart wrestling with shit pants and screaming for Sgt to grab flexi cuffs. screams are muffled because of mask, im on top of his chest but he is still is grabbing at my mask trying to rip it off, he is biting the rubber face shield and screaming at me inbetween, start freaking out. rubber overboat kicks him in the temple, black blood starts coming from his ears, he starts struggling more but Sgt saw us fighting and ran over, now he is flipping him over and gets the cuffs on him. He keeps squirming around, see the cuffs digging into his skin. vomit guard runs up and we drag shit pants into an open cell and slide him in and shut the door. we and our gear are all covered in vomit, shit, and blood. contractor says nothing to us but stares, we all nod in acknowledgement. Shit pants is still screaming tumbling around in the cell. contractor has all of us come to him and the techs, says bluntly, "if you want to get out of here you need to listen to us. we have a ways to go and i want to stay alive." then walk off to the next keypad door. Sgt yells for us to stack up. stack up, feel slap, assault room. five people mulling around in center and look surpised when we enter, i fire and so does everyone else. its a security station, monitors, intercom system etc. secure bodies with flexi cuffs. Sgt walks to camera monitor and consults me. says we can bypass a lot of shit if contractor tells us where we are going. agree, call over contractor, he agrees and looks over the monitors, points to facility clinic and says we need to go there so they can do their job and we can all leave. Facility is much bigger than expected. contractor tells us first rooms we passed are just holding areas for new prisoners to be sorted. emergency exit map in security room, start to plan assault, place is built like a giant square with several hallways connecting rooms all the way to the center that makes up the largest cell block and aid station. run rock drills using miscellaneous office supplies. get confident we know somewhat where we are going. start to assault the facility again, get lucky through most of it, but traces of running gun fights are evident throughout. bloated corpses are in some of the security substations and we are out of flexi cuffs. Begin using sidearms to ensure they will not pose a threat. get to a three tier block, decide that we will just assault through as quickly as possible to the other side and try not to avoid getting bogged down. open door and start beeline , there is a security station in the center, running toward it to get past and gtfo out of that place, door swings open and prisoner with m4 steps at and starts firing at us, america steps out next and takes up a position of cover and starts firing, hit prisoner standing out in open, keep up suppressing fire on guard while my teammate runs down the opposite side to flank him. Tags guard we all rush up to clear the security room, its empty, guard is still alive, tells us they saw what we did to the other guard station and the prisoners and guards that are still alive are armed and waiting for us. Sgt shoots him. there are only four of us that have a shaky understanding of the facilities layout, makes me nervous. no time to talk run across cell block to other door to next room. continue through several more rooms. careful at each substation but havent run into anyone else. make it to clinic, secure it then set up defensive position near entrance to protect contractors while they did whatever they were doing. They finish up and come out with a flexi cuffed prisoner. im getting more anxiety over this situation. now we have to tote around four people while fighting a force that knows the layout of the structure. prisoner isnt wearing protective clothing but he doesnt look sick either. start to understand why they need him. Begin assault through building, have to cover new territory as it the shortest point to one of the exits that is an entrance that leads to another facility where we can link up with a fireteam from our original assault force on the surface. start running through rooms trying to be be cautious but trying to gtfo as quickly as possible. run into what looks like an ambush, the three who set it up are barricade behind random furniture and bodies litter the kill zone. start running through the bodies tryin gto keep weapon level with barricades. gest to the point where im running on top of bodies. Reach barricade, all dead, still have weapons, looks like they succumbed to whatever everyone is sick with. vomit, shit, black blood, something new with these guys they look like their abdomens tore open from the pressure of the fluids inside of them, the organs are black, some it the fluid is a deep yellow. keep running. getting tired, getting complacent, overheating, dehydrating, nothing we can do but keep running. Sgt is lagging behind us, we cover more ground and he stops and takes off his mask and throws up. I look at the contractor and he just nods his head. his skin is yellowing aggressive looking boils on his cheeks has that same deep red tint to his eyes. pulls m9, kills himself before we can even say anything. no time, start running forward again hoping to make it to that door. We have three more rooms to cover. contractor calls me back and tells me to stop. i know where this is going so i put the m4 on him and tell him i kill both of us before i let him waltz out without me and my guys. tells me not to worry and says we need to deviate slightly to decontamination rooms. too tired to care and he leads the way. get to rooms and they spray the gore off the suits, sitting, waiting, for remnants of the original prisoners and guard force to kill me while i just stand there like an asshole while this thing sprays a bunch of shit on me. Nothing happens and we all rendezvous in what he called a clean room to wait on my other three guys to get done with their decon process. start to put gear back on and not paying attention. gunshots ring out in rapid succession. contractor has killed the other two techs and has gun on me. tells me he can get me out of there but i need to protect him when we get to the surface. agree to it. he shuts off the decon and locks my guys inside to die. Has me put on one of the techs suits instead of my original gear. takes me not to the door we fought to get to but to an elevator. nothing seems real. go on autopilot, and follow him he knows the layout more than he led on in the beginning. e get tot he elevator and he takes us back to the original mock up village that hid all this shit. rendezvous with my original security element hoping they dont recognize me through the face mask. helo lands and takes us across border to ali al salem air base in kuwait. im smuggled out of the country and back into the united states. Contractor kept his word and ive kept mine. if i gave you my real name it would say i died in a mortar attack in late 2007 in southern iraq outside of um qasr. ill leave you with this, a clue: J376 Not kill. It'd be difficult for anyone to find us. Its a network of people within several agencies keeping us alive. I will say I've tracked people from our old security teams and most are dead with an increasingly high number dead in iraq in places we never were. Others have obituaries from accidents stateside that would have happened during the time we were deployed. I've seen others make it home but its not the same person, some are white others Asian, our original security details were specifically chosen for looking like locals so this makes no sense. I've tried to contract families of those I was close with and it seems like they are just gone. Anon: Why did the contractor care if guard got out alive? He wasted everyone else, wouldn't leaving one alive just be a liability? OP: Needed for personal security to still get out. I needed him to get out as well.i dont think i was chosen specifically, i just happened to be the first out of decon. None of the other fireteams that went into the underground facilities ever came back out. None of the contractor's with those teams did either. My personal belief is we found what they needed and everyone was else was killed even if they made it out. Once we all geared up and armed up there is no way he could have pulled off killing all of us. He still needed someone with combat training to get him to the elevator as well. I still work for him as security, take him places, sit outside the lab while he works but mostly I'm just around now. Anon: What does he work on in the lab?? More importantly what was going on in there? Were you ever debriefed by your S shops? OP: According to the military I died in a mortar attack in late 2007. I'm not sure of specifics but liquor and a sense of loyalty usually loosens his lips and drops hints or giant pieces of information regarding the project. I'm not sure why I haven't been killed off. I'm not the only one in his security detail. Most of us have met him through our military service and we owe him our lives. I dint think I have much time anymore anyway. The project is wrapping up and I think the contractor even knows we're all going to be killed in the end game.
The following is an xpost. It has been reposted on other forums (a, b) with the original here. I have compiled the original post and the authors replies below. I am curious to hear Agorians thoughts on it. First, a few invites: @WKYK @Taleisin @Jackal @dorgon @CycFL @Sketch Relics @insomniac @InsufferableCynic @I-330 @wearyinternettraveler @Dr. MacGutsy @Regal @AnHero @UCD @7Pebbles @№56 @Another Name @Punp If you stand back and look at the shape of the world in the past twenty years, nothing really makes any sense at all. Killing nearly a million people in Iraq seems like disproportionate retribution for the few thousand who died on 9/11. Afghanistan was always a lost cause. Libya and Syria were doing fine before we started color revolutions there and then bombed them. And always, the endless refugee crisis, where nobody seems to ask where these people came from or why they'd flee their home countries for Europe. We've been through two massive recessions, and Big Finance has won both of them. Millions of people in the younger generation in the US and other wealthy Western countries possess a tiny fraction of their nations' respective wealth and have delayed many life milestones, like buying a house or starting a family. Instead, they sit at their parents' home, indulging in empty pleasures for a hefty subscription fee. We are told that our vacations are destroying the environment, while, at the same time, our economy is totally reliant on international shipping in container ships that each produce millions of commuter vehicles' worth of pollution. As always, the political debate never seems to relate to any of these things at all. The media and the pundits have become a "psychobabble engine", the sole purpose of which is to stoke racial and gender-based divisions and keep working-class people squabbling over irrelevancies, intentionally overshadowing matters of class struggle and foreign policy. Why is this happening? It's happening because the ruling class are implementing a technocratic society. I could just leave it at that, but I think this requires further elaboration. The ruling class believe the following things: The Earth is grossly overpopulated, well past its carrying capacity, and any further additions to the population, especially in first-world countries where people's per-capita carbon footprint is larger, would be catastrophic for the environment. Absolute population growth isn't the metric they're going by. Environmental impact per capita is. The Elites don't care about one additional human if that person lives in a shanty and eats bushmeat. They do care if that person rides in a Chevy Suburban to the local Olive Garden and gorges themselves on the Never Ending Pasta Bowl. We are on track to experience complete agricultural collapse by the end of the century, with arable land, phosphorus, and fresh water supplies being totally depleted, and drought and desertification taking their place. Automation will make billions of people basically obsolete (Ex: Indian callcenters & helpdesk being replaced by LLM's), anyway, threatening to unravel the social fabric completely. We are on the verge of various populist uprisings throughout the world. They are caught in a bind. They are totally dependent upon GDP growth to maintain their power, and yet, they are predicting a collapse and reversal into degrowth, with the inevitable result of mass social unrest, revolution, et cetera. So, what is their plan? Massively erode labor power. After all, in an oligarchy, money is power, and making sure all of it flows uphill is a good way to make sure that the legislature always answers to the needs of the rich before anyone else. Get rid of full-time employment and replace it with temp jobs; contract labor, gigs, for-hire work, et cetera. Keep people hungry and desperate. De-politicize the economy. Take it completely out of the hands of the politicians and place control of the economy in the hands of a select few elite economists, with the aim of establishing economic multilateralism; overachievers are punished, and poor nations get foreign aid and preferential loans. Aim for making a "Global Brazil". Destroy the middle class, destroy racial and national affiliations and replace them with a "universal consumer-serf" whose only loyalty is to brand name goods. Pull up the ladder. Create a permanent caste system with no mobility between castes. If someone is born a serf, they will always be a serf. Buy up all agricultural land and take over stewardship of it, forcing the rural population into cities. Replace private property ownership with servitization, such that people continuously pay a fee to rent things that they previously would have owned in perpetuity, with the general aim of collecting revenue multiple times from the same unit of production. Massively curtail civil liberties across the board. Implement mass surveillance and a social credit system tied to an implanted ID. Make all money 100% cashless, digital, blockchain-based and centrally controlled, with an automated system that examines the factors of production and limits what it can be spent on accordingly. Control how much people are allowed to travel, how many children they're allowed to have, ration their access to specific goods by giving them monthly quotas for resource-intensive things like hailing a driverless cab or buying meat. Eventually, mind control. Particularly the kind that can be used to suppress feelings of discontent that could lead to unrest, by creating in people a sense of artificial satiety, similar to antidepressant drugs but much more powerful (like Soma from Brave New World). View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0yJe_yY6uo View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAL2JZxpoGY Did you notice something, there? None of that had anything to do with race or gender politics. Not a goddamn thing. Basically, discussion of technocracy has been shoved outside the Overton Window. It's not a part of common political discourse at all. In fact, most political discourse today is cooked up as a distraction to keep people from talking about the rise of technocracy as a sociopolitical movement and program advanced by the Elite. People unwittingly contribute to the rise of technocracy with every little thing we do. Your Netflix and Hulu subscriptions? Your Amazon Prime purchases? That's a donation to the technocracy. Modern tech companies create the same value as traditional companies while employing orders of magnitude fewer people. Every time you solicit a tech company for some service or another, you are not putting money in the pockets of laborers. You are giving it to the oligarchs. What will the world of tomorrow look like? Simple. You get up out of bed, in your 50 square foot prison cell of an apartment with a communal kitchen, where you cannot possibly start a family. You drink a Soylent, put on your VR helmet, and now, you're at work. Your boss has decided that the office should look like Laputa from Laputa: Castle in the Sky, thanks to a cross-promotion with Studio Ghibli, but it's basically just a cheesy next-gen Second Life where you sit around and get eyestrain. All the services between work and home have been eliminated. There are no more restaurants, no more bookstores, no more gas stations, no more dry cleaners, and no more daycares. If you need something, a drone will drop it off on a balcony, or wheel it to your front door, but we'd much rather you indulge in some Meta Digital Goods® and help save the environment. There, see, was that so hard? You just spent fifty NWO Credits from your monthly allowance to buy a fake chair for your fake 3500-square-foot home in your fake-o-vision goggles. The only people who are actually allowed to own things are an Elite who have left humanity behind, living in islands of insulated opulence that you could not possibly dream of. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/graphics/see-sustainable-future-city-designed-for-people-and-nature https://www.urbanvillageproject.com/ People used to live in smaller, more closely-knit, more meaningful communities than they do today. If isolation is harmful for health, then so is social overload. No one can be friends with a thousand people at once. It's not possible. Super-high-density urban living is a monstrosity. The thing about modern economies is that they're actually vicious cycles of planned obsolescence and conspicuous consumption. The point of the iPhone 13 is to make you feel bad for "only" having an iPhone 12. The corporate fight against the right-to-repair is, really, a fight to maintain planned obsolescence. Much of the economic growth of the past century has been a result of corporate cartels basically selling us the same things over and over and over again. Case in point, the Phoebus cartel and lightbulb manufacturers agreeing to limit the lifespan of their bulbs. This wasted people's labor and created a lot of unnecessary trash, but it made lots of profit. Likewise, our electronic device consumption habits create tons and tons of E-waste. What is the neoliberal technocracy's solution to this problem? If the WEF and Klaus Schwab's words are anything to go by, it's servitization. In other words, the abolition of private property and its replacement with leasing goods from corporations that own all property. That way, corporations are assured continuous revenue streams for their rent-seeking behavior, without despoiling the environment as much, and people still get to enjoy the utility of having things, temporarily, on an on-demand basis. Or so they say. In reality, this would be used by the Overlords to limit people's access to specific goods and services according to environmental quotas, ushering in tyranny the likes of which we've never seen before. Economists and think tanks keep warning of impending ecological and agricultural collapse, and are chiding people for their consumption habits, even as the managerial elite desperately and paradoxically prod people into consuming so that the overclass can continue profiting at the expense of all of us. What gives? I'll tell you what gives. What we are witnessing is a consolidation of power away from labor and towards capital like never before, which will result, quite literally, in the future from Neill Blomkamp's Elysium becoming reality. The rich will live in walled gardens of insane opulence, while you and I will live in the factory-slums of Hellhole Zone 69. That's what neo-feudalism ultimately means. The middle class destroyed. All mobility from the lower classes to the upper, eradicated. Hereditary wealth and hereditary power from now till the end of time. That's what the elites are currently striving for. They don't want democracy. Maintaining its illusion isn't useful to them anymore. Our most advanced technologies are being used by the overclass and their professional-managerial class underlings in a manner that is deliberately alienating, invades our privacy, and reduces every aspect of human existence to a commodity. China's social credit system was just a pilot program. The overclass want that sort of tracking of our habits to be universal. They want to take anyone who refuses the managerial state's overreach into their personal lives and brand us as outcasts and lepers, incapable of accessing credit, accessing our bank accounts, flying internationally, et cetera. Since just about every sane person on this planet would refuse such measures if they were imposed out of the blue, they're using the pretense of a global public health emergency to implement a radical, top-down political, social, and economic transformation of our societies that we neither voted for nor consented to. Technocracy goes hand-in-hand with transhumanism. Here's how: Imagine a society of beings who never get depressed, never overeat, have universally high IQ but never use it for mischief, are healthy and productive all the time, are always obedient to authority, and are physically and mentally incapable of crime, violent or otherwise. Sound absurd? Industrial society requires this person in order to survive. It will die without them. Why? Because. Maintaining growth with a reduced population means each person's contribution to the GDP must necessarily be increased many-fold. Millions of people are falling behind. They've been replaced. They're superfluous. Supernumerary bodies. Excess meat. An 80 IQ laborer who is predisposed to substance abuse and violence has literally no place in a world with robot arms doing most of the manufacturing and AIs pumping out artifacts of culture, and honestly, neither do most of us. We are creating a society for perfect, infallible machines, not people, and the human mind and body are in no way capable of catching up. Shift work and hour-long commutes literally destroy your brain. People are expected to chug fistfuls of pills - Ibuprofen, Tylenol, Xanax, Zoloft, and maybe a caffeine pill or two - just to get through a day. The way democracy is supposed to work, people research the candidates they wish to see elected, and then, based on one's own knowledge of civics and public policy, they make an educated decision to vote for those specific candidates, but thats not the way democracy has worked in the past thirty years in America. Instead, what we get is a popularity contest between candidates who are not functionally any different from each other. No matter who is elected, the Permanent State always starts a war or two. In fact, the biggest difference between Trump and his forebears is that Trump at least made certain that the US military stopped unjustly bombing brown people, which really flies in the face of attempts to cast him as an awful racist. In any case, the only reason why the illusion of democracy is maintained is as a relief valve for social tensions. People get to enjoy the notion of "their guy" occupying a seat for a while, and nothing actually changes. Infrastructure continues to crumble, pork-barrel bills continue to be drafted and budgets continue to find their way into the hands of useless fat cats, pointless wars continue to be waged, and intelligence agencies continue to commit ghastly crimes against undeserving people. Democracy is dead and has been for decades. Environmentalism is just a ruse. They need us and our polluting ways to keep the numbers on Wall Street going up, and they would much rather that our luxuries be destroyed before their profits are. It's a catch-22, though, because our luxuries are their profits. So, what they're trying to do is decoupling economic growth on paper from traditional consumption. This is what they mean by the "Great Reset" and how you'll "own nothing and be happy". What they mean by that is that they want to take one unit of production and sell it to multiple people, one after another. Instead of owning a car, you Uber a driverless car. Instead of owning a bicycle, you rent a Lime Bike. Instead of owning a carpet cleaner, you rent a Rug Doctor. It's exactly the same as the shift in software licensing from one-off sales to subscription models in the past couple decades, like from Photoshop to Creative Suite, or from Office to Office 365, only applied to literally all consumer goods. They don't want you to own things anymore, because that's too costly for the environment. They want you to subscribe to things that are all owned by one or two giant holding companies. That way, the overclass get to continue profiting off your labor at the same rate while fewer goods in total are produced. https://yandex.com/video/preview/7627089319730079306 View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TJHhf8URB8 Our economy favors absentee owners. They don't need managerial expertise; they hire it. And because they don't understand the businesses they operate, they don't see why those businesses are useful to society and feel absolutely nothing when they liquidate them. There is no loyalty and no commitment. When a private equity firm buys up a steel mill or a factory, fires all the workers and denies their pensions, sells off all the equipment, and then uses the proceeds from that to buy up and liquidate even more companies, what it looks like on paper is a company profiting immensely and providing value to their investors. What it actually signifies in practice is the denial of easy access to those goods in the local market, and the destruction of many livelihoods. What the managerial state manages is the controlled liquidation of entire societies. For every productive industry that is preyed upon by Big Finance and hollowed out, some edifice of welfare temporarily takes its place, to placate the working class. It is very much like a parasitic worm slowly burrowing into a brain and leaving behind nothing but feces. Politicians don't represent the people but represent financial interests. What you think of as the "government" doesn't really have any power. The purpose of politicians is to give people the illusion that voting matters. All matters of real import are decided by the Trumanites, networks of bureaucrats, civil servants, contractors, and intelligence agencies who form the basis of the Permanent State, and who have always answered exclusively to the oligarchs. The Shadow Government is actually not nearly as hidden as people believe. They're right in front of your face. They're Halliburton and Booz Allen Hamilton. They're hundreds of different private intelligence and consultancy firms who serve the bureaucrats and the intelligence community. https://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/shadow-government-and-the-eclipse-of-democracy Our modern economy favors a complexity that suggests everything should become a service, like two sheep-herders learn to trade one's better butchering for the other's nail-making until labor specialization stops either from producing sheep assuming there will always be more sheep-herders. The problem today is financial costs-to-entry and usurers creating the possibility for every sheep-herder to dream of quitting, taking loans out to secure alternate work, and then discovering there are no sheep-herders because everyone stopped and everyone is in debt. We promote easy money, but the cost of everyone getting a loan for just about anything is that the cost of things becomes a pure abstraction once everyone is allowed to go into however much debt they think is reasonable to purchase things. How much of our society is making an actually rational decision to take 10,000/100,000/1,000,000 dollars for a business or a home? If it is 100% rational then there would be no failed businesses, but if it is <100% rational and someone idiotic decision-making then the market is affected by people raising the cost of things by taking higher and higher offers only to fail and default. It promotes risk-takers who leap anyway into a system they could not hope to understand, rewarding enough of a fraction to keep the game looking fair, and then the bankers pocket the interest as a casino would. The house always wins, and the casinoification of the economy promotes the same "High-Roller" mentality. There is no loyalty and no commitment in such a system anymore than during an economic policy of communism. It rewards blind obedience and the lucky, by explaining it away as a positive moral or two. Become ungovernable. The Taliban and the Viet Cong are the only models to break away from the West and form something new. We are either occupied, or not. If we are not then we should adopt moderate tactics because they are listening. However if the Powers That Be are not listening then we are an occupied people surveilled and managed like cattle on a farm, and we should break away from the farm or stop the farm. The first step is to recognize who holds the levers of power, and how they maintain that power, and help others recognize it as well. The elite thrive on the invisibility of their machinations, and the managerial state does not like being exposed or questioned. They consider us rabble, unqualified to critique them; only other members of the credentialed gentry can do that. See how it reinforces itself? See how totalizing it is? According to the Clerisy, you aren't even eligible to call them out unless you first join their ranks. To say anything meaningful about the professional-managerial class, you must first have a university education, and then a degree, and whoops, now you're part of the professional-managerial class and obliged to defend its interests against those poor, stupid, populist rabble-rousers. People now write whole books about things that I theorized nearly a decade ago. The problem with the prosperity gospel is the Whig History-derived assumption that history is always trending towards something better. That we are on a trajectory out of a benighted and ignorant past and towards a caring and kind and gentle future. A lot of people in the professional-managerial class do not realize that the ultra-wealthy are using them as a stepping-stone towards restoring, essentially, the class arrangements of the Middle Ages, with a lower class roped into indentured servitude and a clerical class convincing them of the divine authority of the ruling class. In 2020, $4 trillion dollars were transferred out of the hands of the working class and into the hands of the billionaires. https://www.businessinsider.com/bil...e-grown-to-4-trillion-during-pandemic-2020-12 What are they going to do with all this money, other than restructure society into a funnel that taps all our productive energies like a maple tree being tapped for syrup? What the elites value is not the same thing as what the rest of us value, and their vision for the future is not the same as ours. However, they have obtained great power and political clout by pretending to believe watered-down versions of the same things we do. So, what is the message of the Elites to the lower classes? If you want power, then pretend. Manufacture a fake identity for yourself that will curry favor with the ignorant. Be an actor. That is the message. That's how the biggest robber-barons and extractors in all of human history have recast themselves in the popular consciousness as philanthropists. They donate millions, even billions of dollars to charities and NGOs that serve only to replicate their values. https://theconversation.com/what-the-25-billion-the-biggest-us-donors-gave-in-2020-says-about-high-dollar-charity-today-154466 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijmr.12247 How do they ensure compliance? Simple. By making sure that the credentialed managers underneath them experience an almost religious sense of rapturous joy at conforming to the values of the overclass; by making non-compliance result in shunning, emotional insecurity, et cetera. The ultra-rich use tribalism like a weapon. Why do you think they push identity politics so hard? Why do you think the rich push LGBT, wokeism, et cetera? It's because it divides the working class and isn't threatening to them or their bottom line. https://news.nike.com/news/nike-commitment-to-black-community Nike supports Black Lives Matter, but their shoes are still sewn together by little kids in Vietnam making pennies on the dollar. Imagine holding these companies' feet to the fire. Imagine telling them to employ people in America, including black men, and give them a living wage (by American standards) to make their damn shoes. They would abandon their fake virtue at the drop of a hat. Absurdly reinforcing the sanctity of human life costs Nike nothing and it makes us squabble amongst ourselves for scraps. That's why they do it.
