Something to remember about Facebook

So yesterday Facebook was hit by a major server outage which left both users and workers unable to use Facebook for about six hours. Instagram and Whatsapp, which are both owned by Facebook, were also affected and were also down for much of the evening. At the same time, or at least on the same day, it seemed the whitstleblower behind a series of leaks concerning Facebook has revealed her identity, Frances Haugen, and gave an interview on 60 Minutes to detail her grievances with the company.

When the outage happened and I looked at the coverage of Frances Haugen’s interview, I had almost thought that Facebook’s server shut down in tandem with the revelations, but it seems to me like that might have been a coincidence. But having said that, there is something I have to say about some aspect of what Haugen is trying to say.

Haugen blames Facebook for the spread of ethinc violence against Rohingya Muslims in Burma, arguing that the platform was used to “foment division and incite offline violence”, as well as attributing the January 6th riot on Capitol Hill to a change in its news feed algorithm. To be honest, when I see talk of Facebook being used to “foment division and violence”, I remember something very different from the not too distant past. I am at least old enough to remember what was called the “Arab Spring”, a succession of protests and revolutions that spread across the Arab world and resulted in the overthrow of authoritarian leaders, including Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Ben Ali in Tunisia, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Back then, Facebook was being praised for its role in those revolutions, spreading information that the authoritarian governments couldn’t control and leading to their downfall. That was the discourse on Facebook that I remember. Now that the same medium has been blamed for the ascent of Trump and his movement since almost immediately after his election in 2016, the exact same thing that made Facebook so endearing for the liberal consensus is now the worst thing about it.

The thing about mainstream discourse about Facebook is that liberals want everything that makes Facebook great (for them at least), but without any of the negative side-effects that necessarily come with it. They want a platform where anyone can spread information that they approve of on the back that it leads to political change they like, but without that necessarily coming with the ability to spread information they don’t like. I know the knee-jerk reaction of liberals is to talk about right-wing media and all that (as though Facebook isn’t literally controlled by right-wing tech-bros), but you should see the censorship of left-wing media that takes place. I tried to post a link to an article from People and Nature, an eco-socialist blog, to Facebook to bring attention to some much-needed and overlooked discourse about the errors of mainstream solutions to climate change, and Facebook would not let me do it because they thought it was spam. Indeed, in the run-up to Joe Biden’s inauguration, several left-wing users were put on a restriction list, before outright purging left-wing accounts. Left-wing content has also been subject to “extremist content” warnings in the last few months. This is the snapshot of the sort of regime of controlled information that liberal critics of Facebook desire, and as valid as her aims might be, Haugen should be careful what she wishes for.

On Yahoo Answers shutting down

So I just heard that Yahoo Answers is going to be shutting down in May. Yahoo Answers was essentially question and answer forum run by Yahoo, who founded the website in 2005, and whose content was driven primarily by its user base, who would ask all sorts of strange questions, give sometimes insightful answers, and increase each other’s visibility in the process. Yesterday was the last day that users of Yahoo Answers could post questions and answers on the website, and is now presently in read-only mode, meaning you can only read what has already been posted and cannot interact with it. The closure of Yahoo Answers was first announced by Yahoo on April 5th, and the site is set to shut down for good on May 4th. As of this time, Yahoo Answers has been active for 16 years. That’s how long it’s been around up to this point.

I stopped using Yahoo Answers around 5 years ago, or at least that’s what I get out of the fact that my last questions and answers are dated to 5 years ago, and to be honest I almost forgot about my time there since then, but since I began using it over a decade ago when I was still a confused teenager, I met many of the people who supported my interest in mysticism, occultism, and alternative forms of religiosity. It was within that background that I met an American Satanist/Luciferian occultist who often went by the name “SA” or “The Desolate One”, who was one of the many influences who shaped my transition into Satanism during my college days, as well as a non-Left Hand Path mystic who introduced me to Vincent Piazza and what was then known as the Greater Church of Lucifer, thus further introducing me to the world of Luciferianism. In a way, the time I spent on Yahoo Answers and the people I met helped shape the horizon for my personal spiritual development. I met many more people there too, of course, I interacted with many different types of people from many different ideological and spiritual perspectives, sometimes asking them questions or hashing out disagreements via private correspondences as well as public questions. But there’s a few people there I remember the most.