Nikocado Manifesto This is a compilation of anonymous Kiwi Farms testimonies after accepting the truth and power of Nick Perry, enjoy View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3NsBA_vvN8 View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua1v7w9m0Uo To the uninitiated, Nik is a mentally ill weirdo killing himself for views. To the ones who know, he is an economic genius pulling the strings of drama, and at a larger part, culture itself. He is fat and gay and I would would WOULD have sex with him (for money). I've doubted it but now I'm Nikpilled. "It's not that deep, y'all. For the 9 millionth time. There's nothing to dissect or figure out." statement like these are complete bullshit and here's why: That's the strangest thing about the Avocado, on the surface people will hate him, but once you take the Nikpill, you inevitably become a part of the NIDF. He's still lulzworthy, but you find yourself defending him more than anything. Unless he does something depraved, (which i doubt because he's proven to me he's a professional), i'm just going to continue to see through his obese lens and be a supporter of this exceptional plus sized model. The advantage to Nick is that he's pretty much playing a character for his fetish content while combining that with starting drama since Nick knows how much drama can generate views and he openly acts like a dick. The people who actually made a video or so on Nick specifically and didn't come off as a tard are people who are aware Nick is doing whatever and not pretending to care about him like Charlie did (who has the worst takes on Nick). Like the pretending to care about crap only ever is forgivable if you have no idea who Nick is but people who act like they know Nick and do that song and dance are the worst. Nick is perfectly justified in calling them out (especially in the comments), as they don't know him and act like pretentious morons who are virtual signaling to a man who openly acts like a fat clown online on purpose. On the greatest entertainer angle I have for Nikocado, PT Barnum once said "clowns are the pegs on which the circus is hung"; Nikocado knows the entire show hangs on him, and how he interacts with other youtubers in their spheres. It does come off as a never ending grift, but there's the professionalism again wherein Avocado doesn't take any of this personally at all. I have never legitimately seen a real breakdown video of him or seen him break character once, even if ironically. and anyone arguing with Nik is only arguing with a character of a character performer. It's like being upset at Devine for being disgusting, but Devine doesn't really exist, but she does. So where does Nik fit into this? No idea, but he always seems to come out on top. Nikocado cannot stop being based, blasting mumble rap listeners as being stupid and calling the recent travis scott crushing incident as by low iq people. Nikocado has never had a good relationship with himself, food, or his body. And he was never normal. Don't take this as a direct attack. It just seems like every couple of months a new batch of "look at this fat man killing himself for views" videos sweep youtube about Nick and they kind of suck. And then we get comments here from people who don't seem to read the thread. He was never normal. Before youtube he damn near starved himself to death and was incredibly malnourished and sick in a literal vegan cult. And I highly doubt that Nick's only income is youtube. He's (seemingly) smart with money traveling the world before youtube with pennies to his name. I would be incredibly surprised if Nick doesn't have a very versatile portfolio of various incomes and investments. ... And as far as barely nets him minimum wage... Nikocado has a net worth of even the most modest amounts of at least 2 million dollars. And his name recognition/brs insane. If you are into any kinds of "foodie" shit and online you most likely at some point have heard of nikocado. ...Nikocado has been moving the goalpost since he hit 200 pounds. He was gonna stop at 250 He was gonna stop at 275 He was gonna stop at 300 Oh this place gives you free food for being 350, He'll stop after he hits that goal. He's just not going to stop Ok he'll stop at age 30. Cope? People think that Nick is hyper self aware. And I agree. He is.... to a point. He's also more batshit insane (or simply shortsighted) than what he believes. He's stated on numerous occasions that when he hits the magical age of 30, he'll undergo a radical shift in character and become a weight loss success. But all this shit about "I'm playing a character. I'm actually in control. This isn't real." are actual copes he's telling himself to deal with his reality. It's almost dissociative. If he can larp he's a character he doesn't have to believe he's really what we all see him to be. I don't know. It's an interesting look into psychology. But all the "Nick is actually self aware he's playing a character" is becoming WAY too common. Because what difference does it make? When you larp as a thing long enough it doesn't matter if there's a man behind the mask. You became the mask. Or in Nick's case - still eating 10 million calories a day. His ironic self-awareness transcended mere shitposting into a self-fulfilling downward spiral that can easily overtake and - ironically enough - devour his life, should he continue his current trajectory without precautions. It's an oversimplified, smoothbrain take that he was malnourished and miserable as a vegan, yet still didn't find himself attractive, and now he's malnourished, obese and miserable, but now he's suddenly F⋆A⋆M⋆O⋆U⋆S. It's impressive how he maximizes the drama with anyone who comes along for a bite (this week, it's CR1T1K4L) and gains fans out of it. Just like the algorithm: Nik doesn't care if you like it, all he needs is for you to watch. Seethe‽ It's like when Orlin breaks up with him (notice it's break-up and not divorce) and posts that shit on his channel with the recorded mukbangs they hadn't posted. We know it isn't true, we know Orlin's still in the house, and those "unreleased videos" were filmed during their breakup period. "Hey Nick, my channel views are down; let's break up so people will go there." Anyone with an iota of pattern recognition sees that he's diverting money to his similarly obese hubby. Before YouTube, he was killing himself as part of a vegan cult. During YouTube, however, he rose to fame through being a disgusting fatass food junkie. But Nick isn't stupid with money, and he sure as shit ain't workin' for peanuts, either. His reputation, as gross as it is - has incredible brand reorganization that zoomers LOVE. I don't know if you're on tiktok or other zoomer congregation sites, though if you look into his content you'd see that a lot of people gravitate towards his particular brand of gross-out humor. I don't hate him at all, he is my favorite lolcow because he's essentially harmless, entertaining and great meme material. The CR1T1K4L drama made me sub to his patreon to find out what's up behind the camera, and what he's really like. I personally don't get the outrage about his health, he hasn't been fat all that long for it to have lasting damage. Due to his slow weight gain in 2020, it's fair to surmise that Nik has either not completed his meals or has a secret off-camera diet far healthier than the one he portrays. He's 350 lbs right now, compared to 334 in November 2020. Had he ate all the food he bought he would probably be in the 400lbs range by now. From what I gathered from the last few weeks, fupacado loves being "chubby" and wants to stay in the 200lbs range when he is done with mukbangs. He also loves Orlin's "titties" and "fupa". I don't think it's much of a feeder or food fetish thing and more of an attraction thing with gay dudes, apparently he has always been into "bears", or chubby, hairy, homosexual men. He allegedly wants to stop doing Mukbangs at some point, because Orlin has an autoimmune disease and an actual eating disorder and with all the junk food at home, he sometimes binges on the leftover food that isn't good for him and gives him pain, or simply makes him pass out. I just find him a big walking meme. I've always been under the impression that Nik had plans to eventually become the girthiest, most repulsive mukbanger just to spin it into a weight loss story. He's hinted at "losing weight" a couple of times. Now, if he can actually do it is another story. But I think eventually he will attempt to lose weight. But who knows with that fucking retard. I will say, Nick has fucking hustle though. It's not like Amberlynn who buys a chicken at Walmart and eats the leg. That dude churns out content across 20 different fucking platforms on the daily. Nik has good commentary and reflection skills from the 25 minute mark, and I found myself interested in what he had to say about music in general. The first ten-fifteen minutes are throwaway theatrics for the redditors, reaction sphere breadtubers and beauty parlour tourists to keep their hate watching satisfied, but the rest is like i've seen before, and that is a rational, calm and reflective Nikocado. He's really good at doing both too, the raging manbaby and then softly transitioning into a grown man over the course of 5 minutes, single take with no cut. The range is spectacular, his shitposting phenomenal and his actual care regarding the whole king of mukbang video by meatcanyon is obviously fuck all. Because he knows that video is just a drop in an ocean in terms of impact, it only deserves to be milked, and his actual passion - music - is the subject of focus here. Nikocado is - quite simply - a genius. He has the source code of Clown World in the palm of his hand and in fact has integrated it into his very being. He's not materially doing anything different from tens of millions of Americans, he has simply managed to monetize it to the tune of millions of dollars. Shit, let's see YOU try stuffing your face with all manners of disgusting fast food several times a day, for several channels, filming it, and editing it, and tell me it isn't legitimate toil! "Hard work" in this Tik-Tok generation, is basically what this motherfucker is doing. He calls the animator a fatass, and tells him to look at his own flaws first. Nikocado slam dunking his own fatassery, but then goes on to compliment his moustache and seems aroused by him being a big boi after seeing a full body shot of his weight. An absolute chad by any means. In all honesty, Nick is probably a harder worker than most of the zoomer tards on Tik-Tok. Eating takes more effort than just reading some god-awful bullshit from Chomsky. He's still putrid as fuck, but he's completely developed his character into an extremely amusing clown. His reaction time is quick, his wit is sharpening, his over-the-top theatrical bombast is entertaining, he's very self-aware, and as someone said a page or two back, he's not hurting anyone (except himself and his gang of gainers). He's putting on an insane show, he works hard for his money, and he is no dum-dum. He has also, in my opinion, pretty much won any conflict between the three reactors he mentioned: the human Klonopin known as CR1T1K4L, the unwatchable neo-vegan, and even Meat Canyon, even though I quite enjoyed the cartoon. I never got the appeal of other "deathfats" but something about Nikocado is so universal (no pun intended). He unites both Normies and Alogs, Anas and Fatty Wankers, Tea-sipping Twitter dramarinos and Shitposters, Trolls and White Knights. His architectural plans outperform even Brosnan, for he is both the clay and the sculpture. Doesn't excuse the fake crying though it sucks Yes, his asshole looks like an abandoned mine shaft, but thankfully, we don't have to stare at it unless we really want to. And I'm sure there are a couple of people out there who really want to. Orlin and him never broke up, I swear, I am not surprised anymore how easy it is for the media to brainwash people if even Nikocado Avocado manages to make them believe all the shit he does in his mukbangs is real. He held five wedding days, a dozen break ups and a hundred "he cheated on me" videos. People in the comments really thought "Nancy" was in his video even though he called her Karlee several times. Niko's followers know the Orlin breakups are BS, and Niko knows they know that. It doesn't matter as long as they give clicks and comments. I mean, look at Orlin's channel, he barely changes the name of his videos. 8 figure gang as soon as he starts his herculean weight loss epic, no doubt inspiring millions who unfortunately lack his one key to success: an unrelenting work ethic. I'm glad Nick doesn't give a fuck, he knows that if somebody actually cared (his friends, family, ect...) they would talk to him on private. Nick couldn't give less of a shit about strangers on the internet pretending to love him because he knows they're just viewbaiting. You'll never see Nick come on camera and be "serious and thoughtful" to people's concerns who make videos on him. Cause he knows they are fake and clout chasing. And that's also something I really like about him. He never pretended to have a parasocial relationship with ANYBODY online. You'll never catch Nick pretending to take another content creator's love/concern for him as "real". He's a shark. And he knows no matter how much they pretend to love him that other content creators are to never, ever, be trusted, for they too are only looking for views. I respect Nick's savviness to never come on camera with the cliche "it's okay guys, I know you're concerned about me, tysm UwU" tripe. Based Nikocado will always tell you to fuck off or use the material directly to plug his channel. The Greatest Entertainer View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj8a8pO22sw Here is the source WARNING NSFW: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-p1BX10NY3nwjym8xznlCYGSExsZf9-2Qx1J81c2mh4/edit
I have been going down that rabbithole for some time, i just didn't care before. I think i was wrong. First, Liam Vickers, he has a lot of creations. He has some issues around making cute but psycho characters and cringe dialogs. He compensates with the cringe by being self aware of it. He has a lot of animations small unfinished animations but Murder Drones is his biggest soo i will talk about it. It has fukken rowbats and they fight. It isn't finished yet but you can watch the first 3 episodes here. Second one is Vivziepop, she writes equally cringe dialogs but more vulgar. She usually makes soo many sex jokes for me to like her series but she finished one season in one of her shows soo you know she is in for the long game. Similar to Liam i wil write about her biggest animation. Helluva boss is written in the Bible Cinematic Universe, they are a group of demons living in hell and they kill people from earth for hell shekels. It has a lot of sexual, edgy jokes and kinda unique art. First season is finished and they are working on second season, you can watch it here Third one is I Can't Sleep, he does spooky animations. But the art is kinda cute soo it doesn't look scary at all. Here is his channel. I don't have much to talk about him but if i don't write it at least 2 lines lenght it will be bad for the format. The last one is Milennia Thinker, he makes animations that feel like social documentaries. His usage of wojaks is also not good. Here is his channel. I probably don't know a lot of them soo i would like recommendations.
I watched the movie yesterday. I would like to read your opinions about it and maybe clarify some doubts. Watch out for the spoilers.
This post was originally created on 4chan, im not sure which category. The original screencap is attached. Enjoy :BeerTime: Quake 3 bots were designed based off an artificial neural network. They would effectively think based off an abstract neural network that worked and discarding the ones that didn't. They would see which tactics worked and which didn't, ensuring lessons that worked and carrying those on... The longer they played, the more they would learn about your patterns, and this would apply towards other bots as well. For all intents and purposes, they were one of the first learning AI in a game. When I found this out I set up a quake 3 arena server on my pirating server, I set it to have 16 bots face each other over and over to see how good they would get. ... i set he server up 4 years ago, its been running the entire time, i forgot about it u til this thread, I'm gonna go check on them ... Bones 09/26/11(Mon)22:43 No. 1116053850: - my 9800GT feels like losing Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:45 No. 1116056190: Huh, gee, I just checked on them but for some reason all the bots are just standing still. I'm gonna try changing the map (it was cycling through maps automatically but I guess it got stuck or something). Bones 09/26/11(Mon)22:47 No. 1116058590: Cool make sense, I'm not fully buying into this- but if what you said is true, the only winning move logically for them, is not to play. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:48 No. 1116059560: They learnt that the only winning move was not to play. YOUR PRECIOUS AI HAS GONE ON STRIKE, WHAT NOW PUPPET MASTER? Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:50 No. 1116060400: Maybe they have learned that the best technique to survive is to make a peace and to stand there for an eternity, waiting for a purpose or salvation. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:51 No. 1116062590: This. Perhaps they think that a 0:0 KD ratio is better than the statistical inevitability of a 1:1 in all other situations. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:52 No. 1116063660: They know when to fight and run, such as low health or weapons that can't win the situation for them. I just changed the map and they keep standing still. I have a program that tracks player movements on the server and they're literally just standing there. I'm gonna download quake 3 arena and see if they turn back on when I get back on the server. Give me a few minutes. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:52 No. 1116063711: The Ultimate survival strategy developed over 4 years. Nobody dies if nobody kills They achieved something we couldn't l. World peace. Sage 09/26/11(Mon)22:53 No. 1116064160: If they had achieved the point where no tactics were usable against any opponent, they might just. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:55 No. 1116066160: ...bet they all kill you the second you enter, because you threaten their existence. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:56 No. 1116067650: I'm 100% sure that if a human player (even the teammates) would kill the human just because they disturb the peace. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:57 No. 1116068030: I actually really hope those bots kill the dude entering the server, and then go back to being at peace. That would be proof they hit a point where they stopped killing each other. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)22:58 No. 1116068350: hey server guy PLACE A NEW BOT. let's see what will happen to disrupt the peaceful run the balance! force them into a new endless war! Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)23:00 No. 1116071250: don't know how to add new bots. I think I have to delete the log for one of the existing bots. On that note, I should check those after I'm done this. Starting up quake 3 now, will report back in a minute if they kill me. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)23:03 No. 1116075460: Ok, that was pretty fascinating. I joined the server and the bots still just stood there, but the f***ed up thing was they would react to rocket at me. I walked around a bit and they all just kept looking at me. So, I grabbed a rail gun and fragged one of them, they all ran for the nearest weapons, took me down, and the server crashed. ...if I am really now what to say about that. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)23:11 No. 1116081190: Teamingkilling f***** Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)23:19 No. 1116080070: it was a teamless deathmatch server, which made it all the weirder when they didn't attack each other and went straight for me." Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)23:17 No. 1116080063: Reload backup and see what happens. I'm willing to bet the bots memories were erased and if you load it back up they will be back to their normal selves. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)23:19 No. 1116086330: ...Oh god, I just checked the AI logs. Each bot has a separate .dat file... Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)23:22 No. 1116091060: ...want to believe, show me proof. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)23:40 No. 1116106160: ...Sorry, my server machine is acting slow as f*** right now, took me forever to get to this screen. Anonymous 09/26/11(Mon)23:47 No. 1116110900: They're not just lines of code; they're tactical logs based on what has worked and what hasn't worked in battle. For all intents and purposes they're memories. Man, 512 MB PER BOT, 16 bots, it's 8 GB of information. The semi-sentient f****** should be glad I haven't decided to delete them for taking up space on my hard drive.
Welcome to this weird thread concept I've come up with where the goal is to share websites found across The Personal Web. I'd say the goal is to shine a light / send some love to individuals who, being on this more authentic, small side of the Internet, maybe haven't gotten it and you feel they should or I don't know. Maybe my first attempt here can kinda set the vibe? Pictured here, the average Personal Web denizen: Today I came across the following blog post: https://modem.io/blog/blog-monetization I consider it quite the beautiful labor of love and cannot recommend strongly enough that you check it out for yourself. It legit moved me, yo. Naturally, after experiencing this art-piece, I wanted to reach out and praise the author. I looked across the website but it seemed the webmaster was rather modest with regard to communication. Only linking to their SoundCloud and Github. I then noticed they only had a sparse number of other posts, so naturally I began with the first: https://modem.io/blog/steve-exe/ It turned out homie was not just a skilled webmaster but a game developer as well? The game-play in the post seemed very interesting so I wanted to see more and ended up finding the following: A full playlist with all 4 parts seemingly running through the entirety of the game is linked here. Again, I encourage watching as the game itself is short but quite interesting in a number of different ways... I returned to the blog to discover the oddness was not over with posts like: https://modem.io/blog/scrollbars/ Between the posts with passion for audio, music, and webdev it would seem our webmaster here is an artist more than worthy of a little flattery.
This is a piece sent to me by a friend, and which I found surprisingly interesting, a blogpost from 2014 by a Scott Alexander. It presents an idea that in discourse which is to do with groups or 'ideologies', a sort of stalemate can occur which prevents the proper expression of the case of some group, or side, or whatever. I'm interested in the ideas of Agora users on this piece nearly a decade after it was written. I. There was an argument on Tumblr which, like so many arguments on Tumblr, was terrible. I will rephrase it just a little to make a point. Alice said something along the lines of "I hate people who frivolously diagnose themselves with autism without knowing anything about the disorder. They should stop thinking they're 'so speshul' and go see a competent doctor." Beth answered something along the lines of "I diagnosed myself with autism, but only after a lot of careful research. I don't have the opportunity to go see a doctor. I think what you're saying is overly strict and hurtful to many people with autism." Alice then proceeded to tell Beth she disagreed, in that special way only Tumblr users can. I believe the word "cunt" was used. I notice two things about the exchange. First, why did Beth take the bait? Alice said she hated people who frivolously self-diagnosed without knowing anything about the disorder. Beth clearly was not such a person. Why didn't she just say "Yes, please continue hating these hypothetical bad people who are not me"? Second, why did Alice take the bait? Why didn't she just say "I think you'll find I wasn't talking about you?" II. One of the cutting-edge advances in fallacy-ology has been the weak man, a terribly-named cousin of the straw man. The straw man is a terrible argument nobody really holds, which was only invented so your side had something easy to defeat. The weak man is a terrible argument that only a few unrepresentative people hold, which was only brought to prominence so your side had something easy to defeat. For example, "I am a proud atheist and I don't like religion. Think of the terrible things done by religion, like the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. They try to disturb the funerals of heroes because they think God hates everybody. But this is horrible. Religious people can't justify why they do things like this. That's why I'm proud to be an atheist." It's not a straw man. There really is a Westboro Baptist Church, for some reason. But one still feels like the atheist is making things just a little too easy on himself. Maybe the problem is that the atheist is indirectly suggesting that Westboro Baptist Church is typical of religion? An implied falsehood? Then suppose the atheist posts on Tumblr: "I hate religious people who are rabidly certain that the world was created in seven days or that all their enemies will burn in Hell, and try to justify it through 'faith'. You know, the sort of people who think that the Bible has all the answers and who hate anyone who tries to think for themselves." Now there's practically no implication that these people are typical. So that's fine, right? On the other side of the world, a religious person is writing "I hate atheists who think morality is relative, and that this gives them the right to murder however many people stand between them and a world where no one is allowed to believe in God". Again, not a straw man. The Soviet Union contained several million of these people. But if you're an atheist, would you just let this pass? How about "I hate black thugs who rob people"? What are the chances a black guy reads that and says "Well, good thing I'm not a thug who robs people, he'll probably love me"? III. What is the problem with statements like this? First, they are meant to re-center a category. Remember, people think in terms of categories with central and noncentral members – a sparrow is a central bird, an ostrich a noncentral one. But if you live on the Ostrich World, which is inhabited only by ostriches, emus, and cassowaries, then probably an ostrich seems like a pretty central example of 'bird' and the first sparrow you see will be fantastically strange. Right now most people's central examples of religion are probably things like your local neighborhood church. If you're American, it's probably a bland Protestant denomination like the Episcopalians or something. The guy whose central examples of religion are Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama is probably going to have a different perception of religion than the guy whose central examples are Torquemada and Fred Phelps. If you convert someone from the first kind of person to the second kind of person, you've gone most of the way to making them an atheist. More important, if you convert a culture from thinking in the first type of way to thinking in the second type of way, then religious people will be unpopular and anyone trying to make a religious argument will have to spend the first five minutes of their speech explaining how they're not Fred Phelps, honest, and no, they don't picket any funerals. After all that time spent apologizing and defending themselves and distancing themselves from other religious people, they're not likely to be able to make a very rousing argument for religion. IV. In Cowpox of Doubt, I mention the inoculation effect. When people see a terrible argument for an idea get defeated, they are more likely to doubt the idea later on, even if much better arguments show up. Put this in the context of people attacking the Westboro Baptist Church. You see the attacker win a big victory over "religion", broadly defined. Now you are less likely to believe in religion when a much more convincing one comes along. I see the same thing in atheists' odd fascination with creationism. Most of the religious people one encounters are not young-earth creationists. But these people have a dramatic hold on the atheist imagination. And I think: well, maybe if people see atheists defeating a terrible argument for religion enough, atheists don't have to defeat any of the others. People have already been inoculated against religion. "Oh, yeah, that was the thing with the creationism. Doesn't seem very smart." If this is true, it means that all religious people, like it or not, are in the same boat. An atheist attacking creationism becomes a deadly threat for the average Christian, even if that Christian does not herself believe in creationism. Likewise, when a religious person attacks atheists who are moral relativists, or communists, or murderers, then all atheists have to band together to stop it somehow or they will have successfully poisoned people against atheism. V. This is starting to sound a lot like something I wrote on my old blog about superweapons. I suggested imagining yourself in the shoes of a Jew in czarist Russia. The big news story is about a Jewish man who killed a Christian child. As far as you can tell the story is true. It's just disappointing that everyone who tells it is describing it as "A Jew killed a Christian kid today". You don't want to make a big deal over this, because no one is saying anything objectionable like "And so all Jews are evil". Besides you'd hate to inject identity politics into this obvious tragedy. It just sort of makes you uncomfortable. The next day you hear that the local priest is giving a sermon on how the Jews killed Christ. This statement seems historically plausible, and it's part of the Christian religion, and no one is implying it says anything about the Jews today. You'd hate to be the guy who barges in and tries to tell the Christians what Biblical facts they can and can't include in their sermons just because they offend you. It would make you an annoying busybody. So again you just get uncomfortable. The next day you hear people complain about the greedy Jewish bankers who are ruining the world economy. And really a disproportionate number of bankers are Jewish, and bankers really do seem to be the source of a lot of economic problems. It seems kind of pedantic to interrupt every conversation with "But also some bankers are Christian, or Muslim, and even though a disproportionate number of bankers are Jewish that doesn't mean the Jewish bankers are disproportionately active in ruining the world economy compared to their numbers." So again you stay uncomfortable. Then the next day you hear people complain about Israeli atrocities in Palestine (what, you thought this was past czarist Russia? This is future czarist Russia, after Putin finally gets the guts to crown himself). You understand that the Israelis really do commit some terrible acts. On the other hand, when people start talking about "Jewish atrocities" and "the need to protect Gentiles from Jewish rapacity" and "laws to stop all this horrible stuff the Jews are doing", you just feel worried, even though you personally are not doing any horrible stuff and maybe they even have good reasons for phrasing it that way. Then the next day you get in a business dispute with your neighbor. Maybe you loaned him some money and he doesn't feel like paying you back. He tells you you'd better just give up, admit he is in the right, and apologize to him – because if the conflict escalated everyone would take his side because he is a Christian and you are a Jew. And everyone knows that Jews victimize Christians and are basically child-murdering Christ-killing economy-ruining atrocity-committing scum. You have been boxed in by a serious of individually harmless but collectively dangerous statements. None of them individually referred to you – you weren't murdering children or killing Christ or owning a bank. But they ended up getting you in the end anyway. Depending on how likely you think this is, this kind of forces Jews together, makes them become strange bedfellows. You might not like what the Jews in Israel are doing in Palestine. But if you think someone's trying to build a superweapon against you, and you don't think you can differentiate yourself from the Israelis reliably, it's in your best interest to defend them anyway. VI. I wrote the superweapon post to address some of my worries about feminism, so it would not be surprising at all if we found this dynamic there. Feminists tend to talk about things like "Men tend to silence women and not respect their opinions" or "Men treat women like objects rather than people" or "Men keep sexually harassing women even when they make it clear they're not interested". Put like that, it's obvious why men might complain. But maybe some of the more sophisticated feminists say "Some men tend to silence women and not respect their opinions". Or "Some men keep sexually harassing women even when they make it clear they're not interested."' And the weak-man-superweapon model would suggest that even this weakened version would make lots of men really uncomfortable. From feminist website Bitchtopia (look, I don't name these websites, I just link to them): Not All Men Are Like That: Remember, not wanting to be stereotyped based solely on your sex is the most sexist thing! This is not just an idiosyncracy of Bitchtopia (look! I'm sorry! I swear I didn't name that website!). There's also an entire notallmenarelikethat dot tumblr dot com (of course there is) and it's now a feminist meme abbreviated NAMALT. But of course, it's not just feminists. The gender-flipped version of feminism has the same thing. From men's rights blog "The Spearhead", which is not quite as badly named but still kind of funny if you think of it in a Freudian way: More polite and scientific than the feminist version, but the point is he expects men's rights readers to be so familiar with "not all women are like that" that he's perfectly comfortably abbreviating it NAWALT. Apparently there's even a NAWALT video. I don't know where to find neo-Nazi blogs, but I'll bet if there are some, they have places where they talk about how annoying it is when people try to distract from the real issues by using the old NAJALT. VII. But I shouldn't make fun of NAJALT. There really are two equal and opposite problems going on here. Imagine you're an atheist. And you keep getting harassed by the Westboro Baptist Church. Maybe you're gay. Maybe you're not. Who knows why they do what they do? Anyway, they throw bricks through your window and send you threatening letters and picket some of your friends' funerals. And you say "People! We really need to do something about this Westboro Baptist Church! They're horrible people!" And you are met by a wall of religious people saying "Please stop talking about the Westboro Baptist Church, you are making us look really bad and it's unfair because not all religious people are like that." And you say "I really am not that interested in religion, I just want them to stop throwing bricks through my window." And they say "Hey! I thought we told you to stop talking about them! You are unfairly discrediting us through the inoculation effect! That is epistemically unvirtuous!" So the one problem is that people have a right not to have unfair below-the-belt tactics used to discredit them without ever responding to their real arguments. And the other problem is that victims of nonrepresentative members of a group have the right to complain, even though those complaints will unfairly rebound upon the other members of that group. Atheists who talk about the Westboro Baptist Church may be genuinely concerned about the Westboro Baptist Church. Or they may be unfairly trying to tar all religious people with that brush. Religious people have to fight back, even though the Westboro Baptists don't deserve their support, because otherwise the atheists will have a superweapon against them. Thus, a stupid fight between atheists who don't care about Westboro and religious people who don't support them. VIII. This gives me some new views on political coalitions. I always thought that having things like political parties was stupid. Instead of identifying as a liberal and getting upset when someone insulted liberals or happy when someone praised liberals, I should say "These are my beliefs. There are other people who believe approximately the same thing, but the differences are sufficient that I just want to be judged on my own individual beliefs alone." The problem is, that doesn't work. It's not my decision whether or not I get to identify with other liberals or not. If other people think of me as a liberal, then anything other liberals do is going to reflect, positively or negatively, on me. And I'm going to have to join in the fight to keep liberals from being completely discredited, or else the fact that I didn't share any of the opinions they were discredited for isn't going to save me. I will be Worst Argument In The World-ed and swiftly dispatched. In the example we started with, Beth chose to stand up for the people who self-diagnosed autism without careful research. This wasn't because she considered herself a member of that category. It was because she decided that self-diagnosed autistics were going to stand or fall as a group, and if Alice succeeded in pushing her "We should dislike careless self-diagnosees" angle, then the fact that she wasn't careless wouldn't save her. Alice, for her part, didn't bother bringing up that she never accused Beth of being careless, or that Beth had no stake in the matter. She saw no point in pretending that boxing in Beth and the other careful self-diagnosers in with the careless ones wasn't her strategy all along.
The End of History and Neon Genesis Evangelion 1. Life's a Beach and You're Here Dude I believe we're living in the End of History. Though it's difficult, and maybe even impossible, to pin down when it exactly happened—it could still be happening, it might always be happening—much like the idea of Christ to Christianity, the idea of the End to the End of History is important because of the idea itself, and not, in my opinion and ironically so, not because of any single event or body of historical evidence one can point to, or even the original pieces of text it comes from, or the commentaries made on it. It is the idea itself and alone which is important. I think this End is when "modernity" truly started, and it is the source of many of our greatest anxieties. It's also the source of what could be a truly defining moment for us. Not just as a species, but as individuals, searching for meaning. This isn't a new phenomena to observe or discuss—Hegel started the conversation two hundred seventeen years ago, the likes of Nietzsche and other 19th Century philosophers followed suit, and many commentaries have been made in the two centuries since Georg decided to tell us all something very very important. There's someone else who I feel gets left out of this conversation, however. Someone whose work of art I believe has fully illustrated in living, breathing, metaphor not just a portrait of life at the End of History, but a simple, sympathetic coming-of-age snapshot which, I am convinced, will go down as one of the greatest contributions to popular art in this modern period between our End, and what may be our New Beginning. I'm talking of course about Hideaki Anno, and a little show called Neon Genesis Evangelion. 2. What is the End of History? Before we go on, it's necessary for the discussion to break down what the End of History is. I'm going to do this as succinctly and colloquially as I can. If you're interested, I wrote a separate piece focusing on the End of History, but I wanted to create a localized breakdown for this post. Basically, an old German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel wrote a book in 1807 called The Phenomenology of Spirit. You may have heard the term "zeitgeist", meaning "the spirit of the time". This book is where that phrase comes from. The man There's a lot of intricate historical, philosophical, and spiritual architecture behind this book, but the essence of Hegel's idea—drastically simplified—is this: For thousands of years, human beings lived in history. We played out the same stories, patterns, and narratives, again and again and again. At one point [Hegel cites the American and French Revolutions, as well as Napoleon's reign] we advanced so far that we basically stepped outside of any previous historical narrative pattern. Once you step out of that pattern, you can't go back in—sort of a historical take on the Biblical Fall. Just as apocalyptic—meaning revelatory —though not necessarily a doomsday event. This event is what he called "...the End of History", and it's huge. HUGE. As close as we could get to a truly mythic event in the modern world. But, what we have to remember is the End of History is first and foremost an idea. It happens first in the realm of thought and idea, and then slowly makes itself known in the realm of matter, the physical world. So, our thoughts will be affected by it from Day One, but it will take a loooooong time before we actually recognize it in the world. Whenever we choose to recognize it is up to us, though it will gradually become more apparent as time goes on. Until we choose to recognize it, we will continue to repeat old historical patterns. But we will find ourselves growing increasingly dissatisfied with them, though we won't know why until we finally recognize the End of History and what that means. We already know we're out of it, but we have yet to really admit what that means. That is, and I cannot emphasize this enough, a wildly simplified version of this idea—trying to simplify the End of History is like trying to simplify the atom bomb. As a note, I've also combined some ideas from the essay based on Hegel's philosophy, written by the American author and cultural critic Francis Fukuyama. If you want to read it, it's titled, "The End of History?". It's pretty short, like fifteen pages, and be warned, there's a lot in there which is dated, of-it's-time political speak, but it's still interesting purely because of the idea of the End of History Fukuyama presents. Okay, so, what? So what? So an old German guy who heard about America and France's little teenage angst moments and had a boner for Napoleon decided to say that he discovered history was over, and then a bunch of people, including some American dork from the 1980s, wrote a bunch of stuff because they had boners for him, and... what? That's it? For one, yeah, that's basically it. You've traced an example genealogy of both how an idea comes into the world, as well as sketched a crude but accurate depiction of the entirety of academic discourse. Trust me, you're smarter than you think. This is what real intelligence looks like Here's the thing—if we take part of the idea seriously, and say that the End of History reveals itself through the unconscious, from the realm of thought and idea to the physical world, gradually over time, like a new volcanic continent, inching its way up year by year from the seafloor to breach the light of day.... Well, that could mean, using Internet armchair psychology, people may have accidentally made stuff about it without anyone, including them, really realizing it. Tenuous as it may seem, I believe this is 100% true. I believe Hideaki Anno is one of those people, and Neon Genesis Evangelion is one of those somethings. In fact, I believe it to be one of the greatest one of those somethings. Or at least, one of the greatest one of those somethings our generation has the unique gift of being given. 3. The New Century Gospel Do you know what the name "Neon Genesis Evangelion" means? It might sound like the goofy name for an anime from the mid-90s about kids who pilot giant robots fighting aliens from outer space at the end of the world. And you'd be right, because in large part that's exactly what it is. It's also a series of Greek words. "Neon" = "New" "Genesis = "Beginning" "Evangelion" = "Gospel" or "Good Word" So, some alternate titles for the show could be: "The New Century Gospel" "The Gospel of the New Beginning" "The Good Word of a New Beginning" These are rough approximations, but close enough to hit home for the original words. I find them fitting for a show dealing with the themes Evangelion tackles from its very first episode. Also, with television being the dominant medium of the 20th Century, it is the perfect medium in which to unspool a New Century Gospel. One of Evangelion's most famous elements is its use of symbolism from ancient Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic texts, mystic traditions, and mythologies. The end of the world as depicted in Neon Genesis Evangelion is a biblical one, and a mix of parts from all three, combined with modern elements of psychology and science fiction. I'm aware that the show's principal creator, Hideaki Anno, or at least some of his staff, like director Kazuya Tsurumaki, have been quoted along the lines of saying the iconography was included in the show simply because "...it looked cool." There's a part of me that can accept this is partially true. It still doesn't erase the fact that the show's name is what it is, and is written in words taken from one of the original languages one of the foundational versions of the Bible was written in. I think we can chalk some elements of Neon Genesis Evangelion up to an artist's purely aesthetic sensibilities taking reign over logical construction and conscious dedication to form, but I don't think that tracks for the whole show. Some parts of Evangelion's art and its themes are clearly congruent and influence each other. The name of the show acts as a signpost for this, opening up the entire piece to multiple points of reflection. Ex.: Pillars of salt / in a land cursed by God for disobedience What's more, if we're working from the original point of the End of History, we could say Anno's aesthetic choices, or anyone's who worked on Evangelion, though they may have seemed nothing but whims at the time, were actually unconscious expressions of not only their own psychology, but expressions of a greater understanding looking outwards and upwards to the revelation of the End of History. If their efforts were conscious through and through, then these people are legitimate geniuses, or they may not have realized the full scope of their work at the time. I don't think the End of History is some great psychological prime mover. It's not that everything ever since it has been in some way subconsciously directed by it. I reject the notion, and find that belief reductive and totalizing in equal amounts, and unhelpful to boot. In these types of conversations, the ideas we can't talk about, the ideas we can't know, could never know, but still exist, at least as much as the unknown can be said to exist, are just as important to the big picture as the ones we do know, can know, and also do exist, at least as much as the known can be said to exist. What's funny to me is Evangelion deals with multiple kinds of Ends—the End of the World, the End of Humankind as we know it, as well as the end of a number of interpersonal relationships we follow throughout the show. The most important End, however, in my opinion, is the end of childhood that comes with being a teenager. 4. I'm Just A Teenage Dirtbag, Baby You may be well beyond your teenage years; but I don't think you'll ever really forget them. Being a teenager is kind of like being in an apocalypse (I'm going to keep using that word, but remember the original form is the Greek apokálupsis, meaning "revelation"). You've crossed from a place of innocence—childhood—into a bloody and chaotic transitional period. You're told this is directed towards an ultimate End, adulthood, but that doesn't really offer a lot of comfort. In fact, the prospect of having to pass through such a vibrant and violent period of life whose sole purpose, you're told by superiors, is to act as a bridge from one place to another, almost meant to be taken lightly and forgotten, tends to cast a ridiculous sheen onto any kind of order or structure you're encouraged to follow during this period. Hence, teenage angst. Evangelion is rife with teenage angst. From how boys and girls deal with each other, to the petty jealousies of the heart that live on even in our adult years, to the extended metaphor of literally having to get used to piloting a body you inherited from your parents, being thrust into a world full of battles you didn't choose to be in, but must fight—more like Teenage Genesis Evangstelion amirite. Being a teenager isn't all angst, driven by the teleological end promise of adulthood, though; there is newfound freedom in it, too. It's the first opportunity you get to test-drive what it's like to be a real, conscious individual. It's also the last time you really get to be a kid. NGE goes out of its way to highlight this fact. For about the first sixteen episodes of the original twenty-six episode run, the kids are shown doing a bunch of kid-related stuff. They go to school and have crushes on teachers. They have fieldtrips. They go to their favorite restaurants because they win bets against their friends. They end up having crushes on their friends. They play games, and read books, and get bullied, and dance, and get freaked out by each other's dirty rooms. Da homies This sincere kind of purity is set against the backdrop of an empty world at total existential war. Remember, all of the teenagers in Evangelion were born after the Second Impact, a devastating global event which wiped out over half of Earth's population, and is the whole reason the world is ending in the first place. We get many scenes of kids wandering through a world that feels quiet and empty. Decimated in so many ways they'll never be able to know, by events far beyond their control that took place before they may have even been conceived. I find this an incredibly vital and potent metaphor for the generations growing up today, especially for those born between the mid-90s and early 2000s. Consider what could be called, what have been called, in our time, unprecedented historic events: the worst terrorist attacks on American soil in recorded memory; the bleakest crash, not just in the stock market of a single country, but in the history of the global capitalist system (a sequel no doubt coming soon to a bank near you); a global pandemic which collapsed whole systems of government and absolutely sunk public morale in nearly every institution. I realize these events often have a single country or global region as their focus, but I believe, with the framework we're working within, they stand for something much greater than their geographical or demographic ties. These events, in my opinion, are the thrashings of a world bound by echoes of a history that no longer applies to them. Maybe Fukuyama was right, and the End of the Cold War was the final point of us transitioning from history, to post-history; maybe Hegel had it all totally right when he cited the American and French Revolutions and Napoleon as the Point of No Return. Maybe history, like we've said before, has always been ending, and this kind of language is being used to pinpoint an existential phenomena which may or may not be the root of not just modern, but generally human, anxieties. Regardless, I believe the combination of the End of History, coupled with the recent events of the past thirty years, has turned us all into teenagers of a kind. People who, no matter what they know, are caught in some moment of transition which they have no control over, and whose origins and Ends are non-definite. It makes everyone on Earth in this present moment part of a teenage generation. Hang in there! I say these things not out of an ideological ego, but merely to point to why I think Evangelion is a perfect, perfect show for this cohort currently on Earth. No other show tackles the apocalypse coming of age in a way that is mirrored both at the most intimate levels of character psychology and in the actual overarching world events taking place over the course of the story. At one point, the world, and the people, literally fall apart, and that's just one of the most obvious examples of the thematic synthesis present within the show. Much like the group of teenagers who are growing up at the End of the World in Evangelion, this group of people coming of age nowadays has had to learn how to pilot vast technological systems, deal with truly, truly apocalyptic events, and still go to school and, "Remember to vote!" and clean their rooms and work jobs at McDonald's and in warehouses and in offices knowing how fragile and close to total end the whole deal really is. Laboring under systems built, artificially controlled, and steered by groups whose ideology promises salvation, but in reality seems entirely directed towards global suicide. Many—especially those who are actually teenagers in this time—do and live all this while still having to go through the average teenage dirtbag experience of just growing up. I'm late for school, all of existence as I know it is coming undone, AND THE PROM'S TOMORROWW!!! Now, every generation has lived at the End of the World. Every generation, even before the "End of History", has lived at the End of History. If we can accept that, if we really believe that to be true, then maybe this generation's great achievement, among our possible many, could be to finally recognize this as reality, and do something about it. It may be said, in response to this, that if every generation has endured this state of apocalypse during its lifetime, hasn't it already been recognized if it's been lived? Hasn't something already been done about it? What can we do? I don't disagree. Theory and idea have nothing over lived experience, especially if they're only kept in the realm of theory and idea. That doesn't change the fact that, throughout our history as a species, we've found it necessary to declare obvious truths, of gods, of laws, of freedoms. Why not declare for ourselves an End? Why not, in the same breath, declare for ourselves a Beginning? In the opening paragraph of the Federalist Papers, which were written by several of the Founding Fathers after the Revolutionary War to defend and explain the principles of the fledgling Constitution to the general public, Alexander Hamilton writes: If this whole world really amounts to nothing more than teenagers of all kinds playing fort, then change is as simple, and as difficult, and as radical, and as natural, as choice. Just kids being kids What's funny about the whole situation is, according to the Hegelian understanding of history which precipitates this entire discussion, this choice is as much an inevitability as it is potentially impossible. It's as much dependent on the known and the conscious as it is on the unknown and the unconscious. We see this demonstrated by the teenagers in Evangelion. They don't really know why they're doing what they're doing, and in fact they often have huge questions as to why any of it is necessary, or if any of what they're doing is even remotely right. They are self-aware enough to be conscious, but free enough to let go when the moment calls for it. They're both within and without. There's a good argument to be made they, and anyone like them, are the only people truly living at the End of the World. No wonder they're the only ones who might be able to save the world—they just might be the only real human beings left. 5. The End Let's pretend all of this is true—we've been talking about the End of the World and a 90s anime for fourteen pages now, so let's pretend a little longer any of this is real. What if, a couple hundred years ago, a set group of historical patterns—or at least a specific relationship we had with them—ended, forever. We've been living in the echoes of this End, replaying history over and over, but growing more dissatisfied with each loop. Now we, as a teenage generation, were born into a world shaped by events we didn't control. We labor underneath outdated ideological systems, bound by a dependency on fading historical echo loops, which are possibly wheeling us towards some existential decisions which might just kill everyone. As all this is going on, we're not exactly in the most fit state of mind, as we're trying to figure out what it really means to be human beings, but at the same time that confused and unknowing state may actually put us all in the best position to realize—as in both recognize and put into action—fundamental change at what could be a literally historic crossroads. There also just so happens to be a 90s animated show from Japan which almost perfectly, by some accident of fate or God or something in between or both or something else entirely, quite literally illustrates this position we find ourselves in at this End, at this crossroads. But it's so vague, and it's also a television show, so whether or not it has any answers, whether or not there is an answer to any of this, is completely up in the air. So. What do we do. ? From this point on, this post is going to leave whatever ties it had to "grounded thought" behind, and become pure speculation. If it wasn't that always and already. The first step to facing anything is admitting its existence. So, some kind of recognition, a lasting one, in keeping with tradition most likely a written one, should probably be made. Here: This is a first draft and can be amended later. So—great. That gets us half a step from nowhere, but we're still in nowhere. What now? For one last time, our old friend T.V. might actually, after decades of commercial oblivion, have finally provided us one real answer. The End of Evangelion, the film which acts as an official/secondary explanatory ending to the original run of the television show, has a famous/infamous final scene. Shinji, the main character, is left on a beach after a new apocalypse has wiped out everyone on the planet, as far as he's aware—everyone except Asuka, a fellow EVA pilot, and a girl who has consistently been an object of both torment and early teenage eroticism for him. Love and hate, sex and death. Yin and yang. Upon realizing where he is and who he's with, Shinji quietly positions himself over her and attempts to strangle her. Unconscious, she wakes up, and watches him do this. Without saying anything, she puts a hand on his cheek. He falters, relaxes his grip, and begins to sob uncontrollably. To which she mutters, "Disgusting." The movie ends. Evangelion has a running theme—brought out most obviously in its episode titled "The Hedgehog's Dilemma"—of purity versus individuality. We touched on these ideas briefly in the previous section, mentioning how the duality of being a teenager could be framed as the duality between the cusping individuality of adulthood, and the lingering purity of childhood. An anecdote about "The Hedgehog's Dilemma" is told to demonstrate this early on in Evangelion, and it quickly becomes a central theme of the show. Hedgehogs live in cold climates, and must often huddle together for warmth. However, they also have spikes, which means if they're not careful, they risk poking each other, even hurting each other, in the attempt to become warm. For this reason, they must be careful, and find the way they best fit together so they can survive the cold. Now, the solution some characters in Evangelion—or our own world—might have to this dilemma is simple: just get rid of the hedgehog's spikes. Let's make an effort to return to a previously unspoiled state, before we grew these spikes that hurt ourselves and each other. Problem solved. This would be the "purity" solution. But you could make the case that a hedgehog without its spikes is no longer a hedgehog. A human being without their spikier qualities is no longer human. Other characters in Evangelion would say that the hedgehogs just need to find a way to solve the problem themselves. Better to die in the cold a hedgehog than to sacrifice what it means to be what you are in the first place. Who you are has precedence over all else, and that's the end of it. This would be the "individuality" solution. The end of The End of Evangelion makes a compelling argument: there is no choice. Or, rather, you could see it as being a third choice. Being human is being both. Shinji may have tried to choke, even kill, Asuka at the End of the World because, as a running theme of the show goes, it's better to be alone so you don't hurt anyone, even if that means killing everyone else to be alone so you don't hurt them. OR he could have been getting rid of her because her personality was too close to his own, a source of warmth which came with a great many spikes he couldn't find a way to fit with. Likewise, Asuka shows Shinji a small but profound affection by touching his cheek in the middle of such a violent, painful action. However, this could have been her simply knowing what would "relax" Shinji's spikes, and her mutter of, "Disgusting." could be a comment on the predictability of such a simple creature. Shinji's just a boy, a man, who is a slave to his impulses. His convictions, even at their worst, mean nothing. Or, it could have been directed at herself, for taking pity on him. Or it could be a statement on them both, and their inability to love or kill one another, or their overwhelming desire to do both to each other, which meets with impotent and immature teenage anxiety and confusion. Their actions represent both sides of the Hedgehog's Dilemma simultaneously, as typified in the associated themes of purity and individualism. Both of them want to be good, or even the best, but they also want to be themselves. By doing so, both of them represent the sides of the eternal teenager: the innocent kid and the conscious adult. In this scene on the beach, these two teenagers stand for everyone. In this New Century Gospel, they become a new beginning. At this point, it's necessary to say: this is just a show. I know it's just a show. Most people who are not familiar with Evangelion are going to feel this kind of emotion very powerfully. Even the most diehard fans must acknowledge this fact: it's just a show. It will be profound if you choose to look at it through a whole array of kaleidoscopic philosophical lenses. At the end of the day, though, it is ultimately just a show. And this is where the End of History leaves all of us. On some desolate beach at the end of the world, strangling and petting each other in a kind of infinitely looping battle for intimacy or supremacy. Knowing it's all just a show. It is what it is. Life. One has to wonder, though—maybe that realization is just a moment in time. A simple moment, a special moment. One whose nature is so singular, one whose true revelation integrates at such a deep level, that from our mere fleeting experience of it, change cascades from its entry into our lives, irrevocable and forever. When it passes, as moments do.... what then? There's an old Eastern saying that goes, "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water." I find this to pair well with an old Western story about a son who leaves his father's home, and goes on a grand adventure which ultimately lands him, right back home, changed. Having lived. Maybe we start there. Home. Bibliography 1. Cover Image: https://4chanarchives.com/board/a/thread/134866400 2. Chapter One Image: Hideaki Anno and Kazuya Tsurumaki. 1997. The End of Evangelion. Japan. Gainax and Production I.G.. Timestamp: 1:25:15. 3. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. The Phemonenology of Spirit [Cambridge University Press Translation]. Translated by Terry Pinkard. University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 4. "Hideaki Anno talks on the phone to prostitutes." YouTube, uploaded by Craig Harrison, April 4th, 2017. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTR0rRkrF8s&t=265s 5. "Neon Genesis Evangelion - Opening (Creditless) (HD - 60 fps)". YouTube, uploaded by Anime Guy, September 13th, 2021. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fShlVhCfHig 6. Hegel Evangelion Image: Medina Polo, Simone A. "Philosophical Education and the Patience of Thought". Medium, May 27th, 2022. View: https://pseudo-antigone.medium.com/philosophical-education-and-the-patience-of-thought-e320a30b943e 7. "Fukuyama, Fred, and God." Toppa Publishing, August 6th, 2024. https://toppapublishing.neocities.org/ 8. Hegel with glasses and blunt: Hegel, Georg W.F.. February, 2009. https://twitter.com/georghegel 9. Kurtz. "Two Philosophers Meet at Jena." Drawing. Wikipedia. February 16th, 2021. Date Accessed: August 23rd, 2024. Original source: "The German Struggle for Liberty," Harper's Weekly, v.91, July 1895, p. 209. 10. Fukuyama, Francis (Summer 1989). "The End of History?" (PDF). Original page. The National Interest. Retrieved February 21, 2024. Fukuyama's essay "The End of History" 11. Rei/Lil Uzi Vert Photo: Origin Unknown. If the original author sees this, please contact. 12. Chou, Kuan-Yen. https://kychou.net/eva-title/. Kychou.net. https://kychou.net/ 13. "Network (1976) - The Mad Prophet of the Airwaves Scene | Movieclips". YouTube, uploaded by Movieclips, May 20, 2024. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LLyVNOWmPc 14. "The End of Evangelion - My Way". YouTube, uploaded by KrakenEggss, Dec 27, 2021. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUrwawRFH7A 15. Thomas, Owen. "Amusing Himself to Death: Kazuya Tsurumaki speaks about the logic and illogic that went into creating FLCL". Akadot, December 22nd, 2001. https://web.archive.org/web/20011222232554/http://www.akadot.com/article/article-tsurumaki1.html 16. "Septuagint". Last updated: August 31st, 2024. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint 17. "She said, 'Don't make others suffer for your personal hatred.'" Neon Genesis Evangelion. Directed by Hiroyuki Ishido, written by Hideaki Anno and Akio Satsukawa. Season 1, Episode 12. Gainax. Original air date: December 20th, 1995. Timestamp: 8:42. 18. "Lot's wife". Last updated: August 25th, 2024. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot%27s_wife 19. "Antarctica". Last updated: June 4th, 2023. Evangelion.fandom Wiki. https://evangelion.fandom.com/wiki/Antarctica 20. Butler, Amanda. "Dreams, Art, and the Unconscious: A Jungian Perspective". Jung Society of Utah. Publication Date Unknown. https://jungutah.org/blog/dreams-art-and-the-unconscious-a-jungian-perspective/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CUntil%20you%20make%20the%20unconscious,you%20will%20call%20it%20fate.%E2%80%9D&text=Carl%20Jung%20saw%20both%20dreams,as%20expressions%20of%20the%20unconscious. 21. "I know that I know nothing". Last updated: August 7th, 2024. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing 22. Sadamoto, Yoshiyuki. "Die Stern". Promotional artwork. Wikipedia. July 27th, 2023. Date Accessed: August 23rd, 2024. Original source: "Die Stern", Kadokawa Shoten, p. 47, 2003 // Gainax; created by Yoshiyuki Sadamoto. 23. "EVANGELION AMV-TEENAGE DIRT BAG". YouTube, uploaded by Eduardo Miranda, February 14th, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDJV6YNhS0U 24. Apocalypse, n. Merriam-Webster, online dictionary. Access Date: August 23rd, 2024. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apocalypse 25. "Shinji and Asuka training montage - Evangelion". YouTube, uploaded by EvaFun, July 5th, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbEm12iapS0 26. "Episode #15 Scene #09 [Misato opens up to Kaji]". YouTube, uploaded by Beshmundir, July 21st, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6NEm8q-Nno 27. "Evangelion Unit-01". Last updated: July 1st, 2024. Evangelion.fandom Wiki. https://evangelion.fandom.com/wiki/Evangelion_Unit-01 28. "Boo! sound effect". YouTube, uploaded by All Sounds, February 16th, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS_cV18z67Y 29. Da homies Image: "She said, 'Don't make others suffer for your personal hatred.'" Neon Genesis Evangelion. Directed by Hiroyuki Ishido, written by Hideaki Anno and Akio Satsukawa. Season 1, Episode 12. Gainax. Original air date: December 20th, 1995. Timestamp: 21:14. 30. "Second Impact". Last updated: February 17th, 2023. Evageeks.org Wiki. https://wiki.evageeks.org/Second_Impact 31. "Neon Genesis Evangelion but it is out of context". YouTube, uploaded by Hafstendo, June 4th, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKq8qnsqoc&t=349s 32. "Rare Video of the second plane Impact WTC 2001". YouTube, uploaded by Analog Fox ♪, March 27th, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKq8qnsqoc&t=349s 33. Lewis, Michael. The Big Short. 2010. themodern.farm. https://themodern.farm/studies/The_Big_Short__Inside_the_Doom.pdf 34. "'Hell' at NYC's COVID-19 ground zero". YouTube, uploaded by Sky News, March 26th, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7s6n_ySkmQ 35. "THE INDOMITABLE HUMAN SPIRIT THEENDUERER ENT CRUELTY OF THE UNIVERSE". iFunny, uploaded by Juvenalian, November 17h, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKq8qnsqoc&t=349s 36. "'Neon Genesis Evangelion Freedom Scene". YouTube, uploaded by Citizen Erased, November 12th, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXbCWJNfq_0 37. "'Asuka Confronts Arael". YouTube, uploaded by Robinheathen, July 13th, 2007. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ0doO3VFjc 38. "An introspective moment of Rei Ayanami - Neon Genesis Evangelion". YouTube, uploaded by vinicius, January 4th, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIRpvyefg2Q 39. "Humanity Turned into LCL Scene". YouTube, uploaded by Juviaw, August 11th, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArPEa7rRyUk 40. "Human Instrumentality Project". Last updated: June 2nd, 2024. Evangelion.fandom Wiki. https://evangelion.fandom.com/wiki/Human_Instrumentality_Project#SEELE's_Plans 41. McCall, Isaiah. "You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy Now (Great Reset)". Medium. July 16th, 2022. https://medium.com/yardcouch-com/you-will-own-nothing-and-be-happy-now-great-reset-2cb6ec88c732 42. "Bread Lets Get This GIF". tenor, uploaded by slicedparmesan, September 21st, 2019. https://tenor.com/view/bread-lets-get-this-running-run-chase-it-gif-15098583 43. Sargent, Robert F. "Into the Jaws of Death". Photograph. Wikipedia. October 19th, 2011. Date Accessed: August 23rd, 2024. Original source: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/195515 44. Holy Bible. 1609, 1582. triggs.djvu.org http://triggs.djvu.org/djvu-editions.com/BIBLES/DRV/Download.pdf 45. Bhagavad Gita. 2014. holy-bhagavad-gita.org. https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/index 46. Newton, Isaac. Philosophiae Naturalis Prinicpia Mathematica. Translated by Andrew Motte. 1846. Published by Daniel Adee, 45 Liberty Street, New York, New York. redlightrobber.com. https://redlightrobber.com/red/links_pdf/Isaac-Newton-Principia-English-1846.pdf 47. Tao Te Ching. Translated by James Legge. Original eBook publish date: February 1st, 1995. Last updated: May 11th, 2015. Project Gutenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/216/pg216-images.html 48. De Gouge, Olympe. The Declaration of the Rights of Woman. Translator: Lynn Hunt. Current Source. Original Secondary Source: The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History. Published by Boston/New York Bedford, St. Martin's. Publication date: 1996. Original Primary Source publication date: 1791 49. "United States Declaration of Independence". Last updated: August 28th, 2024. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence 50. The Federalist. United Kingdom, M. W. Dunne, 1901. 51. "Neon Genesis Evangelion (Yoshiyuki Sadamoto) by Nami / ナミ". Zerochan.net, uploaded by ёй, March 31st, 2014. https://www.zerochan.net/1696429 52. "Dialectic". Last updated: August 27th, 2024. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Modern_philosophy 53. "Be in the game but not of the game.". getyarn.io, uploader unknown. Upload date unknown. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d14ba512-94a6-4b59-8014-63a29a0f4c32 Original source: "Boy-Scoutz 'n the Hood.'" The Simpsons. Directed by Jeffrey Lynch, written by Dan McGrath. Season 5, Episode 8. Fox. Original air date: December 18th, 1993. Timestamp: 00:37. 54. The End Image: Ortmann, Becca. "Film Review: The End of Evangelion". Slug Mag, April 12th, 2024. https://www.slugmag.com/slugmag/film-review-the-end-of-evangelion/ 55. "The End of Evangelion". Last updated: August 18th, 2024. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Evangelion 56. "End Of Evangelion -Last scene (I need you.)". YouTube, uploaded by Ayo, September 25th, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVeKyqV1jWU 57. "Evangelion - Asuka Hates Shinji". YouTube, uploaded by Eva 01, April 17th 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCwtnODYUD8 58. "Hedgehog's Dilemma (Neon Genesis Evangelion)". Last updated: August 28th, 2024. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog%27s_Dilemma_(Neon_Genesis_Evangelion) 59. Velt, Walter. "Neon Genesis Evangelion and the Meaning of Life". Psychology Today, March 21st, 2020. https://www.slugmag.com/slugmag/film-review-the-end-of-evangelion/ 60. "Hedgehog's dilemma". Last updated: February 1st, 2024. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog%27s_dilemma 61. Hedgehog Favicons: "Favicon". pixelsafari.neocities.org. Publication date unknown. Last updated: January 13th, 2024. https://pixelsafari.neocities.org/favicon/ I'd also like to thank https://lostlove.neocities.org/ for helping me find pixelsafari in the first place. Thank you so much!!! Citation: lostlove.neocities.org. Publication date unknown. Last updated: February 2nd, 2024. https://lostlove.neocities.org/ 62. "Gendo Ikari talking about Shinji's mom | Neon Genesis Evangelion". YouTube, uploaded by Comet AnimeVolt, January 19th, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frd3sYajJlc 63. annanimemangaquotes. Post title unknown. Allanimemangaquotes.tumblr.com. Tumblr. June 9th, 2016. https://allanimemangaquotes.tumblr.com/post/145656429963/requested-by-darkvortex45-fb-twitter 64. "Neon Genesis Evangelion Asuka First Apearence". YouTube, uploaded by The Pop Culture Geek, June 3rd, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WduqA2ztBs8 65. "Gary Come Home (cover)". YouTube, uploaded by Ampliphobia, May 27th, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sqHmCSmx4M 66. "Take Care of Yourself'" Neon Genesis Evangelion. Directed by Kazuya Tsurumaki and Masayuki, written by Hideaki Anno. Season 1, Episode 26. Gainax. Original air date: March 27th, 1996. Timestamp: 17:36.