There was that non-Left Hand Path mystic, an American whose name was Jack, with whom I hashed out a variety of fun spiritual ideas and popular cultural tropes, but then I guess I kind of quietly backed away from him during my right-wing phase around the time of the Manchester attacks over a take on terrorism that, at the time, I felt was beyond the pale. There was a woman from Wales with whom I talked frequently about a variety of subjects, including video games and life in general. For a while I maintained correspondence with a member of Soka Gakkai International, who had a habit of bringing everything back to the teachings of Nichiren, no matter how trivial. But the most memberable, of course, is “SA”. He was the man who, more than anyone, guided me into the path that I’ve taken in the years since, leading to all other developments in my life, because he was probably the most instrumental in getting me into not just Satanism but the Left Hand Path as a whole. We talked about occultism, religion, music, politics, girls (and from there sex), everything you could imagine, but we stopped corresponding at some point in 2015 or 2016 because he couldn’t afford internet anymore. Ever since, I have longed for the time when I could speak to him again, or better yet travel to Georgia to one day meet him in person, share some drinks, and catch up.

So, in that sense, even though I hardly used the website in around 5 years, I think, for now at least (assuming I don’t forget again), I’m going to miss Yahoo Answers, and the community from that website. Most people will remember it for a litany of hilariously dumb and often poorly spelled questions concerning basic facts of life, but I’ll remember it for the people I met there, and the course they ended up putting me on.

Reddit vs Wall Street

An exciting development has been taking place in the field of sticking it to the man. Last week, a subreddit called r/WallStreetBets began short squeezing shares from the company GameStop, which was seeing hard times due to a combination of the COVID-19 pandemic and competition from online distrubtors. Seeing GameStop’s terrible condition, some hedge funds placed short bets on the company failing, intending to make a fortune off the company eventually folding. But r/WallStreetBets had other ideas. Seeing so many investors bet on GameStop’s price going down, and going from the word of Citron Research who said that the value of GameStop’s stock would decrease, the subreddit began buying GameStop’s stock en masse in order to drive up the price. The idea seems to have been to make it so that the rich short sellers would have to pay more money for the stocks they bet on. As you probably already have some idea about, it seems to be working.

In the space of a week, GameStop’s share price has skyrocketed by about 700%. The hedge funds bet that GameStop’s stocks would plummet, and now that they’re actually rising they risk losing a lot of money. The stocks have risen so quickly that trading has halted at some points. Naturally, this has sent the financial establishment into panic mode. They’re now doing everything they can to try and lower the price of the stock so that they can still make a profit off of those shares, while Reddit is holding out and refusing to sell for the moment because then the stock prices will plummet and the hedge funds win. In the meantime, the same people who for years have been playing the stock market like a casino are now calling on the government to stop people from doing the same thing they did.

However, it looks like all the hype might not be to last. As of today, the stock price for GameStop has indeed plumetted after the trading app Robinhood imposed a ban on its users investing in GameStop. The bourgeoisie, having sense that the stock market was rapidly being turned against them by ordinary people, and have now opted to use their power to rig the outcome in their favour so that they can still make a profit. Thus it seems as though WallStreetBets might well lose the war. And yet, despite this, there may yet be wide-ranging political rammifications. Both progressives and conservatives appear to be united in calling for investigations into the stock market, and the Senates plans to have a hearing on the state of the stock market. Time will tell what will come of all this, but no matter what happens hedge funds are in for a grilling and the future of stockbroking may change irreversibly.

All told, I think this was nothing less than a heroic story of ordinary people on the internet who, with nothing but their own know-how, got together and seized the opportunity to take on the American financial elite by playing the stock market game. And although I can’t say with much confidence that they’ve won, for now at least, but no matter what the outcome their struggle is showing people what happens when ordinary people try to take on the system, and, most importantly, that is possible for anyone to subvert the system if they have the knowledge to do so. I think this the main lesson for anyone seeking to oppose capitalism to draw from all of this. Old forms of revolution in light of modern material conditions is the talk of the 20th century, but subversion is, and always has been, a living force of radical change, and opens the way forward for the anti-capitalism of the 21st century.