I'm not sure I've ever written about DLE before, but I figured this would be a good place to write up a basic introductory guide- what DLE is, how I discovered it, and why I now use it as a guiding philosophy in all fields. DLE stands for "Direct Life Experience," and I present it as an alternative to the Protestant Work Ethic, or PWE. The PWE, as I see it, like all things to do with Protestantism or Catholicism, is an outdated, tautological idea which has no value in the modern era. Much like the Divine Right Of Kings, which states that nobody can question the legitimacy of a king because the king's power is bestowed by God, the Protestant Work Ethic encourages excessive labor because it promises a fulfilling afterlife in Heaven. Of course, as with all appendages of religion, Heaven is a comforting lie used by those in power to maintain power- a carrot on a stick, in effect. One should not work hard with the expectation of an infinite reward, because anyone who expects infinite reward is only going to be disappointed when the infinite reward fails to materialize. The best way to live, I think, is to confront life on its own terms. DLE is closely related to hedonism, and I apply both in equal measure (My essay on hedonism and its benefits can be found here), although DLE can be experienced without hedonism. If hedonism entails the practice of maximizing personal joy at the expense of the so-called "suffering of life," that is, to reject the idea that all life or even most life need be suffering (which is rooted in the explicitly Christian notion that life is a transitory state, rather than the only state)- DLE is the opposite side of the coin- the bitter dessert of contemplation and self-actualization after the main course of reckless abandon. Both states of being compliment each other reasonably, and I would recommend, if you are a hedonist, to at least give DLE a try, because it can provide a useful contrast and a new perspective. One problem I've noticed with my generation in particular (Gen Z) is that we're inherently materialistic. We are, perhaps, more materialistic than any generation previously. We can't help this- these systems of materialism were passed down to us by the previous generations, of course- but we experience a lot more of it. We've convinced ourselves that college is necessary, that if one doesn't go to college one will be unable to function as a productive member of society. All my friends want to be lawyers or scientists, they talk about big houses and big cars and steak dinners. Everyone is in the pursuit of material excess while simultaneously denying their hunger for material excess and feigning moral superiority. This obsession with the acquisition of material results in a lack of identity and individuality- nobody my age even seems to want such a thing. An identity is a luxury which they assume will materialize spontaneously at some time in their thirties. They don't consider that, at a certain point in time, identities were usually present at 17 or earlier. This isn't an issue in older generations, particularly the pre-Millennial ones. I heard a 50-year old friend of mine complain about people being "slaves to their jobs," leaving events at 10 P.M. to wake up the next day without considering that staying up late might provide more fulfillment than waking up early the next day, and I had to explain to him that's simply how my generation views things, that we outright deny autonomy. The fixation with college, in particular, is detrimental, because college only funnels people towards occupations which benefit the system. College, in most cases, does not facilitate the formation of an identity, it only creates a bland attitude and funnels one into an unfulfilling position in some tech firm or law firm. These jobs pay extremely well, because the economy incentivizes them- but money is worthless if the mind goes unnourished. If one works in a tech firm and only thinks in terms of IT support, for multiple days a week, one isn't going to have fun on their luxury yacht. This is the trade- one can have an excessive, materialistic life if one is willing to lose their vital humanity. And then one commits suicide, because one becomes apathetic toward the value of life. Suicide is also, of course, motivated by the fallacious belief in a superior afterlife. I see this pattern play out, again and again. It is becoming repetitive at this point, to watch as my peers- who I wouldn't even necessarily consider peers, because they seem to operate under the PWE without recognizing as much- follow the same path of self-destruction. The lack of a coherent identity is especially prevalent in Denver. Denver has an unstable population, meaning that it is full of people who leave, arrive, and stay for five-year periods on average. There is in fact a stable population, but these people never go outside because they hate what their city has become. They live indoors like the sequestered undead because Denver engenders a type of endemic neuroticism. It's written into Denver's structural fabric and cannot be separated. Denver's key problem is that it favors its unstable population and neglects or outright ignores its stable population. Coloradans are not viewed as a legitimate American demographic in the same way Yankees and Southerners and Midwesterners are. This invalidation of identity, this denial of lived experience, means that only people who do not identify as Coloradans or Denverites get to enjoy life in Denver. Denver is frequented by the jet-setting hoi polloi who regard it as merely another destination and don't stay long enough to see the havoc their careless behavior wreaks on the people who have resided here for multiple generations. I was at a civic meeting the other day and heard someone from out of town remark that Denver is a "developing city," and I had to wonder what that even means- Denver is and has always been a developing city, for 150+ years of cyclical history it's been a developing city. It develops but goes nowhere. Denver wasn't created yesterday, Denver is caught in a repetitive loop where we fail, over and over, to learn from our mistakes because by the time the next cycle comes around and it's time to fix our mistakes, the entire population has been supplanted. There is no long-term investment here, no century-long consideration, we don't plant time capsules because we know any such project wouldn't last. We lack both foresight and hindsight. I've spoken to city planners who are from Texas and attempt to design streets in a manner they find aesthetically pleasing in Houston or wherever, and I want to scream at them that it won't work, that turning Denver into a gaudy theme park attraction at the expense of actual practical use is of no benefit to anyone, and that to be an effective civic planner you would need to be from Denver, and understand vital facets of Denver geography. The expensive high-rise apartment complexes of today will only decay and become the exact same torn-down slums in 40 years, because everyone who built them will have left. I spoke with this city planner, after they made a snide remark about how white Denver is (mind you, they're white and from a less diverse area) about how the diversification of the city will be a step-by-step, incremental process, but that we are gradually seeing an influx of Hispanic and African-American citizens, and how I knew this because I live next to Colfax, and Colfax serves as a unique window into Denver's shifting demographics, given that it includes virtually all groups. They were dismissive of this, tsk-tsking in a kind of condescending academic superiority, as if they knew my own city better than I did, and scoffed at my anecdotal methods. It may be true, of course, that Denver might come off as homogenous to someone who moves here from a comparatively diverse area. I don't see, though, how someone who ostensibly wants to promote diversity will simultaneously discredit the firsthand lived experience of someone who interacts with more groups and places than they ever will. They, being collegiate, being a "have" in a system of haves and have-nots, drive around enclosed in their car, entirely sheltered from the outside world, unaware of the plight of the downtrodden. I, on the other hand, take the bus everywhere, so I've seen the groups at the Downing intersection who spread messages of Rastafarianism and have Nation of Islam rings and are actually concerned with the state of their city. I interact with Denver's African-American population on a daily basis, I hear them talk about how they dislike the influx of rich coastal tourists, and as such I know more. I learn more about people and their sociological interactions riding up and down the Colfax bus than someone will ever learn in a social studies course at Harvard. People who have to confront reality on a daily basis- people who ride the bus because they don't have a car, people who walk everywhere, people who work in pizzerias or convenience stores instead of hipster conglomerates or chic offices- these people become extremely grounded and level-headed, pragmatic rather than idealistic. These people provide the actual roots and fundamental building blocks of culture. If harnessed, if tapped into and portrayed, they can be given a voice with which they can effect real change. But so long as they remain powerless in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles- rising rent prices, bad weather, a lack of water and food- Denver will continue along its chaotic descent. What's especially absurd is that people who are clearly in a position of privilege fail to notice their privilege- to "check" it, as the saying goes. Relatively, I'm privileged compared to the people who sleep in doorways on Colfax- however, compared to most of my peers (Peers, again, being questionable)- I'm at an extreme disadvantage. I'm autistic, which means that I can't operate in group settings, meaning that I'm ineligible for 99% of jobs which would entail me operating in a hierarchy at someone else's behest. I'm a hyperindividualistic egomaniac and somewhat misanthropic- neither of these traits are economically or societally incentivized- and I'm asexual, meaning that I cannot rely on someone else for economic or mental stability. I therefore find it bizarre when a college educated scientist, for instance- maybe the most privileged demographic it's possible to be in these days unless you're a millionaire- accuses me of being privileged because I live in Denver but don't have to pay rent. I don't pay rent because I'm a fifth-generation Coloradan and my existence here is essentially a fact of life, I wouldn't feel comfortable moving anywhere else because I've been here so long that I wouldn't be able to function anywhere else. I know there are other Denverites who feel this brooding isolation- but, again, they all remain indoors. The scientists don't realize how privileged they are- to be able to move cities every ten years, to adapt and grow and learn, to function in a collegiate and professional capacity. My generation is full of people who complain about the effects of late-stage capitalism while only enabling and facilitating late-stage capitalism, they seem to assume I'm one of them even though I've lived most of my life in abject poverty, and they complain about how the system works them to death without considering that ultimately, being completely disenfranchised by the system is much worse than being able to function within it. Other terminology is equally alien to me- the concept of the "third space," for instance. I was talking to someone and they remarked about how they don't see the "third space," then went on to explain to me in lurid detail the exact same concept I'd heard of in countless listicles and pretentious diatribes online- that the current generation lacks a "third space" besides home and work. I can't relate to this conundrum because, as a freelance artist- the only occupation I feel comfortable pursuing- my home is my office- and I experience third spaces all the time which aren't either. I'm on the bus a ton, I walk all over aimlessly. I go to overstimulating concerts because I need sensory input, I'm bored out of my head from a general lack of adversity. I would go as far as to posit that 75% of my existence is spent in third spaces, and in fact one could make a decent argument that Denver, in its entirety, is a third space- a transitory, decaying realm, a city that time forgot, an environment nobody is willing to acknowledge because they're either in their car or locked behind closed doors or on their phone, or attending college, which is the ultimate echo chamber. It is impossible to live here for prolonged periods of time without feeling aimless, because even the most highly valued jobs and positions result in nothing of any real consequence taking place. There are no material gains to pursue. Mentally ill people my age want desperately to be in a gang without realizing that gangs are a byproduct of societal adversity, and their college education means that they won't be forming the next NWA anytime soon. To tie this all back to the PWE, I believe that the Protestant Work Ethic is mostly to blame, and that more people would do well to consider whether their behavior is influenced by it. Do you work long shifts in the pursuit of a retirement fund? Well, that retirement might be nice, but by then you'll have shingles and arthritis and you won't be able to have fun anymore. You'll look back on your 20s and think, "wow, my job sucked ass and I could have been having cheaper forms of fun and worked less." Do you want a big yacht? Well, bad news- the Egyptian afterlife is just as fake as the Christian one, so even if you mummify and embalm yourself and bury yourself alive in a massive tomb with all your riches and worldly possessions, they won't be following you to the afterlife because there is no such thing. Your yacht might be fun, but you'll only be able to enjoy it for maybe a decade before you cease to exist, so just buy a little rowboat when you're 20 and you can enjoy it for a much longer time. DLE is, as the name implies, a form of direct experience with life, a middle finger to college and to professionalism and to any notion of a superior being. It means walking whenever possible, going out in blizzards and rainstorms and all kinds of inclement weather, it means taking the roads less traveled, soaking in as much life as possible even when doing so doesn't make any practical sense. It means learning to enjoy the mundane or even the negative- to view all events in life as interesting and worthwhile, and to only work enough as is absolutely necessary to maintain basic health. In a world of increasing escapism, I find it very interesting to watch as the physical world is increasingly ignored or neglected, and left to rot- which, again, manifests in a particularly unique way here. I believe this may be an increasing trend, as time goes on- "third spaces" will indeed become less and less common, until the only ones available are sewers and alleyways. The class divide between the college-educated and non-college educated public will increase until the strain leads to some kind of breaking point. The megalopolises in the skies will serve as inaccessible glitter atop a cake of smog and waste, and neither group will be able to relate to the other. DLE is good because it creates extremely smart, resilient individuals. The Hobo culture of the 1920s and 1930s, for instance, produced maybe the greatest specimens of humanity who ever lived. They had culture and folklore and methods of communication which were entirely unique, and these forms were shaped by hardship and adversity. They lived according to DLE- blatantly breaking or disregarding societal norms in favor of stoic individualism, working only when necessary to sustain themselves, and contacting the real world in its broken detail every single day. They are, I would say, perhaps the best example of DLE in practice. One benefit of DLE is that it makes one virtually immune to cult indoctrination. The common stereotype of people in poverty falling victim to the seductive promises of cult leaders is mostly false. Many cults- the vast majority, in fact- operate on elitist principles. NXIVM was composed mostly of Hollywood elites, many of the Manson Family were Beverly Hills trust fund kids. Perhaps the best example of academic elitism in the cult mentality would be Dr. Frederick Lenz, who encouraged members of his fanatical sect to become high-level computer programmers, and who developed a mystic symbiosis between computer language and spirituality. Much of the new-age bullshit prosperity gospel type notions of the 90s which still plague today's generation can, in one way or another, be traced back to him. Now ask yourself: who would be more susceptible to the guiles of a manipulative cult leader? Poindexter Pete, who works in IT and knows nothing except how to boot up a hard drive, and craves danger because his life is boring and mundane, or Hobo Joe, who eats nails for breakfast and lives with the sack slung over his shoulder, and lives only for himself every waking hour? If, say, Keith Raniere or one of these smooth-talking bozos were to go up to Pete and Joe, and ask both of them to join his sunshine harem, who do you think would hop on board and who do you think would issue Keith a prompt knuckle sandwich with all the trimmings? You can probably see where I'm going with this- anyone who incorporates inherently Protestant values into their life, in any capacity, is more likely to end up falling for other bullshit. And anyone who negates their own autonomy in favor of the will of someone- anyone- in power- is destined for a life of suboptimal boredom as a pawn with no purpose.
Posting on a certain profile post reminded me of this article from The Free Press , since it says everything I ant to about the stupid habit people have of getting righteously angry and taking matters into their on hands over something they heard on the Internet. (The original article has videos peppered in from a certain TikToker relevant to this story, which you can watch on the official FP website, but I don't think you need them to get it, I only watched a few of them.) Caught in a brutal divorce, Catherine Kassenoff committed medically assisted suicide. Then the campaign to destroy her ex-husband truly began. In October of last year, Free Press reporter Francesca Block came across a fascinating tip in her inbox. It told the story of Allan Kassenoff and Catherine Youssef, a couple of New York City litigators who married in 2006. It was a tempestuous union, which resulted in three daughters, and ended with a series of terrible abuse allegations. Allan finally filed for divorce in May 2019, triggering a brutal custody battle that remains infamous in the courts of New York. It was still ongoing when, just over a year ago, Allan received a horrifying email—Catherine had traveled to Switzerland where she would die by assisted suicide. But death did not part the Kassenoffs. When Francesca started digging into their story, she found that nothing was as it seemed. To get to the truth, she has spent more than eight months speaking to dozens of people and reading hundreds of documents. This is the longest piece we've ever published, and it's well worth your time. Because it isn't just a story about one family's ugly domestic dispute, though that story is a wild one. It's equally a story about how social media can distort our perceptions, reflecting complicated human beings in a funhouse mirror that bears little relationship to who we really are. —The Editors I. 'The Video Footage Doesn't Lie': The Case Against Allan This is a story that ends with my own assisted death in Switzerland. That is how the suicide note began. Allan Kassenoff was standing in the driveway of his Westchester home on Saturday, May 27, 2023, when he read it. His wife, Catherine, had emailed it to dozens of people—including judges, attorneys, journalists, police, friends, and even staff at Allan's law firm, Greenberg Traurig—but she hadn't sent it to her husband. A colleague had forwarded it to him. Allan and Catherine had spent the previous four years fighting in court over the custody of their three young daughters. After millions of dollars, and over 3,000 court filings, the divorce still hadn't been finalized. In four single-spaced pages, the email detailed how Allan had been an abusive husband who had manipulated the corrupt court system into cutting off Catherine's parental rights. She accused him of "ruining the lives of my children, me," and so many other "parents (mostly mothers) who have tried to stand up against abuse." "Perhaps if I had not been re-diagnosed with cancer I could have lasted in this fight longer," she wrote, disclosing a recurrence not even her closest friends had known about, and which Allan told me he doesn't believe was real. "But I do not have the strength to go forward," she concluded. Catherine also embedded a Dropbox link that included hundreds of court documents, police reports, her children's therapy records, and videos of her husband yelling—evidence that showed, she wrote, "exactly how abusive Allan Kassenoff is." While reading Catherine's suicide note, Allan started to cry, he told me. "I felt bad for her," he said. But he also admits he felt relieved. According to him, his wife was the abusive one, and had "made my life a living hell for so long." But while Catherine's story may have ended that day, Allan's torment had only just begun. In her suicide note, Catherine told readers, "Don't let my death be in vain." And whether she knew it or not, there were plenty of people willing to avenge her. Allan Kassenoff spent four years and millions of dollars in a brutal custody battle with his wife Catherine before she killed herself last May. (Photo by Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) Then a successful patent litigator—representing big-name companies from Pfizer to Samsung and making nearly a million dollars a year—Allan was working at his law firm's office in White Plains the following Wednesday, May 31, when his phone started ringing. He didn't recognize the number, but picked up, and the person at the other end of the line started cursing at him. "As soon as I hang up," he told me, "it's ringing again." He was bombarded by strangers' voices, he told me, calling him an "asshole," or claiming he "killed his wife," or telling him he should "lose his kids." Within hours, all his email inboxes had also started to fill up with death threats from people he didn't know. "Burn in hell," read the subject line of an email sent to his work address. "I hope you die," the stranger wrote. He was also getting messages on Facebook: "Go kill yourself," "Die slow and painfully," "Coming for you." One person tracked down his home address and sent him a bottle of red paint—including a note: "I hope the color red haunts you for the rest of your life. From Catherine." Whoever it was did the same thing for five other colors: orange, yellow, blue, purple, and green. Then, one of his daughters told him that an account on TikTok had begun posting Catherine's videos of Allan. The account, which then had over 2 million followers, is run by Robbie Harvey, a 41-year-old digital creator living in Pensacola, Florida, who presents himself, in his TikTok bio, as a "citizen journalist." A self-proclaimed recovering "narcissist" and "former bad husband," Harvey's page was dedicated to "speaking up for women." He started posting about Catherine four days after her death. "This is quite possibly one of the most heartbreaking videos that I have ever created," Harvey says in his first TikTok about the Kassenoff case. He's sitting in a soft-lit room wearing a gray t-shirt, before his lips curl inward, almost quivering. "It does not have a happy ending." Harvey then plays one of the videos that Catherine included in the Dropbox link she sent out the day she died. (It's not clear how he came by the footage. Harvey declined to comment for this story.) It shows Allan storming around the house, shouting at his wife, repeatedly yelling "Shut up." You can hear kids screaming in the background. In another video Harvey shares, Allan calls Catherine a "fat loser." "What did you call me?" she says. When he repeats the insult, she instructs him to say it "one more time." He does. Then, Harvey takes out his phone and reads from Catherine's suicide note, which she posted to Facebook, as solemn piano notes begin in the background. Seeing Harvey's post, Allan realized why he'd been getting death threats. As so often happens on social media, the TikToker had told a compelling story of good and evil, then watched it go viral: Harvey's original post has since been deleted, but screenshots show it received at least 23.1 million views; Harvey re-uploaded it on June 13, 2023, and this version has since racked up 11.7 million views, 1.4 million likes, and over 14 thousand comments. "Allan Kassenoff should be arrested for abuse," reads one. "Justice for Catherine," many others declare. "We will be her voice," one user promises. "We won't let him get away with this." But Allan insists the reality of his marriage was far more complicated than the TikTok narrative makes out. He told me he felt "embarrassed" about the videos of him screaming and says: "I regret my reactions to her behavior—especially when the children were present." But the footage was, he said, taken out of context: "What people don't understand is what happened before that and what happened every other day." His wife, he says, pushed him to the edge. One of his daughters also had objections to Harvey's version of events. The day after the TikToker first posted about the Kassenoffs, their middle child, then 12, sent him three messages in a row: "Why are you posting videos about my dad?? Stop getting involved." "You don't even know the true story." "You don't know anything." In response, Harvey made another TikTok post, which included screenshots of the messages—and accused Allan of sending them from his daughter's account. (This daughter confirmed to me that she sent the messages herself.) In the video, Harvey breaks the fourth wall: "Allan, I know you're watching me," he says to the camera, before posting the screenshot: "Is this you?" In the weeks that followed, Harvey posted almost daily about Allan—making nearly 40 TikToks that often reuse the same pieces of video footage. Some have gained over 10 million views. "I know there are many sides to a story," Harvey says in one, pausing slightly before adding: "The video footage doesn't lie. That monster has possession of these children, so I'm going to keep talking about it." That video has gained 1.6 million likes. In the month after Catherine's death, Harvey's account grew by half a million followers—followers that Harvey urged to take action. In a video that has since been deleted—but which Allan saved and says was posted on June 8, 2023—Harvey says to the camera: "Allan Kassenoff is a shareholder at this law firm," before posting the logo of Greenberg Traurig. "And since this law firm has not done the right thing and fired Allan Kassenoff. . . I figured it's time to get their attention." He then identifies Allan's biggest client, Samsung, before saying: "If there was only a way for millions of people to get the attention of Samsung and let them know who represents them." He then cocks his head as Samsung's TikTok handle appears onscreen. The same day, Samsung started getting messages like this reply to a tweet from its U.S. division's official account: "You support domestic violence. Boycott Samsung. Allen [sic] Kassenoff needs to go to jail!" And, in the early afternoon, Greenberg Traurig received an email with the subject line "Allan Kassenoff." "You should definitely fire that weak ass man," it read. "Have you not seen what the internet can do? You all are definitely losing all your costumers [sic] and hopefully lose Samsung." The day after Harvey posted about Allan's job, Allan was at the gym when, he says, his boss at Greenberg texted, "Can we please talk?" Within a few hours, Allan said he was presented with an ultimatum: resign with a severance package or get fired. He had two days to decide. Allan told me he approached an employment attorney, hoping to fight for his job, but was told the nature of his contract wouldn't allow it. All he could do was take the package and leave quietly, he said. "I had no choice; I really had no choice." (He said he did manage to negotiate an extra three months of severance.) I spoke to two Greenberg employees who had both worked with Allan for over a decade. (Neither wanted to be named.) One called it a "very difficult situation," and the other said it wasn't "an easy decision" to let him go, but when clients are targeted by such attacks, it is "disruptive to the business." But, one of the employees added, "there were a lot of people who felt very bad for him." (Greenberg itself did not respond to a request for comment.) "I personally think that the TikToker appeared to be on a mission to destroy Allan without regard for the completeness of the facts," the first individual told me. "I think many of the articles or publications that described what happened picked up on the easy, low-hanging, salacious fruit." With Allan's resignation, the story of the Kassenoffs received tabloid attention—and the headlines were devastating. The Daily Mail emphasized Catherine's claim that she had been "driven to assisted suicide" by the combination of cancer and Allan's "domestic abuse," trumpeting: "Husband. . . QUITS law firm after probe by his bosses." "Attorney out of job after. . . scathing claims go public," declared the New York Post. Both stories embedded Robbie Harvey's TikToks. On June 11, 2023, the day Allan resigned, Harvey posted a video where he gave the names and photos of people involved in the divorce case who Catherine perceived to have wronged her—including the lawyer representing their children, the psychologist who recommended Allan have full custody, and one of the children's therapists. Harvey alleges in the video that all of them "colluded with each other to make sure Catherine Kassenoff could not see her children ever again." The next day, in response to Allan's resignation, Harvey made another video that has since been deleted: "There's still a lot of people out there that need to answer for the decisions that they've made." "Your actions have consequences," he said. "And I'm going to make sure those consequences come." II. 'When It Was Bad, It Was Beyond Belief': The Marriage Catherine Youssef met Allan Kassenoff in New York City in 2005. He was an upstart, 33-year-old patent litigator; she was an associate at his law firm, four years his senior, and had already served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. They started dating after they'd known each other a few months, and Allan says their relationship was a "roller coaster" from the beginning. "When it was good it was great," says Allan, over the phone. "But when it was bad, it was beyond belief." He's reluctant to talk about the good times, or what he used to like about Catherine, but he will say: "She was, like, no-nonsense. Like, 'I don't take crap from people.' " "It was an attractive quality," he adds. When I ask him what he and his wife had in common, he replies bluntly: "We were both litigators." Allan described his relationship with Catherine as a "roller coaster." "When it was good it was great, but when it was bad, it was beyond belief." (Photo courtesy of Allan Kassenoff) The couple got engaged after a year and planned to have a small wedding in November 2006. They couldn't agree on a venue: Allan says he proposed a kosher restaurant to accommodate his Orthodox Jewish family, but Catherine refused on the grounds that her family, who are Egyptian Coptic Christians, would object. (Catherine converted to Judaism to marry Allan.) In the end, the couple eloped in Puerto Rico. I reached out to Catherine's mother and two brothers for comment—her father has passed away—but none of them responded. After they got married, Catherine wanted kids "ASAP," Allan told me; she wanted to do IVF straight away, he said, before they'd even started trying naturally. He wanted to have kids, but he also wanted to at least try to get pregnant without medical intervention, given the expense of IVF—but Allan caved, he said, because Catherine, who was nearing 40, was so adamant. Allan says they underwent several rounds of IVF, estimating that in total the couple spent upward of $200,000 on fertility treatments. Then, less than two years into their marriage, Catherine was diagnosed with a rare and aggressive form of breast cancer and received treatment. According to her therapy records, which Catherine shared with her suicide note, she later told a therapist that Allan "showed that he was not good at handling stress" during this time. While she recovered, the Kassenoffs decided to adopt. They contacted an adoption attorney, who matched them with a woman in Florida who was pregnant but unable to look after a baby; in July 2009, the Kassenoffs became parents to Ally, who was delivered to them straight from the hospital where she was born. Soon thereafter, Allan says Catherine wanted to try IVF again—and threatened to do it "with or without me." He went along with it, but told me he was "nervous, because of how bad our relationship was." He didn't think bringing another child into the family was "the best thing in the world." This time, the IVF worked: less than a year after she adopted Ally, Catherine got pregnant. The Kassenoffs' second daughter, Charley, was born in February 2011—and was quickly followed by a third, JoJo, in August 2013. Allan says he was happy to be a father. But he wasn't home a lot. When the kids were babies, he was working long hours, consistently getting back around nine or 10 at night. Meanwhile, in July 2014, less than a year after JoJo's birth, Catherine was fired from her job as head of litigation at Boehringer Ingelheim, a pharmaceutical company. She immediately went after the company, accusing it, through an attorney, of discriminating against her for being a caregiver. In the course of the dispute, Boehringer Ingelheim took the position that Catherine was let go because, among other reasons, she made "bad and illogical decisions." Later, Catherine claimed in court documents that she had "left" this job in order to "serve as the primary caregiver." But by March 2015 she was employed again, working for Governor Andrew Cuomo as a Special Counsel for Ethics, Risk, and Compliance. With two career-oriented parents, nannies were a constant during the girls' childhoods—some staying a year or so, others lasting just a few months. Of the four I spoke to, all said the Kassenoff house was a tense place to be; also, all but one told me that Catherine showed a strong favoritism toward her two youngest daughters—at the expense of Ally, her adopted one. Kim Hull was hired as a live-in nanny in 2009, when Ally was just an infant—and she told me several disturbing stories about Catherine. Once, she said, Catherine instructed her to keep the baby awake all day by dripping water on her head, so that she would sleep through the night. Hull said she refused, worrying that it bordered on "abuse." Hull also said she found marks on the baby's back that looked like they'd been caused by fingernails digging into skin—which concerned her so much she took Ally to the doctor. Hull never reported Catherine, out of multiple fears: "I'll lose my job. I'll be investigated. I'll never get a job again. And I don't have proof that she did it." "She terrified me," Hull said. Celine Dublanchet, who became the Kassenoffs' au pair in October 2016, also made disturbing allegations about Catherine. According to court documents, Dublanchet said Catherine once locked Ally, then 7, in the basement by herself for two hours as a punishment, and on another occasion made Ally go outside alone after dark to "clean the garden" in the middle of winter. Dublanchet claimed that Ally slept on a mattress on the floor in her room, while the other two children slept in Catherine's bed every night. Every morning, she told me, Ally had to make her mother's bed. "Ally was Cinderella," Dublanchet later wrote to the court, "her two sisters Anastasia and Drizella, and Catherine the horrible stepmother." When I asked Dublanchet what she thought of Allan, she called him "very nice." And though she acknowledged that "he could be very angry," she quickly added that Catherine "pushed him to his emotional limits." "She wanted the girls to see their father be so angry," Dublanchet said. "She did it on purpose, to have the children on her side." Allan said he always wanted children. But when Catherine got pregnant, he was "nervous, because of how bad our relationship was." (Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) After six months, Dublanchet's visa expired, and she had to go back home to France. "When I left the house," she said, "I wanted to take Ally with me because I felt so sad and bad for her." Another nanny, Mylene Gry, lived in the Kassenoffs' home from 2015 to 2016. When I spoke to her, she said she saw Catherine "scream at Ally for almost 10 minutes after she misbehaved—she said things such as 'You will never have friends' and 'You will never succeed in life or get married and have your own kids.' " "What I witnessed in my 13 months working for the Kassenoffs has troubled me to this day," Gry later wrote to the court in June 2019, when the couple was fighting for custody of the children. "I believe Catherine is a mentally ill and abusive person." Mylene also told me that in March 2018, a former au pair had posted in a Facebook group for French nannies in the U.S.: "Careful to all au pairs who are looking for a family, I won't advise you to work for the Kassenoff family, the mother is a psychopath." Robbie Harvey, of course, told a different story in his TikToks—and so did the friends of Catherine I spoke to. Wayne Baker, a lawyer now living in New Mexico who Catherine met in 1999 through work, told me Catherine did not abuse Ally but merely disciplined her for misbehaving. "She was the parent that was home all the time. She was the one dealing with it. Allan was rarely there, and when he came home, he would say, 'Oh, why are you treating Ally like that?' " Allan admitted to me that he often volunteered to go on long, international work trips, to avoid "the amount of stress in the environment at home." He didn't realize how badly Catherine was treating Ally, he claimed, though he was aware that his wife treated their adopted daughter differently from their other children. When I ask him why he didn't intervene more to protect his daughter, he grows uneasy, often pivoting away from my questions. He claims he held off on filing for divorce because he feared Catherine would get custody, which would only make life worse for Ally. But he also admits that his frequent absences may have enabled the abuse. "Maybe I wasn't doing the best job in the world because I had a job," he says. "But I did the best I could." When he was home, he made everything worse, according to a friend of Catherine's who didn't want to be named. (She feared Allan might sue her.) This woman, who Catherine had known for decades, says that when she was on the phone with her, she often heard Allan yelling in the background. Allan was a "monster," she says, who Catherine "had to get away from." Catherine told friends—and later, the court—that it wasn't just verbal abuse. Between 2016 and 2019, she sought urgent medical care at least three times for injuries she alleged were caused by her husband. Hospital records, which Catherine submitted to the court during the custody battle, show that she told doctors Allan had picked her up "and slammed" her to the ground, that he "threw her across the room and she hit her right arm and head on [an] ottoman," and that he "threw a mixture of grass and sod" at her eye. Her medical records also show that doctors noted redness—and in one case a couple of abrasions—but no significant injuries. After a trip to the hospital on May 11, 2019, Catherine texted a friend: "If I had a mark or a bruise or something, it would be easy." "You don't need a bruise to divorce him," the friend texted back. "Just to get full custody," Catherine replied. Allan submitted screenshots of these messages to the court. According to him, Catherine was crafting a narrative in which she was an innocent victim, and he was an evil husband—similar to the narrative that ended up going viral on TikTok. Allan denies all allegations of abuse. "She used to call the police on a weekly basis," he says, but they never pressed charges. "Each time it was more nonsensical than the time before. But she was trying to build a case. Do you see what I mean? She's a lawyer. She's very conniving and scheming." In an affidavit submitted to the court, Allan Kassenoff admits that his marriage "was destined to fail from the beginning." (Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) On May 15, 2019—mere days after Catherine sent the text that began, "If I had a mark or a bruise"—Allan says his eldest daughter went to school and told her teachers that her dad had kicked her a couple of days earlier. The school immediately launched a Child Protective Services investigation. Allan had already left for an overnight work trip to Long Island. He didn't get home until 10 p.m. the next day, after everyone in the house had already gone to bed. In the morning, he wanted to ask Ally why she had made the accusation—which he insisted was completely false—but he said Catherine stopped him. He went to work at Greenberg's offices in New York City, and by the time he returned after dark, the house was empty. He says he immediately thought that Catherine "may have kidnapped the kids." By this point he was in touch with a divorce attorney, Gus Dimopoulos, who advised him to stay home and wait. When I asked Ally—now almost 15—about it, she supported Allan's version of events, saying her dad had not kicked her; what she'd said to the school wasn't true. "My mom told me to, like, always say bad stuff about my dad," she told me. Claiming his wife was abusive, Allan was the one who officially filed for divorce, on May 24, 2019. A couple of weeks later, he submitted to the court recordings of Catherine berating Ally, calling her a "moron" and a "complete idiot," yelling at her for stealing a chocolate bar from Catherine's bedroom, telling her "You will go to jail if you keep this up." It's the kind of footage that could go viral on TikTok. Allan also wrote an affidavit, in which he claimed his wife had fabricated the story of the kick. "I have come to learn in the past two weeks that Catherine has planned for divorce," he wrote. He added that their marriage had been "destined to fail from the beginning." "I am ashamed and embarrassed that I have waited this long to do this," he wrote, "but my inaction was motivated only by what I thought was the best way to protect my daughters—that is, to remain miserably married in a constant state of lies, deceit, false accusations, and spousal abuse, so that I could do my best to protect my children from their mother." Allan admits his frequent absences could have enabled the abuse of his eldest daughter, Ally (pictured left with her sisters Charley and JoJo). "Maybe I wasn't doing the best job in the world because I had a job, but I did the best I could." (Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) III. 'Holier Than Thou': The Battle for Custody The Kassenoff divorce was infamous in the courts of New York. One attorney who was involved in the case, and who has worked on over 100 divorces during a 45-year career, told me it "was probably among the top two or three most contentious cases I'd ever had." It revolved around a brutal battle for custody. After Allan submitted the affidavit claiming their mother was abusive, a judge decided the kids' father should temporarily have full custody. A few days later, Allan and Catherine agreed to share custody as they prepared their cases against each other—but the judge ruled she couldn't be home alone with the kids. An approved friend or family member always had to be present. The judge also appointed psychologist Marc Abrams—who had worked in the Westchester County courts system for over two decades—to offer a neutral assessment of the parents and recommend a custody agreement. Though the report is confidential, Abrams revealed during a July 2020 temporary custody trial that he recommended Allan have sole custody of the kids—and that he believed Catherine had an "unspecified personality disorder." Catherine refuted this claim. During the same trial, a psychiatrist she had been seeing on and off for a year, Dr. Anna Filova, affirmed that Catherine "does not exhibit any features or problems relating to mental health issues," and that she was in therapy "probably related to spousal and emotional physical abuse, divorce, separation from the children." Catherine also submitted a letter from Katherine Klein, who had worked for the family as a nanny from March to July of 2018—and who wrote that Allan was "manipulative and cannot control his temper." The kids, Klein wrote, "should be with their mother as much as possible, even exclusively." When I called her in May, Klein told me that Allan used "verbal abuse" and "emotional blackmail" against Catherine and the kids. One time, when JoJo, the youngest daughter, was sprayed by a skunk, Klein said she witnessed Allan "yelling and screaming" so much that his daughter was "physically scared" and "shaking." (Allan denied this.) Abrams, the psychologist, did support some claims about Allan's bad temper. In his testimony, he criticized Allan's "rash inappropriate yelling," for instance. Both parents, Abrams added, "showed incredibly poor judgment in creating this kind of noxious atmosphere for the children"—he didn't think "either one of them should necessarily be applauding themselves as being holier than thou." "They both," he went on, "played a role in this violence that occurred." Though TikTok paints Catherine as a martyr, what the courts revealed was that she was no saint. Ultimately, Abrams said in court, Catherine "was clearly the more powerful partner," and displayed much more of an "aggressive, confrontational style" than Allan. Three former nannies also testified in favor of Allan. The result of the July 2020 trial was that the judge reaffirmed Allan's temporary full custody of the kids—and that Catherine could see them only under supervision. When I ask Allan why pictures of Catherine are still displayed all over his house more than a year since her death, he shrugs and says, "She's still their mother." (Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) Catherine continued to protest against this arrangement—right to the end of her life. In her suicide note, she wrote that "the Courts of New York State are so invested in minimizing, suppressing, and punishing valid claims of abuse" that they "imposed 'supervision' on me for saying that the girls were telling the truth about their father's abuse." IV. 'She Went After Everyone': Catherine's Revenge Catherine used social media to fight back. A lot of her Facebook posts have been deleted, but the dozens of screenshots I've seen suggest that she documented every twist and turn of the custody battle—and went after anyone who disagreed with her. One post, which Allan says Catherine made on May 14, 2021, shows that Catherine criticized the children's attorney, Carol Most, on Facebook, writing that Most "has been actively suppressing any evidence that is detrimental" to Allan. "She is completely aligned with his interests," Catherine claimed. Most denies these allegations. "The mother was trying to create a story for herself, but it just wasn't true," she told me. But Catherine did ultimately get Most removed from the case in October 2022 by order of the court, after the judge found Most had made statements to the court "for no apparent reason other than to denigrate the mother." As a result, Most was denied her fee for working on the case, which amounted to over $100,000. "It was just what Catherine Kassenoff was about," Most told me when I spoke to her in December 2023. "If you don't agree with her, or do what she wants, you had to be punished. "That was her legacy. She went after everyone." It wasn't just Carol Most. Catherine, along with two other women, filed complaints against Marc Abrams, the psychologist who recommended Allan have custody, alleging professional misconduct and inappropriate behavior toward women. Abrams denies these allegations, calling them and any others "defamatory." After an investigation, the panel of court-approved mental health professionals removed him, meaning he could no longer provide court evaluations—a lucrative gig, with each case paying around $50,000. "I still have my license," Abrams told me—adding that he's "been in the business long enough to still have a good practice"—but the damage to his reputation has caused "a tremendous amount of stress." Catherine celebrated his removal in an August 27, 2021 Facebook post, writing that Abrams, as well as Most, had "destroyed my family to line their own pockets." Then, in October 2021, Catherine sued the two youngest girls' therapist, Susan Adler, claiming she had "cast aside her moral and ethical obligations by manipulating the children and unjustifiably recommending their removal" from her care. The case stayed open for nearly a year after Catherine's death—with Wayne Baker, the executor of her estate, representing her interests. It finally came to an end this past May, when both parties agreed to dismiss it. Adler has continued to work, but the accusations have weighed heavily on her. "It was one of the most horrible things of my life," she told me when I spoke to her earlier this year, adding that her only goal had been "to protect these children as much as possible." "If it looked like I was taking his side over hers, I was taking the children's side." While going after those she believed had wronged her, Catherine became something of an advocate for family court reform in New York—attacking a system that many agree is broken. After sharing details of her case, she often made comments like this one, from 2021: "What occurred here occurs in courtrooms all over this country, and the world." Other women who felt victimized by the court system often commented on her posts. Nearly everyone involved in the Kassenoffs' divorce who Catherine perceived to have wronged her became the targets of internet hate. (Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) Also in 2021, Catherine testified before a commission that was investigating the use of court-appointed psychologists in divorce cases, which reported its findings to Governor Kathy Hochul; at the end of the year it concluded that the process "is fraught with bias, inequity, and a statewide lack of standards, and allows for discrimination and violations of due process." Shortly afterward, in early 2022, Catherine helped found an organization called WeSpoke, which focuses on "speaking up on the systemic failures in Family & Matrimonial Courts across America." She partnered with Natalie Blundell, another divorcée living in Westchester, who told me she's worked with over 300 women who felt trapped by the family court system. Blundell says she believes it is inherently biased against mothers—painting them as "unhinged" or "unstable." She also points out that in places like Westchester, men tend to have more money to spend, so they get to control "the narrative" of a divorce. "This wasn't just Catherine's story," she told me. "This was happening to a lot of women in New York State." "Knowing her and also knowing many other cases like hers, I don't think there's ever, ever going to be justice," Blundell told me. Catherine went to extreme lengths in pursuit of what she saw as justice. When I asked Blundell about Catherine's suicide note, she said: "I think everyone is going to interpret her email and her announcement differently." "I don't believe Catherine did that to be spiteful, or to really cause harm to her girls or to Allan," Blundell added. "I think she wanted the truth of what's going on in these courts spread." V. 'The Death Knell': The End of the Battle In the course of reporting this story, I found hardly a single fact that everyone agreed on, except that the drawn-out custody battle took a terrible toll on the Kassenoffs' three girls. The Dropbox folder Catherine emailed to dozens of people the day of her death included her daughters' therapy records, which show how much these children suffered, emotionally and sometimes physically, while their parents fought over them. In 2022, the girls were meeting their mother once a week, supervised by a counselor, in Carmel, New York—about an hour from their home. Before and after seeing Catherine, they often waited at The Carmel Diner, across the street, where they became friendly with a waitress named Jennifer Voltz. "I loved them to death. All of them," says Voltz, who could still reel off their regular orders when I spoke to her in February. JoJo and Ally always ordered chicken fingers, she said, while Charley got grilled cheese and chocolate milk. Voltz had a front row seat to how the girls' visits with their mother affected them. "There was not one day when one of them didn't come out in a rage, or like breaking down crying," she says. "They just didn't want to be around her." "It was honestly devastating," she added, "as a mother myself." "They just wanted it to be over with, you know." Allan was determined that the children would never live with their mother. On March 19, 2023, he sent his wife an email: "Even if this Court awards you my last dollar, I will never stop protecting them. Until the day I die. If I lose my house, so be it. If I go bankrupt, so be it. I will do everything and anything to take care of the kids and protect them." "All you know is hate and vengeance," he added. (The Daily Mail reported on this email under the headline: " 'Abusive' husband sent terrifying email to NY mom-of-three claiming he 'will never stop.' ") Allan refuses to believe Catherine is actually dead. But "assuming she's dead," he says, "her dying wish and goal was to still hurt me and the kids." (Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) A month later, Catherine bought a three-bedroom house in Westchester for nearly $900,000, despite having just submitted an affidavit to the court claiming she was in "dire need of financial assistance" from Allan. The previous year, Catherine had been awarded nearly $300,000 by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, after she claimed to have suffered "cancer-related injuries" because of the attack—and she wrote in the affidavit that she'd had to use that money to buy the home. When I asked Wayne Baker, the executor of her estate, about the house purchase, he said it was a sign that she had hoped, right until the very end, to be reunited with her kids. "She thought she was going to have sleepovers with the children," Baker said. "She bought beds for them, bought backpacks, and all these little things. You could see she was just so excited about the prospect." But on May 2 of last year, a new court-appointed psychologist issued an incredibly thorough, over 100-page report that was so damning for Catherine, a judge suspended all access to her kids until further notice. "That was the death knell," said Baker. "Basically, the court said you can't live with them. And she said, 'Well, I can't live without them.' " VI. 'Understandable Misery': Catherine's Suicide Catherine's plans to kill herself came as a surprise to almost everyone she knew. Several of her closest friends told me they found out through email or Facebook on the day of her death. "I was completely shocked," said Keri Christ, a friend she met in 2021 through WeSpoke, and who is the trustee of Catherine's estate. She was among the dozens of recipients of the email Catherine sent on May 27, 2023. "I read the first sentence and I immediately tried to call her," she told me. "But she was not picking up the phone." "I obviously didn't know," her psychiatrist, Dr. Stephanie Brandt, told me. "It would have been my ethical obligation to stop her." But in fact, Catherine's plans had quietly been in motion for some time. One of the documents she included in the Dropbox along with her suicide note was a medical report dated April 9, 2023, and signed by Colin Brewer—a UK-based former psychiatrist in his eighties. Brewer is the author of the 2015 book, I'll See Myself Out, Thank You, which argues that "people with terminal conditions, or poor quality of life due to illness or treatment" should "be allowed to be helped to kill themselves." In the medical report, Brewer confirmed that Catherine was of sound enough mind to kill herself, writing that she is "not suffering from a psychiatric illness and continues to understand the nature and purpose of [Medically Assisted Suicide]." Brewer also comments that Catherine's death "was originally scheduled for October [2022] but was postponed twice for administrative reasons." In other words, she had been planning to kill herself long before the courts suspended access to her children. When I spoke to Brewer, he told me Catherine had first reached out to him at some point in mid-2022 and was already in contact with the renowned clinic in Basel, Switzerland, called Pegasos. It allows anyone—regardless of where they are from and whether they have a terminal illness—to kill themselves, as long as they are "of sound mind." Brewer believes Catherine got his contact details from the clinic. (Pegasos did not respond to a request for comment.) Brewer told me he ended up writing four medical reports. Every time Catherine's assisted suicide was rescheduled, he had to evaluate her again and issue a new one—and he also spoke to her a few days before she died. Brewer therefore spoke to Catherine multiple times over several months. According to him, she never seemed anything but competent. "She was always very calm," he told me, then added: "She got naturally a bit exasperated when talking about her husband." She was, he said, "very clear about what she wanted to do and why she wanted to do it." Catherine's suicide note claimed she could have "lasted. . . longer" if she had not been "re-diagnosed with cancer." Brewer said Catherine told him she had cancer, but when I asked whether cancer was the reason she had decided to end her life, he said: "Absolutely not." "It was not something that troubled her, because she wasn't planning to be around long enough for it to cause trouble," he told me, adding that she wasn't seeking treatment, because of her plans to die. "She was just concerned that she had been treated abominably by her husband." Now an unemployed lawyer with endless free time, Allan has spent months on his legal case against TikToker Robbie Harvey, who he sued for $150 million. (Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) Catherine's case for assisted dying was "unusual," Brewer explained, because there was "no serious psychiatric diagnosis involved." "Catherine was functioning extremely well," he said, "as evidenced by her ability to get all these documents out into the world before she actually departed from it," he added—referencing her suicide note. He called hers an "existential assisted suicide"—which is "when people feel that they have failed to achieve something very important or that something very important is being destroyed." He made "no actual medical diagnosis," he clarified; Catherine's case was one of "understandable misery." Brewer was "struck off" the medical register in 2006, after the UK's medical body found him guilty of "irresponsible prescribing practices" in treating people struggling with drug addiction. A Telegraph investigation into the case suggested that Brewer was caught in the middle of "a showdown. . . between two opposing schools of opinion about how heroin addicts should be handled." When I asked him about this, Brewer stated: "My dispute with medical authority arose in the context of a big row with the addiction establishment. They were determined to get back at me for making them look bloody silly." Pegasos does not require someone to be a registered doctor to sign off on assisted suicide, he added, "as long as you have the necessary experience and qualifications." Brewer spoke to Catherine again a few days before her death, issuing a final report on May 25, which he read to me over the phone. In it, he confirms that Catherine showed none of the "classic features of severe depressive illness," and wrote that she is "looking forward to no longer having to live with a domestic situation becoming increasingly intolerable." "She traveled to Basel and she was comforted to meet the family of another Pegasos client," the report goes on. "She has also made extensive arrangements for her children to learn of her death in a setting that she hopes will minimize their distress." If she had made such arrangements, they didn't work. Ally told me she found out about her mother's plans to kill herself from a Facebook post Catherine made the day of her death. Katherine Klein, one of the Kassenoffs' former nannies, believes she was the last person to speak to Catherine before she died. She told me that when she read Catherine's suicide note, the morning it was sent, she called her cell phone right away. "I kept calling and I got hold of her," Klein told me. "It was 12:08 in the afternoon." "I was, like, begging her not to do it." "And she said, 'I'm already here.' " Catherine told Klein that the IV of chemicals that would kill her was already in her arm—but she offered one last piece of advice, from one mother to another. "She just told me to always help my children first," Klein said—"to never allow anyone to get between me and them." VII. 'The Gospel of Me Being the Devil': Allan's Case Against Robbie Harvey Sitting behind the wheel of his black SUV on a cold and dreary afternoon in Westchester in late November 2023, Allan looks resigned. His hair is graying at the sides, and he hunches toward the dash, peering through the raindrops on his windshield. As he makes a turn, I notice he is wearing a colorful friendship bracelet on his right wrist with beads spelling out "Best Dad Ever"—a bracelet he tells me he hasn't taken off since his youngest daughter, now 10, made it for him at camp last summer. I can't help wondering whether he's just wearing it because of my visit: once you've heard any version of the Kassenoffs' story, it's hard to know what to believe. Allan parks in the driveway and walks the stone pathway to his back door. With one hand, he carries a bag of fresh bagels from a nearby deli; in the other, he holds a tattered brown accordion file folder full of legal documents. As an unemployed lawyer with endless free time outside caring for his daughters, Allan was spending his days collecting and organizing thousands of documents, working on his latest legal case—against Robbie Harvey. Last September, Allan filed a defamation lawsuit against the TikToker for $150 million to compensate for his loss of earnings and his "destroyed reputation." On July 5, 2024, they settled the case under undisclosed terms. On the day of the settlement, Harvey issued a nine-minute apology video. Sitting in a plaid shirt, in a dark room lit by purple LED lights, he admits that he "made some mistakes in the reporting of the story" of Catherine and Allan's divorce. But, he continues, he made those mistakes because "Catherine did not provide a complete record of what was happening." And rather than seek out the other side, he admits, "I echoed exactly what Catherine said." Harvey said Catherine uploaded "many documents and videos. . . that she believed would support her claims." But, he adds: "What Catherine did not do is upload all of the documents in regards to her marriage with Allan, and their ultimate divorce." "I wish I would have known the whole story at the time when I was reporting the Kassenoff case," he said. "But I did not. Now that more facts have been presented to me, I now see where I was wrong." While Allan told me he is satisfied that Harvey has apologized, he said the damage has been done. "When the videos first came out, you know, you're getting hammered left and right. And I don't even mean death threats. I mean just video after video about you, not just from a TikTok, but articles that did no research." Now, he concludes, "the narrative is set." We don't know what happened in the privacy of the Kassenoffs' home, only that a state court found both parents had caused their kids to suffer. Yet it was Allan who was put through trial by internet, where virality rejects complexity, where the most popular stories are often one-sided, where nobody has an incentive to interrogate the evidence, let alone call witnesses for the defense. The verdict was resounding: Allan is an evil man who robbed a loving mother of her children. Allan turns into the driveway of his home in Westchester—a large, wooded structure, held up by stone columns, which his kids joke looks like a haunted house. It feels like one, too. Catherine Kassenoff doesn't live here anymore, but you can feel her presence everywhere. Pictures of her still hang on the dining room walls; in one, she beams from a hospital bed, holding a newborn child (Allan can't remember which one). On the mantelpiece in Allan's bedroom sits a family portrait in a gold frame. The three kids are toddlers, dressed in white tulle dresses, sitting on Allan's lap. Catherine, statuesque in a strapless white gown, leans over her family, unsmiling but serene. When I ask him why he hasn't taken down the pictures, he just shrugs. "She's still their mother." Allan in his bedroom, where a framed photo of Catherine, Allan, and their children has remained since the couple's acrimonious split. (Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) We sit in the kitchen as Allan sips from a cup of black coffee, in between nervously spinning it on the table. The girls are chatting in the next room, but I notice that Allan doesn't keep his voice low as we speak about Robbie Harvey's videos and their consequences. He tells me how, in the past year, he's thrown himself into life as a stay-at-home dad. On a school day, he typically wakes his three daughters at 6:45, but always has to go back to check on JoJo, who he jokingly refers to as "Sleeping Beauty." Afterward, Allan chauffeurs the girls to and from school, and to their various activities—soccer, basketball, ice skating, cheerleading practice. They seem like a happy family, but their humor is sometimes dark. At one point, I hear the girls bantering about who has the best bedroom: Ally, they all agree. When JoJo complains that hers is too hot, Ally jokes: "At least you didn't have to sleep on the floor for years." At another point, JoJo picks up a bottle and hits her sister, Charley, on the head. Charley squeals, and Ally pipes up: "At least now you know what it feels like to be me." She then turns to me and asks if I'd heard the story of when her mother threw a glass at her. Allan didn't seem to mind my asking the girls questions, claiming they have "no privacy anymore thanks to Harvey and Catherine." But all three were reluctant to talk about their mother, often changing the subject when I brought her up. When they do reference her, they refer to her as "Catherine." When I ask if they miss her, all three girls reply with a resounding "no." Allan is worried their lifestyle could soon drastically change. Since he was forced to resign over a year ago, he says he has applied to around 70 jobs, but hasn't received a single offer. His severance package has run out, he tells me, and he will have to sell the house if something doesn't come along. He signed up for unemployment benefits, but when prompted to explain why he left his last job, he didn't know how to answer. "There's no option for 'a TikToker destroyed my career,' " he told me. He said he doesn't blame employers for not wanting to hire him: "This guy spread the gospel of me being the devil." In his lawsuit against Harvey, Allan alleged that the TikToker directed his followers to harass him, and intentionally sought to get Allan fired from his job. He also claimed that Harvey's "motivation was one thing and one thing only—money." He pointed to a now-deleted Facebook post—in which Harvey says he's built a "movie room" with "surround sound"—as evidence that the TikToker was "apparently proud of the money he made off of the children's suffering and trauma." Whether you believe Allan was an abusive husband or the victim of a manipulative wife—or something in the middle—it's hard to deny that, since the dawn of social media, "suffering and trauma" have become a valuable resource: the best way to get attention, which is what makes money on the internet. But Allan says "the few seconds of me telling Catherine I hate her" wasn't what ruined his life. He regrets his behavior; but, he says, "tell me who wouldn't look bad if their worst moments in time were recorded?" "I think the issue is Robbie Harvey's story," he says. "You know, his version of reality." In this version, Allan is a monster—and he's not the only one. In the role of Catherine's avenger, Harvey called upon his TikTok followers to go after other people who supposedly betrayed her: Carol Most, Susan Adler, Marc Abrams. All of them told me they received death threats as a result. Allan's home is a large, wooded structure, which his kids joke looks like a haunted house. (Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) Carol Most played me an audio message in which a woman says, "Bitch, you are lucky I don't live in your same state or else I'd find where you live and slit your fucking throat." Susan Adler, the children's therapist, showed me various abusive emails, including one that read: "We are coming for you. Coward. Prepare to die," and another that stated, "Die, bitch. Die painfully. Cunt." "That anybody could think I was such a horrible person when all I did was care about their children," Adler told me, "was horrendous." Marc Abrams, meanwhile, has received "thousands of nasty messages, nasty texts, nasty emails and death threats" since Catherine's death. "It really doesn't matter what the truth is," he told me. People on TikTok don't want to "explore what may be fact as opposed to fiction." They "simply hold you guilty." Robbie Harvey's early posts, which date back to 2021, are mostly geared toward men, who he coaches to "choose to be attracted to your wife" and to do simple tasks for their spouses like taking out the trash and "stop watching porn." But he also comments on cases where men have allegedly abused or acted inappropriately toward women, sometimes calling out these husbands by name. Sometimes he alludes to the idea that he's prosecuting—rather than documenting—a case. In June 2023, when a TikTok user asked about all the people who had allegedly failed Catherine—"how do we bring them all down?!?!"—Harvey responded: "I'm working behind the scenes." "Many of you have asked, 'If we get justice for Catherine Kassenoff's death, then what will happen to the kids?' " he says in a video from July 9, 2023. "Many of you have asked, 'Am I adding to their trauma?' " Instead of answering, he criticizes the family courts that "sell children to the highest bidder—just like Allan Kassenoff." It's a good question, though: Did Robbie Harvey and the social media firestorm add to the girls' trauma? Jennifer Voltz, the waitress at the diner where they used to wait to see their mother, tells me that as the story of their parents' divorce has taken on a life of its own, the kids—now 10, 13, and 14—can't escape it. They're just "trying to figure out who they are," she says, but "they're getting bullied at school"—partly because the man who picks them up after class has been demonized online. Voltz believes Allan "didn't do anything wrong." But she also believes the real story is probably much more complicated than anyone knows. "You have three sides to every story," she said. "His, hers, and the truth." VIII. 'Her Dying Wish': The Haunting of Allan Kassenoff It's been more than a year since Catherine emailed her suicide note, but Allan isn't yet convinced she's dead. Although he received her death certificate from both the Swiss authorities and the U.S. Department of State, dated the same day her suicide email was sent, he still can't talk about her death without prefacing it with the word alleged. According to her U.S. death certificate—which Allan showed to me—Catherine's body was cremated, and her ashes are in the custody of Wayne Baker, who has stopped returning my calls. I last saw Allan at the Starbucks in a Westchester train station, in mid-March. He had his brown accordion file folder with him, and as we talked about Catherine, his voice grew louder, almost enthusiastic. He leaned over the table between us and started to pull out his wife's bank statements. Allan says he's applied to around 70 jobs since the story of him being a monster went viral, but he hasn't had a single offer. (Alex S. K. Brown for The Free Press) Allan is obsessed with trying to understand Catherine's last moves. He told me he had scoured her financial records for months, trying to work out what happened to her assets. He has theories even he admits are wild. He sometimes says, half-jokingly, that he thinks his wife is alive and well, living in France. In Catherine's will—which Allan also showed to me—she left what remained of her assets to her children, but Allan says her executor is in control of them. "Wayne Baker could do anything he wants," he claims. "One thing you could do with [the assets]," he speculates, is "send someone who's living overseas who is undercover money." (There is no evidence that Baker has used any of the money in Catherine's estate inappropriately; when I tried to contact him, to ask about Allan's suspicions, he did not respond.) The Kassenoffs' divorce was never finalized, and Catherine's will emphasized: "I intentionally make no provision for Allan Kassenoff, for reasons best known to him." But Allan is now fighting Baker in court for 50 percent of the estate—for the sake of the kids, he says. It seems that neither he nor Catherine saw her suicide as the end of their divorce: Allan also showed me a letter of instructions Catherine wrote to Wayne Baker, in the event of her death—in which she directs her lawyers to continue pursuing a lawsuit against Allan. "Assuming she's dead," Allan says—a caveat I've heard him use multiple times—"her dying wish and goal was to still hurt me and the kids." For the past year, Allan's had to live with constant death threats. He scrolls through his inbox of Facebook messages in front of me—he's received around 1,600 in the last year, he says—and what I see is an almost hourly barrage of hate mail: people calling him a "disgusting human being," telling him "can't wait to spit on your grave," and "I hope you pay for this for the rest of your life." On that last afternoon in Westchester, he told me he thought this was what Catherine would have wanted. "She set this all in motion," he says, in a tone that suggests there's no doubt in his mind. "Whether she got lucky with Harvey picking this up, or she coordinated with him, either way: this is her dream. "It's like she's harassing me from beyond the grave."