The other lesson, of course, concerns so-called “hate speech”. Not long after the stock market spiralled out of control, the Discord server for r/WallStreetBets was shut down supposedly on the grounds of “hate speech” violations. This, you should remember, is not long after they successfully short squeezed GameStop’s stocks. The lesson from this is that “hate speech” laws were never, ever, about protecting the marginalized, or upholding freedom of speech as some would insist in a brazenly Orwellian fashion, but instead they were always there just to shore up the authority of the ruling class. Those who look at this and still for that hackneyed line will show themselves to be goons forever.

Fan art of r/WallStreetBets

The First Amendment is officially a joke

The last month has been very eventful for freedom of speech on the Internet, and not for good cause. Last week, Tumblr announced a total ban on pornography would be implemented on December 17th. As has often been the case in past moral crusades against pornography, the impetus for this is a classic “think of the children!” scenario. In a statement, Tumblr makes it explicitly clear that their underlying motivation is to crack down on child pornography. But, it should be obvious to us that this excuse is a hollow in its self-righteousness. First of all if it was truly only child pornography they were concerned with, they would not be so focused on removing all adult content on the website. Secondly, despite the website’s claims to still allow free discussion about sexuality, the new move appears to present a credible threat to various sexual subcultures, sex-positive activists and sex workers by targeting their content even if it is not overtly pornographic.

In addition to this, art featuring nudity will inevitably also be targeted by this blanket and imprecise ban, as classical religious artwork featuring nude goddesses, saints and even Jesus himself have been flagged as “adult content”. This will not simply affect classical art either. Stealing Knowledge, a Tumblr blog which catalogues all sorts of interesting and obscure tidbits pertaining to my favored gamed series Shin Megami Tensei, also expects to have content flagged and then removed from the website, especially under ridiculous pretexts. And Tumblr is not alone in such censorship of art. Facebook actually banned an art historian and curator named Ruben Cordova from their website for posting pictures of Met Bruer’s popular exhibition Like Life: Sculpture, Color, and the Body, which seems to have triggered the website’s algorithm for nude photos which are banned by the website. With this in mind, it becomes empirically clear that Tumblr is joining a much broader trend in social media of sanitizing online space under the guise of fighting child pornography.

Now you might be wondering what precisely this whole thing has to do with the First Amendment of the United States constitution. Well there are those who speculate that Tumblr was simply gearing up for new FOSTA-SESTA legislation which will have nasty consequences for the future of online pornography in general. Under the pretext of fighting human trafficking (on that point it’s worth mentioning that only a small number of cases actually relate to pornography), SESTA legislation will target websites that allegedly “promote or facilitate prostitution”, which is broad enough that legal escort services, certain cryptocurrencies and even pornography might be included. As a matter of fact, supporters of such legislation themselves are quite candid in their hope that such legislation will lead to a ban of pornography entirely. This is problematic because of the fact that the First Amendment protects most forms of erotic entertainment, with obvious exceptions such as child pornography and revenge porn, and in fact there are already fears that FOSTA-SESTA represents an intrusion of First Amendment rights.

I cannot ignore the irony of all this. The First Amendment is supposed to be America’s ironclad guarantor of freedom of speech and expression in the United States, the example of such for the free world (in contrast to my country where we don’t even have a written constitution). But the powers that be can effectively subvert it in the name of a substanceless moral panic disguising the expansion of unitary power over free expression. This applies not only to pornography and sex-positive communities (not to mention online LGBT groups), but also, as I’ve pointed out months ago, criticism of Israel. America, for its pretense to care about freedom of speech, is quite prepared to destroy it in as many ways as it can get away with in order to sanitize public discussion on the Internet.