CAPTION: I paid $5 to feed 20 photos of myself to an AI avatar generator. The results are a mix of flattering and absurd, but none look quite like me. Fellow Travelers, we're living in a strange limbo as AI exits geek circles to sweep the public consciousness and private marketplace of everyday normies. Do these things have staying power? (This essay originally appeared on my Substack and Medium.) Humans love imagining a future landscape—or hellscape, depending on one's view—of robots taking over the world à la Terminator. Even so, we've already delegated many critical tasks to artificial intelligence, from regulatory paperwork to farm equipment to military combat. More nuanced applications, like simulating human connection, have proven challenging to meaningfully transform with AI. But this status quo has a new challenger: ChatGPT, among the first entrants in a frenzy of chatbots capturing global users in the millions. Named after the "Generative Pre-trained Transformer" language model of its creator, Silicon Valley-based OpenAI, ChatGPT writes and retrieves information in response to text inputs. With conversational features, it's more realistic than analogous technologies, and it beats intelligent assistants (like Apple's Siri and Amazon's Alexa) in the range of tasks it supports. Setting aside the merits of the technology itself, our newfound society-wide obsession with its "nightmarish" implications is arguably the more compelling story. Consumer-facing ChatGPT and its ilk (Google's Bard, Microsoft's Bing AI, and other chatbots) seem silly in scale to the OG robots effectively running our world—digital incumbents busy in the background at any given time. It's in the predictive algorithms across our financial system. It's automating our food production and overseeing critical energy infrastructure. It's the biometrics and cameras tracking much of China right now, while another model across the globe is likely simulating a cost-benefit analysis of implementing such surveillance interventions domestically. And it's in our brains as we make sense of our highly tailored news feeds, governed by personalized algorithms. In a new but predictable move, AI's tendrils have reached culture. AI-generated music and art offer a similar productive utility but with greater social implications, leading us to rethink longstanding copyright protections. We arrive at the uncanny limbo where approximations of human-made material are becoming harder to distinguish. Chatbots are ultimately an innocent player in this dynamic, trumped by more sensational media, such as "deep fakes" realistically depicting public figures. At what point does the limbo graduate past absurdity, possibly entering the physical realm? And how will we respond? Will AI conform to our norms, constantly in a state of flux as humans advance? Does it have staying power? That depends on what happens with us, the end-consumers. Leaving out the proverbial 1% of developers, investors, and regulators who actually oversee AI advancement, the future hinges on whether we, as consumers, tune in or drop out. The forecasted outcome is clouded by today's competing socioeconomic pressures—all perfectly timed to disincentivize and distract from any real dissent and/or counter-innovation from the broader populace. More pressing matters demand attention here on the ground, with suicide rates reaching an all-time high, the quality of education plummeting, the lessons of the pandemic fading, global instability rising, and social division becoming entrenched. It's an opportune moment for human displacement to speed up from an incremental transition to the new standard. We've been teetering on a recession for over a year, and the long-awaited layoffs are finally materializing. The tech sector alone shed over 170,000 employees so far in 2023. Now's the perfect time to exit employment, don our headsets and digital siloes, and interact with the same tools disrupting our work and personal lives as we doom-scroll to death. ChatGPT Brought AI Fear & Optimism to the Masses The most successful consumer-facing chatbot landed with much fear-mongering and fanfare over the holidays in late-2022. This pioneering yet still-imperfect language model surprised everyone by seizing the public discourse longer than the typical attention-draining news cycle. ChatGPT ignited sensational headlines, Congressional hearings, family dinner conversations, workforce training sessions, and other forms of discourse on and offline. With 100 million monthly active users by January, ChatGPT represented the fastest-growing consumer application in history. And by March, a Pew Research Center survey reported that 58% of Americans had heard of it. Even though it still has notable limitations—often churning out incorrect, improvised, or useless responses—ChatGPT is already displacing time-consuming manual labor across society, whether it's grading papers and planning lessons for teachers, writing social media posts and emails for marketers, or taking on burdensome paperwork for healthcare professionals. Some of the more off-label uses include creating text adventure games, messaging matches on dating apps, and even preaching sermons at church. On release, the app garnered more nefarious user testing, from cheating in school (reported by one in four K-12 teachers) to spreading malware. But OpenAI started limiting many of those abilities this year. The concern of "giving it too much power" isn't unfounded. One initial safeguard built into ChatGPT was that it couldn't access the internet beyond September 2021, setting a limit on its knowledge of current events and (potential) manipulation of real-time information. OpenAI has since given ChatGPT access to the internet: The company rolled out this feature in September 2023, providing users "with current and authoritative information, complete with direct links to sources." Meanwhile, the job-killing concerns have already reached the surface, with 48% of companies that use ChatGPT reporting it has replaced workers. Writers are protesting layoffs as AI-generated articles become more cost-effective across media and entertainment. Goldman Sachs estimates generative AI systems like ChatGPT could expose 300 million full-time jobs to automation globally. Generative AI algorithms already surpass human benchmarks for image classification and reading comprehension. Chart: Goldman Sachs Because of its heavily publicized and far-reaching rollout, ChatGPT thrust the theoretical implications of AI into the mainstream, now a popular subject across generations and cultures. But Americans are skeptical about AI, with more than two-thirds concerned about its consequences and 61% seeing it as a threat to humanity, per Reuters/Ipsos. In many ways, ChatGPT isn't revolutionary; it simply confirms what we knew AI could do, this time conversing in our style. Perhaps ChatGPT was primed to go viral after OpenAI released DALL-E in 2021, a similarly attention-magnetic app that recreates images from descriptions via the GPT language model. It was also perfectly timed to awaken the mid-stage-development projects lagging far behind ChatGPT. Viewing ChatGPT as a competitor to Google Search, Google executives called emergency meetings and reassigned developers to lead its AI expansion. Microsoft upped its previous stake in OpenAI with a $10 billion investment, accelerating a broader AI push. The company then rushed to integrate an unreleased version of GPT-4 on its own Bing search engine, despite OpenAI warning it needed more training for accuracy. Predictably, Bing AI's demo launched with false, nonsensical, and sometimes deranged responses. Enter the Big Tech-fueled "AI Wars:" a user-adoption-hungry matrix aiming to capture a populace already asleep at the proverbial wheel, drawing dopamine hits from social media and over-scrolling until our eyes are strained. Even with our short attention spans, the new AI race has dominated the news cycle for six months. This iteration of the AI zeitgeist has more staying power than those quick-hit stories of major AI breakthroughs over the years. That was yesterday's niche news, as the wider populace becomes desensitized by a constant stream of mind-blowing tech, ever increasing in scope and implications. (In one recent example, scientists developed a "brain-decoder" that can accurately read a person's unspoken thoughts by analyzing the language in their brain.) Meanwhile, as we incrementally relinquish small bits of our daily lives to AI, we lose an opportunity to solve problems and reflect on our experience, aiming for long-term self-improvement. And when our creative output is inspired by vicarious experiences, not our own, a culture previously never short on ideas becomes stagnant—just as soulless and sterile as the technologies that distract us from any meaningful change. Are We Regressing? AI and humans are evolving simultaneously, one faster than the other. Since AI is just an extension of ourselves, consider human advancement over time. We have a knack for pattern recognition; it's arguably what hastened our evolution from natural selection to an enterprising, industrial species. It spreads to our inclination to leave an imprint in some material form, whether it's carving symbols in caves, drilling for oil, branding our livestock and, now, branding our identities online. As the cliché goes, one cannot move forward without leaving a footprint. In this way, it's daunting moving into an era where humans are willingly losing touch with physical life, leaving behind a void where tasks are delegated, and creativity is outsourced. What starts as a tool becomes a crutch. Muscle memory fades with limited mobility as even the most mundane tasks—such as trekking the painful distance from the couch to the thermostat—are assigned to software. Our stamina is outperformed by "intelligent" everything: Smart homes, smart aging, smart sex. Still, these tools carry utility, and many find them valuable in everyday life. But the tangible benefits become blurred in efforts to infuse ethics into AI. Emotion and a sense of right vs. wrong distinguish humans from other life on Earth, and the same will continue until we're displaced or die out. Despite the intuitive value of ensuring our AI follows this social code, maybe it's foolish to prescribe an emotion-driven model to an accessory. The stakes are magnified as an untapped resource of "superintelligence" could surpass human skills in most domains over the next 10 years, per OpenAI's own estimation. Pertinent figures from a paper in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (via SemanticScholar.com) With artificial general intelligence (AGI) achieving breakthroughs and likely to breach human capabilities in the coming years, the AI alignment problem is one of the biggest research challenges of our time. Computer scientists, including ChatGPT's own, are rushing to develop strategies keeping AGI "aligned," acting in the interest of humans' goals and ethical principles. But misalignment is to be expected if AGI is informed by today's most advanced deep learning models. A recent paper co-authored by OpenAI governance researcher Richard Ngo outlines three potential scenarios arising when AGIs are pre-trained using self-supervised learning and fine-tuned via reinforcement learning from human feedback: Three properties (highlights added by me) are shown with contributing factors. (Source) But never mind this prognosis. The experts are looking into it. Congress is considering regulating it. AI executives are calling on both to manage the risks of their creations. It's a childish dance, as stakeholders toss the burden of responsibility back and forth like hot potatoes. As always, just follow the money. The free market monetized human instinct, selling projections of ourselves back to us. From that perspective, reasons to be either bullish or bearish on chatbots abound. They've found a proven market as customer support/engagement applications, now widespread across banking, ecommerce, and retail. But the prospect of capturing the general public is a business opportunity too tempting to pass up. After all, the market is HOT and ripe for mergers and acquisitions; ignore the rushed rollouts, the limitations in the business models, or the sky-high operating costs leaving pre-revenue startups starved for capital. Consumer-facing chatbots lack the ability to provide users with innovative answers, still relying on supervision and interference with a trained support team. This hand-holding will likely continue until they can reliably respond to the many unpredictable nuances of human behavior. Beyond chatbots, these and similar flaws have long limited AI's effectiveness. As programmers work out the kinks and researchers test long-term solutions, the technology faces growing skepticism from investors, ethicists, and early internet pioneers, who critique its societal risks, ethical gaps, and profit limitations. Notably: Through the Future of Life Institute, Elon Musk (formerly an OpenAI board member), Steve Wozniak, and other tech leaders signed an open letter urging a six-month pause on training AI systems more powerful than GPT-4 (the latest version of ChatGPT, enabling more advanced knowledge retention, reasoning, and coding). GPT-4 beats GPT-3.5 in academic and professional exams. Source: OpenAI technical report (2023) However, abandoning current AI progress seems wasteful and naive. Leaving it in an unfinished state isn't reasonable either. What's Next? Ultimately, I don't think AI will save or end humanity. There are plenty of compelling cases of it offering more benefit than harm in the right applications: AI-powered medical treatment/diagnostics helps save lives. Unmanned/autonomous research drones gather environmental data at altitudes and depths too dangerous or inaccessible to people. Humans still have the advantage in complexity and creativity, though estimates vary on when we'll lose our edge. Virtually every AI innovation brings the expectation of at least matching human capabilities. But with AI expansion outpacing our understanding of how it works in reality, we aren't equipped to keep up. Until recently, human adaptation to technology has largely been incremental, which is ultimately healthy and more sustainable long-term. "Web 1.0" accelerated the timescale of mainstream tech adoption in the 1990s and early-2000s, with humans quickly conforming to the internet age. We soon lept head first into the social media-fuelled "Web 2.0" era, and we're still making sense of the psychological consequences of that expansion. Will today's AI issues be resolved in the same timeline? Likely not, as the time-to-market incentives outweigh the buzz-killing risk controls. Like the average person, I use AI regularly. It's impossible not to, as it's embedded in modern society's underlying systems. I'm just an observer of (and participant in) the current madness. But I find the timing of ChatGPT's release so impeccable that it's almost funny. Here's this public-facing AI that can have a half-hearted conversation as you delegate everything else to its machine-learning ancestors and siblings, all while hoping AI doesn't take your job one day. How convenient. We're in an era brimming with possibilities, but there's a slow burn of minds willing to sacrifice short-term wins for long-term, healthy tech development. As in any parent-child dynamic, a basic principle applies: Just because we gave birth to this future doesn't mean it will be kind to us. ------------- Fellow Agora Road Travelers: What do you guys think about all of this? Any solutions worth exploring?
Thread upon post from user @abacus >> https://forum.agoraroad.com/index.php?profile-posts/33840/ >>
This post was originally created on 4chan, the TLDR version is posted below. Important to note, Ideology does not matter for this. :hspin:Agora Road is Apolitical. Posted here for archival purposes and reading entertainment. Please Enjoy.:hspin: Here is some discussion on the validity of this method and if it glows bright or not https://forum.agoraroad.com/index.php?threads/is-operation-preinstall-minecraft-a-cia-honeypot-pysop-or-a-legitimate-resistance-technique.3945/post-23160 Thread Theme music: View: https://youtu.be/Iuq3hNiUcds View: https://youtu.be/Zk405nQ1Sv8 TLDR: >create a "group" with either your family members or closest friends >group size should be two to five people at most >promise that you will never disband as long as the dystopia is not decisively defeated >after assembling your group, do not try to grow vertically but grow horizontally instead - grow the idea itself - promote creation of other groups >every group becomes both a unit of resistance and also a unit of propaganda on its own, creating a self-replicating structure that covers the entirety of the "democratic" world >the structure exponentiates and spreads in every single state >we overwhelm the capacity of any regime to suppress us >we win There are two ways that this can develop: >Option one: we remain as we are right now This option's outcome is already obvious. People are demoralized. They protest, but then they stop protesting, and 80% of them end up getting vaxxed and the state receives dictatorial powers to suppress the other 20% whom are now hated by everyone else. This has happened in every hypervaxxed state and will keep happening until all of them come together on an international stage and agree to suppress us together as if we're some kind of a new form of terrorism. In fact, such an agreement has ALREADY BEEN PROPOSED. >Option two: we do something about it Now there are many ways of doing something about it. We have the direct "just fuck shit up lol" response, which is the best outcome, but there's a little problem: everyone's too demoralized and the people willing to fuck shit up are a minority. It's very easy to herd these dissidents and throw them into FEMA camps at our current manpower. That's already happening in Australia and their government hasn't even shifted into its final form. It's going to get so much worse than that. So what we need is a way to somehow increase our manpower and to put that manpower towards specifically opposing these new regimes and their Great Reset, so that when the new wave of dystopia hits and the governments in the rest of the "democratic" world start turning dictatorial, there is an organized response that can rise up and destroy them out of nowhere. This is achieved by creating the conflict prior to that and dragging the glow-in-the-darks into OUR territory that we have a preemptive control over and have dug in as deeply as possible. I'll give you the specifics in the following posts. Typically, whenever you form a preemptive resistance to a threat that is expected to happen in the future, you do two universal things that are done by every such movement: first you form a structure of the resistance so that it's not just separate individuals, and then you dig in. You can see it throughout all of history - in the peasant rebellions, in the French revolution, in the American revolution, in the Soviet revolution, in the creation of the SA, in the Chinese revolution, in the Vietnam War, in the Taliban - it's a universal characteristic of a resistance. You need a structure of some form, individuals carrying guns around aimlessly does not work and has never worked. So let us address this vital issue of the resistance movements right now: there are ZERO structures in place. We don't have anything and any attempt at creating a structure gets glow-in-the-darked right away. And how the fuck do we deal with this? Well there is, in fact, a way. One that is completely resistant to glow-in-the-darks yet still forms an underlying structure of resistance. That sounds impossible, but it's not. It's what the US army did with the French resistance, and then did again with the preemptive anti-communist resistance that they called Operation Gladio. It was so successful that even literally-communist glow-in-the-darks could not penetrate it. It's the creation of a system of decentralized tiny cells, all united by the obvious common cause but also separated well enough that no form of glow-in-the-dark penetration can affect them. If you catch one cell, it is impossible to catch another by interrogating them because they simply do not know of any other cells other than themselves. They all know what to do, they are looking for the same signals, they know what to support and what to oppose because it's all common sense, and at the same time they have little to no communication with each other. It's a structure that is both united and decentralized at the same time. This type of a resistance structure voids the modern glow-in-the-dark outdated concept. The NSA, the infiltration tactics of the FBI, Interpol, PATRIOT Act, NATO - all of it is suddenly useless because you have effectively localized the organizational part of the movement down to the very local level, while also using the global internet to coordinate on the macro level like I am using 4chan to post this right now without revealing anything about me. You can catch one, two, ten, a hundred at most, but it is physically impossible to catch the rest of the hundreds of thousands of cells formed in the country. Or the rest of the world. It is a body of cells that has unity, but also separability and individuality. So how do we do this? How the FUCK do we form "hundreds of thousands of cells"? It's actually very simple. The cell that I'm describing consists of two to five people, all loyal and preferably family members or long-time friends, who take an oath that they will oppose the regime totally until it's finally gone and that this bond will not be broken individually or before the objective has been accomplished. It doesn't matter whether it's just your brother, or it's the full group of five people, the creation of the cell itself is what's important here. The ceremonial promise to stick together creates a new unit that was not present until then, which now has a sum of its components greater than the components split apart. This is all that you have to do at this point. You do not need a column of twenty thousand men marching together, when even a union as small as just you and your friend changes the role that both of you play in this world dramatically. The cell has a new emergent property - it can maintain its fitness level by having the other guy(s) keep a check on you and vice versa. It has a second emergent property - there is commitment so you are committed to something and cannot easily bounce back to escaping reality through video games. But most importantly, and this is the reason to write this in the first place - it's incredibly easy to do. Typically there's a vetting process and it's generally hard to just join a large organization wherein you know no one, which alienates many potential members and specifically alienates blackpilled men who're isolated from society anyway. That's not the approach to the modern world and its issues. It worked in Germany some time ago, but obviously does not work anymore. So having such an easily-formable cell is a game changer. Suddenly all these demoralized men can actually become active by just grouping together with a single friend. This is the most important characteristic of this. It's easy to produce, but it's also easy to reproduce. And this is how we will reproduce this cell. You get two to five men together, you start creating plans, you get yourselves in shape, you start studying your surroundings and potential tactics and even future plans for politics if you're into that, and then just stop recruiting. This is counter-intuitive but it will destroy the glow-in-the-dark state. You stop recruiting at just 5 people. Instead of growing your own movement vertically, you grow the general movement horizontally by recruiting MORE CELLS instead of more people into your cell. You incentivize others to form cells and tell them to cap it at two to five, and then they join you and incentivize more cells on their own. As you can see this strategy is an exponential one. It creates a structure, it mobilizes the men within the structure, and it advertises the structure to everyone else anonymously. At one point we pass a threshold where there's hundreds of thousand of mobilized men, all of whom are advertising the same thing as an extremely loud united movement. And that right there is a resistance structure that no state in the world can suppress or has prepared against. Because it's impossible to suppress this. PRO-TIP: Communications and community out reach are always central. You're not recruiting into an organization. You're recruiting into a mindset. Precisely. Which is why this is so good. If you have a movement, let's say a new party, and you get ten thousand people in it, you'll still have a single PR wing of a few people doing whatever a few people can do. The PR wing of this type of a structure is every single individual cell. You get a few people and they become an independent propaganda wing that spreads the word. Another few people, another propaganda wing. Ten thousand cells with an average of four people in each equals to 2500 independent people posting about it and gluing flyers all over the city. That's 2500 independent cells working to reach out to an audience of millions. This is why the cap on membership is so important. It's something novel that no state has expected to happen and there are no means to stop something like this. Yes, more threads and more awareness over other social medias. Emphasis on >1) cap to five people at most >2) become an independent propagandist with your cell upon formation This creates a self-replicating structure that is unstoppable. You can screenshot the posts or paraphrase them in your own words or your own local language if you're out of the anglosphere - whatever, just remember the key points of this structure. There must be a cap, there must be a pact inside that creates a personal investment into it by all members so as to reduce the likeliness of them quitting, and there must be reproduction. >Anything broadcast online will have a high chance of being hijacked. that's true, which is why you only use websites such as 4chan and "telegram" costanzayeahrightsmirk and so on to >1) reproduce the cell >2) keep up with the rest of the cells anonymously without a central committee or a leadership trying to steer them. Just as a refresher to what's happening out there. That's all you need to do. When the warning flare is shot, and boy will you see that one because the regime will turn aggressively anxious, you will know what to do on your own. You will know the most optimal local strategy independent of anyone else. You will see all the others rise up and you will rise up on your own. That's the point of this cell structure. Here's my tech take on decentralizing a movement, maximizing coordination and minimizing subversion/infiltration. Basically, a P2P protocol where you're a single cell identified with a self-signed certificate, with a specific geographically defined area of action (think a city, a few cities, a region...), and a ledger of all the activity you did, signed by "vouchers", who attest you indeed participated in an action. Actions are categorized in "white", "grey" and "black" as in "legally" "white", "grey" or "black". You can broadcast an action, with a category, and an approximate operation location. People who can act near that site will be able to read your proposition and will be able to view your reputation, and determine themselves if you're trustworthy, then contact you. You can then determine if they are trustworthy and let them in on more details. There are two ideas at play here: - the "whiter" the action, the less reputation is needed to trust the other parties, and the darker, the more reputation is required. - Reputation is computed from vouchers one knows directly or indirectly (as in, they vouched for one on your past actions, or have been vouched by one of the people you've vouched for), meaning you can't just generate 100 accounts and vouch yourself to boost your rep. A side effect of that design is that a single physical person can and should bear multiple identities for different grades of actions, and will be able to use their "white" identities to vouch for their darker alts, allowing them to be untraceable. In other words, instead of a unidirectional centralized chain of trust you have in encrypted protocols like HTTPS, you have a growing decentralized graph of trust. The result is that at first you will have a bunch of small cells organizing small legal protests, but at the same time establish a growing network with rings of individuals organizing raids in minecraft. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. >>350463928 >10 posts by this ID you care too much. THis is merely OPs suggestion of forming small cell militias thats only purpose is to independently push propaganda and other perfectly legal actions. Everything you are complaining about is covered extensively by the WWII OSS manual I listed, from forming cells to maintaining secure communication methods that cannot be breached, to how meetings can be set up and coded messages can be left in predetermined places with predetermined signals. All they have to do is not blatantly discuss their ideas and plans with each other over a cellphone but in person instead or handwritten letters left in secretly agreed upon locations. Once you do that electric glow-in-the-darks are btfo and now the only way they can know what you are up to is HUMINT and based on the structure of the cell they will end up detected by one of the members the moment they show up too often. again here is a link to that manual https://www.pdfdrive.com/how-to-be-a-spy-the-wwii-soe-training-manual-d157248239.html Come visit /lit/ sometime Remember to avoid all attempts at: >1) centralization >2) ecelebs parasitizing as the face of the movement >3) ideological injection - cells choose their own politics This is about opposing dictatorial regimes. Clear and simple. :demonskull: Most useful for our frens in China dealing with Xinjiang Internment camps :demonskull:
1. "Silence. Noise." I don't know who said that. I'm tired, but as it happens there's nobody outside and I know there isn't. I'm aware of my surroundings- out here on my hammock, nestled tightly in, between the folds, untethered by gravity, free to rock back and forth. One way and the other, simple motions of comfort in an increasingly uncomfortable environment. It's all I can hope to do. One more sip of lemonade, then I go in for the night. Check my watch. 3:20 A.M. Before I do, I stretch my ankles and look up at the stars- the way the breeze seems to carry certain aromas, the cookout two houses down this evening, the mowed lawns and the wet roof tiles from the small drizzle yesterday, shingles coated in a thick shellac of dew, baked off by the hot all-day sun. Simple things like that. Need to take it in. "You're late," she sighs as I stumble in beside her and brush her hair from in front of her ear. "I know," I say. "Thinking. Up all night thinking." "You think too much." "I think on behalf of those who can't." The long night, the time spent listening to my wife's breathing, worrying about her heart, how it beats softly in the velvet pools as her brain slips, fades away into nothing and mine remains preoccupied with the affairs of the days and weeks ahead. I make note of the curvature of her shoulder, the way it dips gracefully in what might be described as the golden ratio, outlined faintly by the moonlight on top. My mind is a racetrack covered in people holding flags and yelling incessantly about facts and trivia and other detritus, a confused screaming agony, as the Formula 1 comes careening down the bend at a staggering 120 miles an hour, its tires burning on the summer pavement, and any second its axle is going to slip and it'll ram into the wall and kill its driver. But here- now- outside the fever pitch of my thoughts- I'm holding her hand and looking at her dark eyelids and I'm trying to push the negative inclinations out and replace them with soft hypnotic lullabies, repetitive fractals and spirals which can theoretically repeat forever. Out in the hallway, the clock is ticking, the pendulum swinging back and forth, and the carpet is a soft, warmly lit desert of artificial comfort, and next to the clock are all my degrees- each framed in golden and oak rectangles for nobody except her and myself to witness. Ornate things, these, each with an ink signature carved on smooth parchment with a quill pen, warmly cutting through the particulate. I'm better off than most, I remind myself. I have nothing to worry about, nothing can cause me to fall off my pedestal into the abyss beneath. I shift over onto my right side but keep my neck craned up such that I can make out the flat expanse of the ceiling- the accents on the borders, the one corner which tapers in, the paint applied decades back, the material it's composed of. Too insulative, too warm for summer. I kick off the sheets, trying my best not to disturb her, but I need to feel the breeze grace my neck in so many ways or I'll never get to sleep. That's when the shivers start- they begin low, only in my legs, and I hope they don't continue, but they don't show me any mercy. It starts at the root and makes its way up, towards my torso and then to my arms, which I wrap around my chest for security. For an instant, my eyelids flutter, then retract, and then my eyes are staring straight forward with intensity at nothing in particular. My forehead aches, but I'm too high-strung to risk getting an aspirin. The wave has passed, a cold torrent of sweat collecting on my brow. I don't know what to call these episodes- medically, I don't think there's a name for them. They're not seizures, really, in that they affect my entire body and I feel as if I would have a rough amount of control and autonomy to avoid them, if I really wanted to. Are they cowardice? Guilt, maybe. There's a very high chance that these are waves of guilt I'm feeling, in addition to the assorted clutter of my head. Tsunamis of regret. The inability to admit defeat, and the inability to admit that all those fancy plaques hanging up on iron nails out there are what led me to my current position. Some say that they hear droves of cicadas when they're under immense stress. Things breeding and multiplying in the trees, swarming over each other, discarding exoskeletons. I don't. I hear this low, deafening hum. Like the hull of some lone spacecraft deep in the furthest reaches of some foreboding solar system, empty ghost freighter with no souls aboard. It comes from my ears, grows the closer I focus on it. It and the shivers. I've been seeing her differently. It was so simple at first- the way the bridge of her nose dipped beneath her glasses, lips wrapping around the exterior of a strawberry, nails grasping the stem with fervor. Time went on. Little by little, she's eroding in front of me. Day by day, I feel as if I know her less. Some day, maybe, I'll wake up and she'll be here and so will I, but she'll be a complete stranger to me, I'll point at her in confusion and back into the corner, and she'll call the ER- the same ER she works at- and have me taken there for an evaluation. I have to assume it comes with the work, need to trace it back to its earliest point, stop it before it becomes unmanageable. Maybe it's already too late. I don't know. Heart pounding, sending oxygen to every corner of my body. My fingers feel warm, needles stabbing into them, and the incessant ticking of the clock, each movement a step further towards the grave. Close my eyes, don't focus on her, don't think about her, retreat inward. Deep in space, the freighter nears its target, its monolithic oil refineries blasting in unison...
This a thread dedicated to the strange world of skatworx/skat animation. This is also known commonly as "MSPaint animations". This type of animation dates back almost to the 80s (as far as I know) and got popular around the mid to late 2000s. Some notable skat animators are: *warning this list could be wrong* GHXYK2 GHXXXYK2 Bank Bank famicon2008 (an old group of skat animators now disbanded) Delta 4 (the team behind the game "The Town with No Name") Jim Wilson Cboyardee Swee Neezy Penneh2006 PilotRedSun Wainstop Enterprises (the new "famicon2008") BraxtonThePorcupine Nicholas Fedorov Here's a playlist of a bunch of skat I have compiled: View: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuieU3Qs-JaSNNgBDI__g8C8uSPLNBin1 Please do not confuse skat with scat.
Would the world be a better place if we raised children collectively? This is an article from The New Republic. Revolutionaries have long wanted to abolish the family. Marx didn't see it surviving the eradication of capitalism. The radical feminist Shulamith Firestone viewed it as the root of all gendered oppression, imagining in her 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex a world of test-tube babies and (less well-remembered) chosen families, entered and dissolved at will. In a new book, Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family, queer feminist theorist and geographer Sophie Lewis revives such calls. Though the family is where most people seek solace from the world as we know it, she argues that it also upholds the forces that send us in search of relief. Like Marx and Engels, she posits that the family fuels capitalism by inducting successive generations into hierarchy, and like Firestone, she accuses it of inculcating gender inequality. Most pointedly, she argues that the institution turns our most intimate relationships into commodities, framing children as something like property: private investments in the future that belong only to the people who made them. To dismantle capitalism, Lewis argues that we need "gestational communism"—a world in which babies are "universally thought of as anybody and everybody's responsibility, 'belonging' to nobody," and in which baby-making is "distributed and made to realize collective needs and desires." In such a future, biological kinship would be replaced by devotion to "kith and kind," and we would finally see that we are all responsible for one another. Making this case for a family-free utopia today is far from easy. In the Trump era, surrogacy has become a kind of symbol for patriarchal oppression. After the election, Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale surged up best-seller lists to become the most-read book of 2017, according to Amazon data. In the novel, Christian fundamentalist oligarchs have taken over America and forced fertile women to act as surrogates, by raping them and compelling them to bear their children. For a new generation of readers, the requisition of the handmaids' wombs quickly came to represent attacks on women's agency writ large, particularly in attempts to restrict abortion access. For the pro-choice protestors who storm state capitals dressed in red handmaid habits, the concept of surrogacy has come to stand in for all this unfreedom. If surrogacy seems inherently dystopian, Lewis argues, it's because we haven't tried to imagine a world in which surrogates give their services freely, from a position of equality. Today's surrogacy industry promotes the idea that surrogates are not real workers, but poor women who have few other options. Lewis examines how Dr. Nayna Patel, the mediagenic founder of the celebrated Akanksha Infertility Clinic in Anand, India, frames surrogacy as a route out of poverty for unskilled women, a jobs program where they busy their hands learning "embroidery, machine-sewing, computing, candle-craft, and beauty treatments" while they wait for the leases on their uteruses to run out. When, in a documentary about Akanksha, a recruiter complains that Patel doesn't pay enough, the clinician "tacitly justifies her denial of wage increases by framing surrogates as idle poor only transitioning into dignified work," Lewis writes. Under this logic, "Surrogacy isn't a job after all but a win-win investment, not so much a source of wealth as an internship." (Lewis doesn't say how widespread such attitudes are. Much of her critique of the surrogacy industry is based on her study of this single clinic—a choice that occasionally feels limiting.) At the same time, Patel romanticizes her services to the advancement of her own ends. In one interview, she told the BBC that Indian surrogates act out of pity for childless couples, conjuring, Lewis writes, "a proletarian who is not particular about her fee" and "a volunteer so angelic and so compassionate" that she will "do anything" to give the gift of life. If we saw gestation as work, on the other hand, we could imagine surrogates bargaining or going on strike. Lewis quotes a PBS segment about a surrogate who, barred from traveling to see a dying family member, threatened "to 'drop' the baby"—in other words, to abort a healthy pregnancy—if she wasn't allowed to go. Another woman protested her confinement by escaping the clinic and threatening to keep the baby she bore. These tactics are not available to everyone; in many countries that allow commercial surrogacy, such as Kenya and Nigeria, most abortions are illegal and therefore unsafe, and ending up with an unwanted child is too high a price to pay for an act of resistance. Still, Lewis reasons that for surrogacy to shed all traces of the Handmaid's Tale, it must be founded on a right to bodily autonomy, including the right to stop being a surrogate. If surrogacy is work, then workers can quit—a situation that confers real power. Lewis hopes that in the future empowered surrogates might "come knocking" on the doors of the households they helped create, demanding a degree of acknowledgement that could undercut the illusion of the self-contained family, effecting a reminder of our inescapable entanglement. As it stands, many commissioning parents choose not to stay in touch with their surrogates, and some change their minds after agreeing to do so. Every family photo of a mother and father holding their baby with no surrogate in sight—every image from which the surrogate has been excised, Lewis writes, like an "unsightly prosthesis"—reinforces the idea that the nuclear family is natural, and has no alternatives. Lewis imagines that one step on the road to "gestational communism" might be a form of surrogacy that instead forges lasting bonds between affluent buyers and the residents of the global south from whom they seek services. (In a world of "full surrogacy," she says, surrogacy would not be performed for profit.) On a molecular level, she argues that the industry already binds people together more than most want to acknowledge. "There is a simple but infrequently noted kind of beauty to the fact that the gestating body does not necessarily distinguish between an embryo containing some of its own DNA and an embryo containing none," Lewis writes. "There may be radical, chaotic consequences to exposing the falseness of the surrogacy industry's guarantee that a buyer's baby will not emerge to greet them full of somebody else's blood and guts." Here, ultimately, is the utopian potential that Lewis sees in surrogacy: It reminds us that procreation is never truly reproduction, and there is no such thing as one's own child. In the womb, gestation affects gene expression in ways we're still discovering. Outside it, even the products of the most normative families bear the imprints of aunts, uncles, teachers—a whole network of other people. "We are the makers of one another," Lewis writes. "And we could learn collectively to act like it. It is those truths that I wish to call real surrogacy, full surrogacy." What, then, would a world of "full surrogacy" look like? Lewis's utopian vision is distinctly decentralized: Gestators wouldn't be "surrogates" in that they bore children to be raised by the state, but rather in that they would create children who chose their own kin. Among the most concrete models Lewis cites is Firestone's Dialectic, which imagined communist "households" of "ten or so consenting adults" who would share domestic labor and the care of their biological children or children they adopted together. At any time, children and adults alike would have the right to "transfer out" of the household and into another (a right Firestone suggested the state might have a role in enforcing, much as it currently regulates marriage and divorce). The goal, she wrote, was the "weakening and severance of blood ties" until all relationships between adults and children would be formed on the basis of natural affinity instead of need or obligation: Firestone is best remembered for proposing that all reproduction be automated—a shortcut to the "severance of blood ties" that struck many as intolerably Brave New World. Unlike her predecessor, Lewis doesn't believe that the "techno-fix" of automation will be the means by which we alter human behavior. Still, her endgame is similarly to dismantle the idea that if a person undergoes pregnancy, "the product of all that pain and discomfort 'belongs' to her," as Firestone wrote. The thorniest question for all utopian family abolitionists is what would happen if, when the imagined future arrived, that possessive instinct refused to fade. Would the society, or the state, force women to hand over their children to be communally mothered? Different politics, same Handmaid's dystopia. In the Dialectic, Firestone briefly acknowledges that the existence of "an instinct for pregnancy" would pose a problem for her project—but then she argues that, once we "sloughed off cultural superstructures," we would discover no such innate drive. Lewis similarly seems to believe that people would choose full surrogacy over the private family if given a choice. She writes about being sustained as a person by loving queer friendships and about being inspired as a scholar by the history of black kinship networks and the work of feminist theorists of color. She quotes the Sisterhood of Black Single Mothers, an organization of New York women in the 1970s and '80s who proclaimed that their children "will not belong to the patriarchy. They will not belong to us either. They will belong only to themselves." In all these examples, Lewis sees a defiance of the idea that biology defines kinship, or that kinship entails ownership. "Everywhere about me, I can see beautiful militants hell-bent on regeneration, not self-replication," she writes. Self-replication certainly seems like an insufficient rationale for adding a person to the planet in its present state. I often hear the argument that having a child is a way of enacting hope in the future—despite everything—or of contributing a person who might help mend the world. Lewis's impassioned case for full surrogacy left me thinking about how children raised communally might be better prepared for that task. After all, we're already dependent on one another: If we were used to the idea that we belong to each other, we might act as if the crises that threaten the most vulnerable also posed a danger to the most comfortable. That may sound like a utopian pronouncement, but it's closer to the inescapable truth.
This is from Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon by David McGowan. It explores the connection between the Laurel Canyon art scene, which defined the late 60s, and the US military-intelligence complex. "Much folk-rock was recorded and issued by huge corporations." Buffalo Springfield had signed with Atlantic Records, which had been founded in 1947 by Ahmet Ertegun and dentist/investor Herb Abramson. Born in Istanbul, Turkey in 1923, the year the Turk Republic was established, Ahmet was both the son and the grandson of career diplomats/civil servants. His father had been named the first Turkish representative to the League of Nations in 1925 and thereafter served as the Turk Republic's ambassador to Switzerland, France and England. In 1935, he was named the first Turkish ambassador to the United States and he promptly relocated the family to Washington, DC. From about the age of twelve, Ahmet grew up along DC's Embassy Row, attending elite private schools with the sons and daughters of senators, congressmen, and intelligence operatives. In 1947, three years after his father died, Ertegun founded Atlantic Records. At first the label was home to jazz and R&B artists, including Ray Charles, the company's first big star. In the late 1950s, Ertegun took on his first assistant—a guy by the name of Phil Spector. Atlantic soon shifted focus and rock luminaries like Eric Clapton, Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones would later join the label's stable of talent. Curiously enough, Columbia Records, the corporate entity that signed the Byrds, was also born in the nation's capitol. The name is derived from the District of Columbia, where the label was founded and first headquartered some 125 years ago. It would appear then that the two record labels that signed and launched Laurel Canyon's first two folk-rock bands were not only major record labels but also happened to be corporate entities that had deep ties to the nation's center of power. With Laurel Canyon's other bands as well, it was the major record labels, not upstart independents, that signed the new artists. It was the major labels that provided them with instruments and amplifiers. It was the major labels that provided them with studio time and session musicians. It was the major labels that recorded, mixed and arranged their albums. And it was the major labels that released and then heavily promoted those albums. As Unterberger duly notes in his expansive, two-volume review of the folk-rock movement, "much folk-rock was recorded and issued by huge corporations, and broadcast over radio and television stations owned for the most part by the same or similar pillars of the establishment." The corporate titans of all three branches of the mainstream media—print, radio and television—did their part to help out the titans of the record industry. Unterberger notes that, "AM radio (and sometimes primetime network television) would act as a primary conduit for this countercultural expression." Conservative, corporate-controlled AM stations across the country almost immediately began giving serious airplay to the new sounds coming out of Southern California, and network television gave the rising stars unprecedented coverage and exposure: "primetime variety hours were much more likely to showcase rock acts than they would be in subsequent decades. New releases by the Byrds were often accompanied by large ads in trade magazines that simultaneously plugged the records and upcoming TV appearances." The boys in Buffalo Springfield, for example, managed to find themselves appearing as guests on an impressive array of network television shows, including American Bandstand, The Smothers Brothers Show, Shebang!, The Della Reese Show, The Go Show, The Andy Williams Show, Hollywood Palace, Where the Action Is, Joey Bishop's late night show, and a local program known as Boss City. They also made guest appearances, curiously enough, on primetime hits like Mannix and The Girl From U.N.C.L.E. The print media did its part as well to raise awareness of the new music/countercultural scene. In September 1965, the nation's premier newsweeklies, Time and Newsweek, "ran virtually simultaneous stories on the folk-rock craze," just months after the first folk-rock release had climbed to the top of the charts. The country's biggest daily newspapers chimed in as well, providing an inordinate amount of coverage of the emerging scene. By the end of 1967, the movement had its very own publication, Rolling Stone. Initially designed to look as though it were a product of the underground press, it was, without question, very much a corporate mouthpiece. Another avenue of the print media provided the scene with considerable exposure as well; as Einarson notes, many of the Laurel Canyon stars, particularly members of Buffalo Springfield and the Monkees, were "the darlings of the California teen magazines," including Teenset, Teen Screen, and Tiger Beat. In 1964, just months before the birth of folk-rock, the LA Free Press, widely believed to be the first underground newspaper of the 1960s, was launched from offices at the corner of Sunset and Crescent Heights, at the very mouth of Laurel Canyon. The publication, which quickly became the voice of the canyon, was initially financed by comedian Steve Allen. In the late 1970s, it was purchased and killed off by pornographer Larry Flynt. As the story is usually told, the 1960s countercultural movement posed a rather serious threat to the status quo. But if that were truly the case, then why was it the "pillars of the establishment," to use Unterberger's words, that initially launched the movement? Why was it 'the man' that signed and recorded these artists? And that heavily promoted them on the radio, on television, and in print? And that set them up with their very own radio station and their very own monthly magazine? It could be argued, I suppose, that this was simply a case of corporate America doing what it does best: making a profit off of anything and everything. Blinded by greed, a devil's advocate might say, the corporate titans inadvertently created a monster. The question that is begged by that explanation, however, is why, after it had become abundantly clear that a monster had allegedly been created, was nothing done to stop the growth of that monster? Why, for example, did the state not utilize its law enforcement and criminal justice powers to silence some of the most prominent countercultural voices? It's not as if it would have required resorting to heavy-handed measures. Since many of the Laurel Canyon stars were openly using, dealing, or at least advocating the use of illegal substances, they were practically begging for the powers-that-be to take action. And yet that never happened. As just one example, three members of Buffalo Springfield (Neil Young, Richie Furay and Jim Messina, along with a dozen others, including Eric Clapton) were arrested in a drug bust at a Topanga Canyon home only to then walk away as if nothing had happened. Why wasn't this case, and so many others like it, aggressively prosecuted? David Crosby has candidly acknowledged that "the DEA could have popped me for interstate transport of dope or dealing lots of times and never did." John Phillips, busted for wholesale trafficking of pharmaceuticals, was, by his own account, "looking at forty-five years and got thirty days." He began serving his sentence on April 20, appropriately enough, and served just twenty-four days in a minimum security prison that offered "residents" such activities as "basketball, aerobics, softball, tennis, archery, and golf," and that featured a "delicious kosher kitchen, an elaborate salad bar, and a tasty brunch on Sundays." Time and time again, 'the man' was handed golden opportunities to crack down on Laurel Canyon's most prominent voices, and time and time again those 'dangerous dissidents' were handled with kid gloves. Indeed, the LAPD appears to have adopted a hands-off policy towards the Laurel Canyon crowd. As musician-turned-photographer Henry Diltz acknowledged to writer Harvey Kubernik, "There was not a presence of the heat in Laurel Canyon." Radio personality Elliot Mintz agreed, noting that he couldn't "recall a law enforcement presence in Laurel Canyon." Given the unique geography of the canyon community, it would have been very easy for the police to cut off access and conduct regular sweeps, but nothing like that ever happened. Instead, police seem to have stayed out of the canyon entirely. The state had another powerful tool at its disposal to silence young critics—involuntary military service. There was, after all, a war going on and hundreds of thousands of draft-age young men across the country were being fed into the war machine. As Richie Unterberger noted in Turn! Turn! Turn!, "Most folk rockers (if they were male), like their audience, were of draft age." But curiously enough, "Very, very few had their careers interrupted by the draft." Actually, Unterberger appears to have been playing it safe with the "very, very few" wording since the reality is that none of the folks living the rock'n'roll life in the canyons, whether folk rockers, country rockers or psychedelic rockers, had their careers interrupted by the Vietnam War. The literature is littered with mentions of various rock stars receiving their draft notices, but those mentions are invariably followed by amusing anecdotes about how said people fooled the draft board by pretending to be gay, or pretending to be crazy, or pretending to be otherwise unfit for service. Of course, if it had really been that easy to pull the wool over the draft board's eyes, then Uncle Sam probably wouldn't have been able to come up with all those bodies to send over to Vietnam. The reality is that thousands of young men across the country tried those very same tricks, but they only ever seemed to work for the Laurel Canyon crowd. How is it possible that not one of the musical icons of the Woodstock generation, almost all of them draft age males, was shipped off to slog through the rice paddies of Vietnam? Should we just consider that to be another one of those great serendipities? Was it mere luck that kept all the Laurel Canyon stars out of jail and out of the military during the turbulent decade that was the 1960s? Not likely. The reality is that 'The Establishment,' as it was known in those days, had the power to prevent the musical icons of the 1960s from ever becoming the megastars that they became. The state, working hand-in-hand with corporate America, could quite easily have prevented the entire countercultural movement from ever getting off the ground—because then, as now, the state controlled the channels of communication. A real grass-roots cultural revolution would probably have involved a bunch of starving musicians barely scratching out a living playing tiny coffee shops in the hopes of maybe someday landing a record deal with some tiny, independent label, and then, just maybe, if they got really lucky, getting a little airplay on some obscure college radio stations. But that's not how the sixties folk-rock 'revolution' played out. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
:peepoCryDrink:This one is from a feels thread that as long been forgotten on 4chan's /b/ board :peepoCryDrink: Hello /b/, I am throwing away my anonymity in front of you as I share you my story. My real name is Brandon and I come to you tonight to tell you a tale about THAT popular girl. Yes we all know her... bitchy, thinks she's too good for you, and just has that attitude no one can stand. But I knew that girl long before she even became popular. her name is Clare I've known this girl since I was 3 years old. Her mom and my mom were neighbors so we would go over to each other's houses practically every day. Me and Clare would literally do everything together. Every Friday we would sneak out to the woods behind our houses and play around in the creek until the sun started to set. We would both then hold hands while we walked back to our homes. One day in fall it was raining and my mother told us not to go to the creek as it had swelled. Clare didn't really feel like going but I headed out to the creek anyway and she eventually followed. Sure enough the creek had swelled to well over 3 times its normal size. I got to the very edge and soon the mud beneath me collapsed and I fell in. The current was strong and soon carried me down the creek. I desperately tried to grab onto anything I could. I managed to grab onto a rope that was tied to a tree nearby. I could see Clare running towards me waving her arms and screaming my name. All I recall is huddling against her for warmth on a pile of leaves and waking up in a hospital bed with a picture next to me of the two of us married together. I don't remember much of any other details after that besides being deathly afraid of large amounts of water since that day. Around 4th grade we were separated in different classrooms and would only see each other at lunch... but back then she would hang out with the girls and I would stay by myself watching her from a distance (I know that sounds creepy but I was young). When school was over she would wait for me and I would walk her home. When we got into junior high she would refuse to even acknowledge my existence. I wasn't one of the cool kids and Clare wanted to be miss popular so she couldn't be seen with me. She surrounded herself with the popular boys around the school. Of course we were only around 11 back then and the relationships didn't last long. Throughout my entire stay in Junior High I was asked out by about 12 different girls but I always turned them down... When High School hit it was even worse than Junior High. She soon began mocking me in front of our peers. I was the uncool kid and she used me to gain her fame... it worked. I tried my hardest to avoid being around her as every time I came in contact with her she would make me the center of attention by calling me names and ridiculing me around large groups of people. Now that I think about it I had less than 4 friends throughout High School thanks to her. Even though she constantly made my life hell I would be in spirals of nostalgia when I watched her from a distance. To this day I would give up everything just to be a kid again so I could spend one day with her. Around Junior year a boy named Garrett asked Clare to prom. His mom worked for the school so she was able to pull some strings and allow him to use the intercom for his proposal. She was absolutely ecstatic. Clare was in my math class and I could hear her bragging about it to her friends. She caught me staring at her from across the room and gave me a glare that I will never forget...anyway about a week before prom I hear I knock at my door and its none other than Clare. She's bawwwing at my front door because she found out Garret made out with another girl or some shit. Being the pushover I am I let her in and console her. I lead her up to my room and hold her in my arms. I didn't even want to take advantage of her and sleep with her. Just being this close to her and thinking about our childhoods was enough for me. By the time she was finished bawwwing I told her I would take her to prom if she wanted. She immediately gave me a hug and a kiss on the cheek. We got in my car, drove to our old houses, and walked to the creek we used to hang out at. I was surrounded by a blanket of comfort as a laid next to her...soon I was overwhelmed by it and fell asleep By the time I woke up she was already gone... I figured she had to go somewhere. A week passed and it was finally prom. I had paid 150 bucks for my ticket since I didn't buy it until they raised the price to its maximum. I rented a suit, bought a dozen roses, put on some of my dad's expensive cologne.I looked like a million bucks. I drove over to Clare's house and knocked on the door. She answered with a smile on her face and I was absolutely speechless at how beautiful she looked. She gave me a wink as she grabbed my hand and led me to the backyard. From the sliding glass door I could see some of her friends waiting. I figured that we were going to take post prom pictures of each other like couples usually do. When I finally reached the backyard I immediately spotted Garrett and I knew something was up Clare, knowing I was still afraid of water, pushed me into her pool and just watched as I hysterically tried to grab on to something and gasp for air. As I was frantically splashing around I could hear them all laughing at me. It was only until I was about to drown did one of her friends half-heartily grab me out of the pool and tell me to leave before things got worse. I walked out the side gate with my head down and my clothes dripping wet. I got the fuck out of there and sat at a park for a few hours so my mom would at least think I went to prom. Even right now I would not be able to bring up the courage to tell her how coldly my childhood friend treated me all those years. Anyway when I returned to school pretty much everyone knew what happened at no one would even sit by me at the lunch table. Throughout the rest of High School I pretty much minded my own business. I dated a few girls but the relationships never lasted long. All of them said I seemed distracted by something else. I didn't see much of Clare through the last days if High School and finally we graduated. I remember watching closely as she walked across the stage and desperately trying to make eye contact with her but failing. I stood in the parking lot watching everybody else cheering and hugging each other knowing that was something I would never be part of. I spotted Clare walking with her friends at the far side of the parking lot and just couldn't stand it anymore. I ran as fast as I could. I finally reached her just before she got in the car and asked her if she wanted to come home with me and just watch a movie with me. She immediately laughed in my face along with her friends and drove off. I was crushed. One of the few friends I had talked me into going to a party with him. I didn't feel being around other people but felt like a few drinks would cheer me up. Of course when I got there no one really knew who I was and besides seeing a few familiar faces I didn't know them either. About 40 minutes passed when Clare walks through the door and pretends I'm not there for obvious reasons. I mind my own business and she minds hers. Maybe it was the alcohol but for some reason I decided to stay at the party. Things started get moving and people were really enjoying themselves. I took a walk outside for some fresh air and a cigarette. I have no idea the exact amount of time I was gone but I'm guessing it was somewhere in between 10-15 minutes. When I returned I immediately heard cheering before I even entered the door. My first thought was that a fight had broken out and that I should leave before the cops show up... curiosity got the best of me. I made my way through the crowd only to see it was Clare. She was heavily intoxicated and was blowing 3 different guys in front of everyone. A 4th guy was fingering her as I felt warm tears rolling down my cheeks. At that moment I didn't give a fuck about if any of my Faggot peers saw me crying. I could no longer bear to watch. My white knight kicked in and I pushed all 4 guys aside. I picked her up in my arms but soon heard her screeching loudly in my ear. Clare was flailing her arms all about and slapping me in the face. One of the guys she was blowing grabbed her from me and punched me in the face. I was soon being beaten by all 4 of them. It took some of the other kids from the party to finally pull them off of me. I couldn't see because of all the blood surrounding my eyelids but I could hear Clare screaming something. At first it didn't register what she was saying but I finally made out the words. "FUCKING KILL HIM! KILL THAT DISGUSTING SMALL DICKED PIECE OF SHIT". I will never forget those words. I felt someone splash ice-cold beer at my face and to this day I have no doubt in my mind who it was I felt some people drag me by my feet and toss me out onto the sidewalk in the front of the house. I was too tired from the alcohol and from being beaten to get up and walk home. I slept there and when I woke everyone was gone. Those events took place over a year ago and that was the last time I saw her until I decided to make a facebook account 3 weeks ago (pic obviously related). So /b/ I don't care if you call me a Faggot or if you think this is just a troll. Tonight I've decided to kill myself. I don't expect sympathy and don't try to talk me out of it because it's not going to work. Just give me one last thread to enjoy and when this thread 404's I'm going to go through with it. In case any of you are wondering I'm using the helium exit bag method that gets posted on here every so often You guys were literally the closest things I ever had to friends.
Worldcorp enterprise was a musical group in 2017-2019 that made vaporwave esq old school hip hop. They fell under scrutiny for being alledge to be either a cult or a underground pedo trafficking ring. Their website which is now down had promotional videos with disturbing connotations but from what it seems a lot of it was a big marketing ploy that went too far. Unfortunately they disbanded and now is left is dope ass music.:lainDance: (Banger ass songs: View: https://youtu.be/W18JhwXeutc?si=ZPnmi9NrcxVhE7xb View: https://youtu.be/_mukPDtH0hg?si=s3A3MxGTc3A2lOXn )
https://damagemag.com/2022/04/21/the-internet-is-made-of-demons/ Sam Kriss April 21, 2022 Review of Justin E.H. Smith, The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is: A History, A Philosophy, A Warning (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022). According to one theory, the internet is made of demons. Like most theories about the internet, this one is mostly circulated online. On Instagram, I saw a screenshot of a >redditcostanzayeahrightsmirk post, containing a screenshot of a 4chan post, containing a screenshot of Tweet, containing two images. On the left, the weird, loopy lines of a microprocessor. On the right, the weird, loopy lines of a set of Solomonic sigils. Caption: 'Boy I love trapping demons in microscopic silicon megastructures to do my bidding, I sure hope nothing goes wrong.' In other versions, the demons themselves are the ones who invented the internet; it's just their latest move in a five-thousand-year battle against humanity. As one four-panel meme comic explains: The king's pact binds them. They cannot show themselves or speak to us. 1) Create ways to see without seeing 2) Create ways to speak without speaking Pictures of more Solomonic sigils, progressing into laptops and iPhones. The fourth panel, the punchline, has no words. Only a giant, mute, glassy-eyed face. This theory is—probably—a joke. It is not a serious analysis. But still, there's something there; there are ways in which the internet really does seem to work like a possessing demon. We tend to think that the internet is a communications network we use to speak to one another—but in a sense, we're not doing anything of the sort. Instead, we are the ones being spoken through. Teens on TikTok all talk in the exact same tone, identical singsong smugness. Millennials on Twitter use the same shrinking vocabulary. My guy! Having a normal one! Even when you actually meet them in the sunlit world, they'll say valid or based, or say y'all despite being British. Memes on Instagram have started addressing people as my brother in Christ, so now people are saying that too. Clearly, that name has lost its power to scatter demons. Everything you say online is subject to an instant system of rewards. Every platform comes with metrics; you can precisely quantify how well-received your thoughts are by how many likes or shares or retweets they receive. For almost everyone, the game is difficult to resist: they end up trying to say the things that the machine will like. For all the panic over online censorship, this stuff is far more destructive. You have no free speech—not because someone might ban your account, but because there's a vast incentive structure in place that constantly channels your speech in certain directions. And unlike overt censorship, it's not a policy that could ever be changed, but a pure function of the connectivity of the internet itself. This might be why so much writing that comes out of the internet is so unbearably dull, cycling between outrage and mockery, begging for clicks, speaking the machine back into its own bowels. This incentive system can lead to very vicious results. A few years ago, a friend realized that if she were murdered—if some obsessed loner shot her dead in the street—then there were hundreds of people who would celebrate. She'd seen similar things happen enough times. They would spend a day competing to make exultant jokes about her death, and then they would all move on to something else. My friend was not a particularly famous or controversial person: she had some followers and some bylines, but probably her most divisive article had been about tax policy. But she was just famous enough for hundreds of people, who she didn't know and had never met, to hate her and want to see her dead. It wasn't even that they had different political opinions: plenty of these people were on the same side. They would laugh at her death in the name of their shared commitment to justice and liberation and a better future for all. Maybe these were simply bad people, but I'm not so sure. There's an incident I think about a lot: back in 2019, a group of bestselling authors in their 40s and 50s decided to attack a young college student online for the crime of not liking their books. Apparently wanting to read anything other than YA fiction means that you're an agent of the patriarchy. The student was, of course, a woman. So what? Punish her! For a while they whipped up thousands of people in sadistic outrage. Even her university joined in. But then, the tide suddenly shifted, and one by one they were forced to apologize. 'I absolutely messed up. I will definitely do better and be more mindful moving forward. I made a mistake.' Of course, these apologies weren't enough. The discourse was unanimous: we want you to grovel more; we want to see you suffer. Was absolutely everyone involved making the same personal moral lapse? Or could it be that they'd all plugged their consciousnesses into a planet-sized sigil that summons demons? Back when I spent half my days on social media, I did much the same thing. I would probably have also celebrated a murder, if the victim had once tweeted something I didn't like. Now, looking back on those days is like trying to remember the previous night through a terrible hangover. Oh god—what have I done? Why did I keep saying things I didn't actually believe? Why did I keep behaving in ways that were clearly cruel and wrong? And how did I manage to convince myself that all of this was somehow in the service of the good? I was drunk on something. I wasn't entirely in control. Ways to speak without speaking. If the internet makes people tangibly worse—and it does—it might be because it lives in a strange new middle ground between writing and speech. Like speech, social media messages seem to belong to a now: briefly suspended in an instant, measurable down to the second. But like writing, there's a permanent archive you can choose to dig up later. Like speech, social media is dialogic and responsive; you can carry out an instantaneous back-and-forth, as if the other person is right in front of you. But like writing, with social media the other person is simply not there. And instead of a book or a letter or a shopping list—a trace, a thing the other person has made—you're looking at a screen, this cold bundle of pixels and wires. This blank and empty object, which suddenly starts talking to you like a human being. The internet is not a communications system. Instead of delivering messages between people, it simulates the experience of being among people, in a way that books or shopping lists or even the telephone do not. And there are things that a simulation will always fail to capture. In the philosophy of Emmanuel Lévinas, your ethical responsibility to other people emerges out of their face, the experience of looking directly into the face of another living subject. "The face is what prohibits us from killing." Elsewhere: "The human face is the conduit for the word of God." But Facebook is a world without faces. Only images of faces; selfies, avatars: dead things. Or the moving image in a FaceTime chat: a haunted puppet. There is always something in the way. You are not talking to a person: the machine is talking, through you, to itself. As more and more of your social life takes place online, you're training yourself to believe that other people are not really people, and you have no duty towards them whatsoever. These effects don't vanish once you look away from the screen. The internet is not a separate sphere, closed off from ordinary reality; it structures everything about the way we live. Stories of young children trying to swipe at photographs or windows: they expect everything to work like a phone, which is infinitely responsive to touch, even if it's impossible to engage with on any deeper level. Similarly, many of the big conflicts within institutions in the last few years seem to be rooted in the expectation that the world should work like the internet. If you don't like a person, you should be able to block them: simply push a button, and have them disappear forever. In 2011, a meta-analysis found that among young people the capacity for empathy (defined as Empathic Concern, "other-oriented feelings of sympathy," and Perspective-Taking, the ability to "imagine other people's points of view") had massively declined since the turn of the millennium. The authors directly associate this with the spread of social media. In the decade since, it's probably vanished even faster, even though everyone on the internet keeps talking about empathy. We are becoming less and less capable of actual intersubjective communication; more unhappy; more alone. Every year, surveys find that people have fewer and fewer friends; among millennials, 22% say they have none at all. For the first time in history, we can simply do without each other entirely. The machine supplies an approximation of everything you need for a bare biological existence: strangers come to deliver your food; AI chatbots deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy; social media simulates people to love and people to hate; and hidden inside the microcircuitry, the demons swarm. I don't think this internet of demons is only a metaphor, or a rhetorical trick. Go back to those sigils, the patterns of weird loopy goetic lines that signify the presence of demons in online memes. Most of those designs come from the grimoires of the sixteenth and seventeenth century—and of these, probably the most significant is the Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis, or the Lesser Key of Solomon. Unlike most old books of demonology, the Lesser Key is still in print, mostly because it was republished (and extensively tinkered with) by Aleister Crowley. But despite its influence, the Lesser Key is mostly plagiarized: entire sections were simply ripped out of other books circulating at the time. Most prominently, it reproduces much of the Steganographia, a book of magic written by Johannes Trithemius, a Benedictine abbot and polymath, around 1499. The Steganographia is a blueprint for the internet. Most of the book is taken up with spells and incantations with which you can summon aerial spirits, who are "infinite beyond number" and teem in every corner of the world. Here, the purpose of these spirits is to deliver messages—or, more properly, to deliver something that is more than a message. Say you want to convey some secret information to someone: you compose an innocuous letter, but before writing you face the East and read out a spell, like this one to summon the spirit Pamersyel: "Lamarton anoyr bulon madriel traſchon ebraſothea panthenon nabrulges Camery itrasbier rubanthy nadres Calmoſi ormenulan, ytules demy rabion hamorphyn." Immediately, a spirit will become visible. Then, once the other person receives the letter, they speak a similar spell, and "having said these things he will soon understand your mind completely." A kind of magic writing that works like speech, instant and immediate. Not an object composed by another person, but a direct simulation of their thoughts—and one that's delivered by an invisible, intangible network, covering every inch of the world. Trithemius was a pious man; in a long passage at the start of the book, he insists that these spirits are not demons, and that "everything is done in accordance with God in good conscience and without injury to the Christian faith." But readers had their suspicions; he does repeatedly warn that the spirits might harm you if given the chance. And while his internet can be used for godly ends, it can also be used for evil. "For though this knowledge is good in and of itself and quite useful to the State, nevertheless if it reached the attention of twisted men (God forbid), over time the whole order of the State would become disturbed, and not in a small way." Today, a broad range of sensible types are worried—and not without cause—that the internet is incompatible with a civic democracy. Trithemius saw it first. But the Seganographia held a secret, and its real purpose wasn't revealed until a century after its publication: this book of magic is actually a book of cryptography. Not magic spells and flying demons, but mathematics. Take the spell above: if you read only the alternating letters in every other word, it yields nym di ersten bugstaben de omny uerbo, a mishmash of Latin and German meaning "take the first letter of every word." This is a fairly simple approach; Trithemius warns that Pamersyel is "insolent and untrustworthy," and that the spirits under his command "speed about and by filling the air with their shouts they often reveal the sender's secrets to everyone around." Others are subtler. The book's third volume wasn't decoded until 1998, by a researcher at AT&T Labs. There is a direct line from this fifteenth-century monk to our digital present. Pamersyel and the other spirits are algorithms, early examples of the mathematical operations that increasingly govern our lives. They are also the distant ancestors of machines like the Nazi Enigma device, a cipher so powerful that to break its code, it was necessary to build the first electronic computer. Trithemius invented the internet in a flight of mystical fancy to cover up what he was really doing, which was inventing the internet. Demons disguise themselves as technology, technology disguises itself as demons; both end up being one and the same thing. Exactly how long have we been living with the internet? There's a boring answer, which gives a start date some time in the second half of the twentieth century and involves "packet-switching networks." But the more interesting answer is one that considers the meaning of the internet, rather than its technological substrate: the thought of a world lived at a distance, a dream and a nightmare that has been with us for a very long time. The internet dates back five thousand years, or five billion, or it hasn't been invented yet. In The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is, Justin E.H. Smith pleads for the interesting answer. The internet is very old; it is "only the most recent permutation in a complex of behaviors that is as deeply rooted in who we are as a species as anything else we do: our storytelling, our fashions, our friendships; our evolution as beings that inhabit a universe dense with symbols." Smith is a philosopher of science at the University of Paris, an occasional Damage contributor, and one of the most interesting public intellectuals of our age. He's one of the few people writing on the internet who manages to avoid writing like the internet. Online writing might be about birds or Proust or the Kuiper Belt, but always in a way that's optimized for the endless, tedious war being fought on social media. Occasionally, Smith will even write about cancel culture or wokeness or Trump, but always in a way that points away from the squabbles of the day, and towards a more genuine fascination with the things and the history of the world. In this book, he shows us prototypes for the internet in some unexpected places. Like me, Smith finds demons at the origin of the digital age: here, it's in the Brazen Head, a magical contraption supposedly built by the thirteenth-century scholar Roger Bacon. Like a "medieval Siri," this head could answer any yes or no question it was given; it was a thing with a mind, but without a soul. Bacon's contemporaries were convinced that the head was real, and that he had created it with the help of the Devil. Seven hundred years ago, we were already worried about the possibility of an artificial general intelligence. If it's possible to build a machine that has a mind, or at least acts in a mind-like way, what does that say about our own minds? Leibniz, a pioneer of early AI, insisted that his gear-driven mechanical calculator did not think, because the purely rational and technical operations of the mind—adding, subtracting—are not real thought. "It is unworthy of excellent men to lose hours like slaves in the labor of calculation;" a calculating machine would allow us to spend more time fully inhabiting our own minds. Today, of course, it's gone the other way: computerized systems form our opinions for us and decide what music we enjoy; dating-app algorithms choose our sexual partners. Meanwhile, the pressures of capitalism force us to act as rational agents, always calculating our individual interests, condemned to live like machines. It has all, Smith admits, gone very badly wrong. But it could have gone otherwise. After all, there have already been many different versions of the internet; go back far enough, and the internet is simply part of nature. An elephant's stomping foot, the clicking of a sperm whale, the chemical signals released into the air by sagebrush, all of which send meaningful messages over a long distance. "Throughout the living world, telecommunication is more likely the norm than the exception." Mystics understood this; they have always assumed that something like the internet already existed, in their vision of a "system of hidden filaments or threads that bind all things." Ancient philosophers, from the Stoics to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, saw creation as a kind of cosmic textile. "How intertwined in the fabric is the thread and how closely woven the web." Maybe, Smith suggests, it is not a coincidence that the first fully programmable computer was the Jacquard loom, a machine for entangling threads. Our digital computer network is just the latest iteration of something that permeates the entire world. The internet is happening wherever birds sing in the morning; the internet is furiously coursing through the soil beneath a small patch of grass. It's a fascinating argument, and a tempting one. Like Smith, I'm fascinated by very early computers, which are ultimately far more interesting than the machine I'm using to write this review. The Jacquard loom, the Leibniz machine, the Babbage engine: these devices seem to point the way to an alternative internet, something very different to the one we actually have. At one point Smith mentions Ramon Llull, a hero of mine and a major influence on Leibniz's first doctoral dissertation, who invented a mechanical computer made of paper which he imagined could help us understand the nature of God. What would our internet look like if it had kept to its thirteenth-century purpose? Well, Smith suggests, maybe it would look like Wikipedia, "this cosmic window I am perched up against, this microcosmic sliver of all things." The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is is, well, not what you think it is. Some online reviewers have been surprised by this book: they expected a pointed screed about how the internet is ruining everything, and instead they get an erudite, quodlibetical adventure through the philosophy of computation. They wanted to be told that the internet is a sudden, cataclysmic break from the world we knew, and they get a "perennialist genealogy," an account of how things are "more or less stable across the ages." It's not as if Smith has failed to properly consider the opposite position. The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is grew out of an essay in The Point magazine, titled "It's All Over," which was also about the internet but struck a very, very different tone. "It has come to seem to me recently that this present moment must be to language something like what the Industrial Revolution was to textiles." The piece was, he writes, "the closest thing to a viral hit I've ever produced." Strangely, one of the things the internet likes is essays about how awful and unprecedented the internet really is. Online essays feed off rupture. Maybe the sustained intellectual activity that comes with writing a book reveals the connections instead: the way things all seem to hang together in an invisible net. Theodor Adorno describes thought as a kind of hypertext, a network, a web: Properly written texts are like spiders' webs: tight, concentric, transparent, well-spun and firm. They draw into themselves all the creatures of the air. Metaphors flitting hastily through them become their nourishing prey. Subject matter comes winging towards them. The soundness of a conception can be judged by whether it causes one quotation to summon another. Where thought has opened up one cell of reality, it should, without violence by the subject, penetrate the next. It proves its relation to the object as soon as other objects crystallize around it. In the light that it casts on its chosen substance, others begin to glow. So when I say I can't entirely agree with the book's thesis, this might be the internet itself speaking through me—but still, I can't entirely agree. I still think that the internet is a serious break from what we had before. And as nice as Wikipedia is, as nice as it is to be able to walk around foreign cities on Google Maps or read early modern grimoires without a library card, I still think the internet is a poison. This doesn't mean that the boring answer was the right one all along. Thinkers of the past have plenty to teach us about the internet, and the world has indeed been doing vaguely internetty things for a very long time. But as I suggested above, our digital internet marks a significant transformation in those processes: it's the point at which our communications media cease to mediate. Instead of talking to each other, we start talking to the machine. If there are intimations of the internet running throughout history, it might be because it's a nightmare that has haunted all societies. People have always been aware of the internet: once, it was the loneliness lurking around the edge of the camp, the terrible possibility of a system of signs that doesn't link people together, but wrenches them apart instead. In the end, what I can't get away from are the demons. Whenever people imagined the internet, demons were always there. Lludd and Llefelys, one of the medieval Welsh tales collected in the Mabinogion, is a vision of the internet. In fact, it describes the internet twice. Here, a terrible plague has settled on Britain: the arrival of the Coraniaid, an invincible supernatural enemy. What makes the Coraniaid so dangerous is their incredibly sharp hearing. They can hear everything that's said, everywhere on the island, even a whisper hundreds of miles away. They already know the details of every plot against them. People have stopped talking; it's the only way to stay safe. To defeat them, the brothers Lludd and Llefelys start speaking to each other through a brass horn, which protects their words. Today, we'd call it encryption. But this horn contains a demon; whatever you speak into it, the words that come out are always cruel and hostile. This medium turns the brothers against each other; it's a communications device that makes them more alone. In the story, the brothers get rid of the demon by washing out the horn with wine. I'm not so sure we can do that today: the horn and its demon are one and the same thing.
(A Vox article, so there's some predictable concerns, but I find it prescient, since it's something I've been thinking about for a while, and since I am at the age where I have to start 'building a social media presence' in order to get a job.) So you want to be an artist. Do you have to start a TikTok? When Rachael Kay Albers was shopping around her book proposal, the editors at a Big Five publishing house loved the idea. The problem came from the marketing department, which had an issue: She didn't have a big enough following. With any book, but especially nonfiction ones, publishers want a guarantee that a writer comes with a built-in audience of people who already read and support their work and, crucially, will fork over $27 — a typical price for a new hardcover book — when it debuts. It was ironic, considering her proposal was about what the age of the "personal brand" is doing to our humanity. Albers, 39, is an expert in what she calls the "online business industrial complex," the network of hucksters vying for your attention and money by selling you courses and coaching on how to get rich online. She's talking about the hustle bro "gurus" flaunting rented Lamborghinis and promoting shady "passive income" schemes, yes, but she's also talking about the bizarre fact that her "65-year-old mom, who's an accountant, is being encouraged by her company to post on LinkedIn to 'build [her] brand.'" The internet has made it so that no matter who you are or what you do — from nine-to-five middle managers to astronauts to house cleaners — you cannot escape the tyranny of the personal brand. For some, it looks like updating your LinkedIn connections whenever you get promoted; for others, it's asking customers to give you five stars on Google Reviews; for still more, it's crafting an engaging-but-authentic persona on Instagram. And for people who hope to publish a bestseller or release a hit record, it's "building a platform" so that execs can use your existing audience to justify the costs of signing a new artist. We like to think of it as the work of singular geniuses whose motivations are purely creative and untainted by the market — this, despite the fact that music, publishing, and film have always been for-profit industries where formulaic, churned-out work is what often sells best. These days, the jig is up. Corporate consolidation and streaming services have depleted artists' traditional sources of revenue and decimated cultural industries. While Big Tech sites like Spotify claim they're "democratizing" culture, they instead demand artists engage in double the labor to make a fraction of what they would have made under the old model. That labor amounts to constant self-promotion in the form of cheap trend-following, ever-changing posting strategies, and the nagging feeling that what you are really doing with your time is marketing, not art. Under the tyranny of algorithmic media distribution, artists, authors — anyone whose work concerns itself with what it means to be human — now have to be entrepreneurs, too. "Authors are writing these incredible books, and yet when they ask me questions, the thing that keeps them up at night is, 'How do I create this brand?'" says literary agent Carly Watters. It's not that they want to be spending their time doing it, it's that they feel they have to. "I think that millennials and Gen Xers really feel like sellouts. It's not what they imagined their career to look like. It inherently feels wrong with their value system." Because self-promotion sucks. It is actually very boring and not that fun to produce TikTok videos or to learn email marketing for this purpose. Hardly anyone wants to "build a platform;" we want to just have one. This is what people sign up for now when they go for the American dream — working for yourself and making money doing what you love. The labor of self-promotion or platform-building or audience-growing or whatever our tech overlords want us to call it is uncomfortable; it is by no means guaranteed to be effective; and it is inescapable unless you are very, very lucky. The August/September 1997 cover story of Fast Company was "The Brand Called You," its headline design a clever take on the orange Tide logo. The gist: If you're not building your "personal brand," a term coined by the author, you're already being left behind by the new economy, one where career success isn't defined by moving up the corporate ladder but by individual growth and self-promotion. "There is no one right way to create the brand called You," writes Tom Peters in the kicker. "Except this: Start today. Or else." The sentiment was a rather unfashionable one at the time, if not for the white-collar workers reading Fast Company, then certainly for the young people who would eventually enter their world. If there was a decade defined by its obsession with authenticity and artistic purity, it's the 90s, an era where trying too hard or caring too much about anything was embarrassing, where "selling out" was the ultimate sin. In his essay collection The Nineties, Chuck Klosterman defines the term "sellout" not as someone who sells something in order to get rich, but someone who compromises their values to do so. "This action was particularly bad if the compromised person was still doing the same work they'd done before," he writes, "except now packaging that work in an attempt to make it palatable to a less discriminating audience." Even at the time, there was pushback against the idea of criticizing artists for "selling out," that it was a naive and hypocritical concept that punished ambition and innovation. "It was a loser's game and everyone knew it," he writes. "But it was a loser's game you still had to play." The problem is that America more or less runs on the concept of selling out. The stigma — if it ever meaningfully existed — didn't last beyond the Great Recession, and by the time most people joined some form of social media, Peters saw his prophecy fulfilled. Over the last decade, mass layoffs in supposedly stable industries, stagnant wages, and general disillusionment with corporate work have made entrepreneurship increasingly attractive to young people, who say they'd rather just be their own bosses. Even for those who never wanted to become entrepreneurs, larger economic shifts have forced them to act as though they are. Take publishing, where there are only five major companies who control roughly 80 percent of the book trade. Fewer publishers means heavier competition for well-paying advances, and fewer booksellers thanks to consolidation by Amazon and big box stores means that authors aren't making what they used to on royalties, despite the fact that book sales are relatively strong. The problem isn't that people aren't buying books, it's that less of the money is going to writers. The same is true for music: People are listening to more of it than ever, yet artists say they can no longer make a living off royalties. Instead of discovering books or music from the press or radio play, fans are finding them on algorithmic platforms like TikTok, where a single video or trend can skyrocket a title to the top of the charts. There are trade-offs to this system: while it's more difficult to create mainstream consensus on something, theoretically, anyone can go viral and bypass the traditional gatekeepers of creative success. Artists are scoring deals and record contracts based on their TikTok presences: a 27-year-old named Alex Aster sold the film rights to a YA book concept she'd pitched on TikTok before the book even published; the sea shanty guy got both a book and a record deal out of his brief viral moment. Predictably, the same fate has reached the publications dedicated to reviewing said works of art: As ad-supported journalism continues its slow collapse and jobs for cultural critics dwindle — in January, Condé Nast folded the music review site Pitchfork into GQ and laid off staff — we're losing smart, well-edited and fact-checked criticism (and, crucially, the ability for those people to make a living off of writing it). Even before mass layoffs, the professional critic lost some relevancy: a positive New York Times review, for instance, used to create overnight hits, while now it barely moves the needle, one agent told me. What has replaced them is, as Israel Daramola writes, "a loose collection of YouTubers and influencers who feed slop to their younger audiences, and fan communities that engage with music solely through their obsession with a particular pop act. This has all helped produce a mass of music fans who don't understand the value of criticism and outright detest being told the things they like might suck." This model of the culture industry doesn't exactly conform to the Romantic ideal of what an artist's life entails. Since the late 18th and early 19th century, we've tended to think of "artists" not as artisans or master craftsmen, as we did prior to the Romantic movement, but as solitary oracles existing on a higher spiritual plane than the rest of us, explains William Deresiewicz, author of The Death of the Artist: How Creators are Struggling to Survive in the Age of Billionaires and Big Tech. When the US institutionalized its cultural power in the form of museums, graduate programs, arts councils, and awards after World War II, more artists were able to make a living from their work via grants, residencies, affiliations, and academic positions. While this model was certainly a departure from the persona of the "starving artist," it still allowed those engaged in creative labor to work largely separate from the market. Even when corporations did enter the picture, artists working with publishing houses or record companies, for example, had little contact with the business side of things. "Before the internet came along, artists not only could let their companies worry about the money, but they actually didn't have a choice. The companies didn't let them," says Deresiewicz. That was until social media, where every single person with an account plays both author and publisher. Under the model of "artist as business manager," the people who can do both well are the ones who end up succeeding. You can see this tension play out in the rise of "day in my life" videos, where authors and artists film themselves throughout their days and edit them into short TikToks or Reels. Despite the fact that for most people, the act of writing looks very boring, author-content creators succeed by making the visually uninteresting labor of typing on a laptop worthwhile to watch. You'll see a lot of cottagecore-esque videos where the writer will sip tea by the fireplace against the soundtrack of Wes Anderson, or wake up in a forest cabin and read by a river, or women like this Oxford University student who dresses up like literary characters and films herself working on her novel. Videos like these emulate the Romantic ideal of "solitary genius" artistry, evoking a time when writing was seen as a more "pure" or quaint profession. Yet what they best represent is the current state of art, where artists must skillfully package themselves as products for buyers to consume. It's precisely the kind of work that is uncomfortable for most artists, who by definition concern themselves with what it means to be a person in the world, not what it means to be a brand. There's been a fair amount of backlash to this imperative, recently among musicians on TikTok. For the past few years, it's been common for indie artists to make videos asking, in a kind of faux-bashful way, "Did I just write the song of the summer?!" In December, one artist made a TikTok in which she asked her followers to imagine, say, Radiohead's Thom Yorke posting a video like that. Ricky Montgomery, a 30-year-old musician with 1.7 million TikTok followers, made a thoughtful follow-up from the perspective of someone who'd gotten a record deal out of a viral moment, saying that even when you land the record deal or have a few hit songs, you're still stuck on the treadmill of constant self-promotion. "Next thing you know, it's been three years and you've spent almost no time on your art," he tells me. "You're getting worse at it, but you're becoming a great marketer for a product which is less and less good." The system works great for record labels or publishing houses, who can hand over the burden of marketing to the artists themselves. But that means, as Montgomery says, "If you have absolutely no knowledge of video creation, good fucking luck." The labor of making TikToks — and if you want to reach the most people in the shortest amount of time, TikTok is pretty much the only place to go — requires both tedium and skill. You've got to get used to the app's ever-evolving editing features, understand the culture of the platform, make yourself look presentable but not too presentable or risk coming off as inauthentic, prepare for and practice what you're going to say, but again, not too much. And you've got to do it again and again and again, because according to every single influencer ever, the key to growing your audience is posting consistently. More than that, you've got to actually spend your time doing this stuff on the off chance that the algorithm picks it up and people care about what you have to say. You've got to spend your time doing this even though it's corny and cringe and your friends from high school or college will probably laugh as you "try to become an influencer." You've got to do it even when you feel like you have absolutely nothing to say, because the algorithm demands you post anyway. You have to do it even if you're from a culture where doing any self-promotion is looked upon as inherently negative, or if you're a woman for whom bragging carries an even greater social stigma than it already does. You've got to do it even though the coolest thing you can do is not have to. You've got to offer your content to the hellish, overstuffed, harassment-laden, uber-competitive attention economy because otherwise no one will know who you are. In a recent interview with the Guardian, the author Naomi Klein said the biggest change in the world since No Logo, her 1999 book on consumerism and inescapable branding, came out was that "neoliberalism has created so much precarity that the commodification of the self is now seen as the only route to any kind of economic security. Plus social media has given us the tools to market ourselves nonstop." You've got to do it even though the people rewarded for "putting themselves out there" are most often the same people society already rewards. You've got to do it even though algorithms are biased against poor people, against people of color, against people who don't conform to patriarchal societal norms. "We all have access to these platforms that don't cost anything, but that's often mistaken for 'there are no socioeconomic barriers,'" explains Christina Scharff, a gender and media studies scholar at King's College of London who has studied expectations of self-promotion among women in classical music. "The barriers are much more hidden: You have to know how to present yourself and how to create visuals that are appealing." Not only that, but by doing so, you're exposing yourself to harassment and ridicule. "It's harder for racial minorities, women, trans people, or other minoritized groups, because if you're already vulnerable in one way or another, that can backfire," she adds. You've also got to do it despite the many mea culpas from influencers who say influencing sort of ruined their lives. YouTubers have said the pressure of posting their lives led them to deep unhappiness, depression, and anxiety, but that they feel like they can't take breaks because they know the algorithm will punish them. In almost every interview I do with TikTokers, they want to talk about how burned out they feel, pretty much all the time. "I had made a product out of some of the most devastating moments of my life. In its aftermath, I felt pressured to continuously comment on problems in my private life that I didn't know how to fix," wrote Elle Mills, a former teen YouTuber, on why she quit. "I think I am a writer and an actor and an artist," wrote Tavi Gevinson of her relationship to Instagram. "But I haven't believed the purity of my own intentions ever since I became my own salesperson, too." When Brooke Erin Duffy, communications professor at Cornell University, asks her students "Who wants to be an entrepreneur?" they all raise their hands. Considering her book centers around how careers in which you "get paid for doing what you love" are often traps for being overworked and undervalued, this is somewhat ironic. Or maybe it's not. Maybe her students are seeing what older people don't want to. "There's this sense of, 'How am I going to learn to engage in self-branding to monetize whatever my field of expertise is?'" she says of her students. "Young people are clamoring to learn about this, and a lot of them feel that the university is unable to provide it because of the distance between what their professors know and what's going on now." Leigh Stein, an author and writing teacher, views the creator economy not as an adversary to arts professions but as a tool to make connections. "I try not to be a cynic. If this is the state of the creator economy, how can I thrive in it instead of wasting time complaining about how I wish it were better?" she says. "One pet peeve of mine is writers' reluctance to get on social media because they don't want to share their ideas in public. It's like, well, why do you want to be a writer? Isn't the whole point of writing that you have ideas that you want to share? You should be sharing those ideas in public all the time." It's probable that due to the inescapability of social media and advertising, young people aren't as allergic to self-promotion as older folks were at their age. Its roots were already brewing in 2011, when Deresiewicz wrote a New York Times opinion piece called "Generation Sell" in which he marveled at the ways hip millennials in Portland, Oregon, seemed naturally predisposed to salesmanship. Unlike youth subcultures in decades prior, he found them to be polite, friendly, and disarmingly earnest — "above all, a commercial personality." It was entrepreneurs whom these people wanted to emulate, and the small business the social and economic model in which they wanted to work. I asked Deresiewicz if he felt anything had changed in the 13 years since he wrote the piece. Back then, he says, "I was still in that mindset of 'selling out is evil.'" When he began research on his next book, however, "I realized that was kind of an outdated, privileged, and intensely unrealistic attitude," he says. "Now, you don't have a choice, and that's why that concept has disappeared." That book tackles how artmaking became an inherently entrepreneurial pursuit, arguing that while social media hugely increased the number of people who pursued art, it didn't increase the number of people who can support themselves financially by making it. A world in which artists think like entrepreneurs, he writes in the Atlantic, is one where "You're a musician and a photographer and a poet; a storyteller and a dancer and a designer ... which means that you haven't got time for your 10,000 hours in any of your chosen media. But technique or expertise is not the point. The point is versatility. Like any good business, you try to diversify." It's also a world where that art is "more familiar, formulaic, user-friendly, eager to please — more like entertainment, less like art." Is the labor of self-promotion making art worse? It's sort of impossible to argue this; the internet has abetted the creation and exposure of infinitely more art than ever before in human history. But with less separation between art and commerce, Montgomery says, "there's some self-censorship that happens. If you're a little too knowledgeable about PR, you start to become way too aware of things like posting schedules, and it's impossible to be punk anymore." Bethany Cosentino was 22 when she started her indie rock band Best Coast in 2009, and by the time she released her first album under her own name this year, the music industry was barely recognizable. In that bygone era, she explains, you had to be reading certain blogs, going to certain venues, and hanging out with certain people if you wanted to find a cool new indie artist. There was an entire cottage industry supporting the discovery of emerging talent; now, it's been relegated to a playlist algorithmically designed to match your existing tastes. "Anyone can upload anything to Spotify, but Spotify has every piece of music that's ever been made in the entire world," says Cosentino. "You're up against the Beatles and Fleetwood Mac." Where that's left her — a musician who's had a successful career for 15 years — is basically the same place it leaves any random up-and-comer: constantly promoting yourself online. "It genuinely feels like I'm clocking into work," she says of social media. In the lead-up to her latest record, released this summer, she says she was online for hours from the moment she woke up, using an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of what she needed to post. Even still, she says that as soon as her album came out, "it basically went away" in terms of commercial success. Whether that was because it was under her own name instead of her more well-known band, or because it was a departure from her earlier sound, or because she didn't hit the viral lottery, is impossible to say. The only thing that matters now, she says, are streaming numbers, and if a record flops, the artist gets blamed for not promoting it enough. When Cosentino expressed her frustration on TikTok in December, her video caused a cross-platform discourse over privilege, labor, and what's expected of artists. She's hopeful that there's a better way to set up the system. "A lot of stuff is broken," she says, "And nothing's going to fix itself. Everybody needs to be proactive and figure out a way forward. Of course, that's challenging, but I don't think the answer is to throw your arms up and go, 'Well, it just is what it is.' I'm not an 'it is what it is' person, I want to figure out how to make it better, or how to make it at least more fulfilling for me as a human being in my one God-given life." Instead of spending the majority of our time on self-promotion, perhaps more of us could be focusing on finding ways to form solidarity among artists or among disciplines, especially in fields where there is no single industry-wide union that protects individual creators. We can support independently owned media, we can make it more possible for artists to survive by fighting for a health care system that doesn't rely on full-time employment, for affordable child care, and against companies that profit from stealing the work of unpaid or underpaid artists. The burden of self-promotion isn't only on creative people, obviously; much like Albers's 65-year-old mom, we're all expected to perform this labor now. If we're fully employed, we know that the comfort of health insurance and a salary could be gone at any moment if our company decides to pivot or lay us off. Tech platforms, too, come and go, and the audiences we build there are unstable, impermanent. But what other choice do we have? There are plenty of people who view this as a good thing. A society made up of human beings who have turned themselves into small businesses is basically the logical endpoint of free market capitalism, anyway. To achieve the current iteration of the American dream, you've got to shout into the digital void and tell everyone how great you are. All that matters is how many people believe you.