On Alex Jones being deplatformed

Well isn’t this funny. Not too soon after I write a post where I mention Alex Jones and now I find myself talking about him again. I have received news that yesterday Facebook, iTunes, YouTube and Spotify have all removed Alex Jones’ show and channel from their respective platforms, effectively banning him from being able to broadcast on their platforms. The main reasons being given for this decision seem be that InfoWars violated the websites’ guidelines concerning hate speech, but I’m not entirely sure what specific action triggered this decision. I have heard from one source that it was over a podcast in which he seemingly threatened Robert Mueller and fantasized about killing him on his show, or how he seemingly threatened homosexuals, transgender individuals and drag queens and called for them to be burned alive, but I’m not quite sure what did it for Apple, Facebook, Spotify and Google. It’s possible, however, that his recent efforts to put his podcast on Spotify might have sealed the deal, with Spotify users apparently threatening to cancel paid subscriptions to the platform if they continue to host Infowars.

Now, why am I talking about this? Well for one thing, I think we in the Satanist and Luciferians circles are all too familiar with his shtick: him peddling conspiracy theories wherein politicians and media personalities he doesn’t like are basically demons from the pit of hell who want to kill Christians, enslave mankind and take over the world. You know, fundamentalist Christianity jacked up on ketamine, and with a bunch of other weird conspiracy theories on top of it (like gay frogs, chemtrails, and NASA allegedly running a pedophile ring on Mars). So he’s been on our radar for some time now, and imagine many of us aren’t really shedding a tear for him at this moment. And for another thing, I think there are points to make about freedom of speech and incitement.

I, honestly, am quite neutral on this issue. I know that might seem strange for someone as pro-free speech as I am, but do hear me out.

In principle, I don’t support the idea of Alex Jones getting deplatformed in the way that has been. However, it would be easy for me to take his side on the issue were it not for the fact that Alex Jones has come suspiciously close to incitement numerous occasions. For instance, in January he went on a bizarre, unhinged rant about CNN’s Brian Stelter, where he accuses him of being a devil worshipper who wants to control every aspect of your life somehow, and implies that he is going to “resist” him (whatever that entails) with everything he has and that God is going to destroy him. In 2016, Jones outright called for supporters of Bernie Sanders to have their jaws broken. More recently, he seemingly called for drag queens to be burned alive, which Pink News also claims is the reason for Alex Jones getting banned from Facebook. There was also a rant last year where Jones threatened to beat up Rep. Adam Schiff, apparently over something to do with accusations of him being an agent of Russia. And that recent story about Robert Mueller? I’m not making that one up. In fact, let me just leave a video compilation below which shows multiple examples of Jones’ threats, including some I already mentioned.

In summary, Alex Jones frequently skirts the line, sometimes even outright crosses the line, into incitement to violence for individuals he doesn’t like, usually while layering a sense of plausible deniability on top of his grandiose and vulgar threats. With Robert Mueller for instance, he insists that he’s going to get him “politically” in his rant. Because you know, he doesn’t really want to shoot him, even though he says he’s a pedophile who should be shot. Classy. But then there is a peculiar question we must ask, and I think some journalists have asked the same question: why hasn’t Alex Jones been deplatformed sooner given his particular history?

To be honest, I think the answer to that is probably to do with the ways in which Jones can give a sense of plausible deniability to himself. Besides the kind of thing I already mentioned, when Alex Jones was sued for custody of his kids by his ex-wife Kelly, his lawyer defended him by claiming that Alex Jones is a performance artist playing a fictional character. This is a very effective way of granting plausible deniability to his threats – after all, if it’s all just an act, then those threats aren’t really threats, they’re just part of the act; just a meme bro. It’s also a convenient falsehood, given that Alex Jones tends to double down on his conspiracy theories when pressed on the subject, and he will insist that what he believes is the truth outside of his show.

There is another issue with the subject of his deplatforming however, one that cannot be overlooked. I have heard the argument that after Alex Jones’ deplatforming, it is only a matter of time before the media begins to deplatform others who are accused of promoting conspiracy theories – not just right-wing nutjobs like Alex Jones who actually promote conspiracy theories, but left-leaning guys like Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore who are both critical of the Russiagate canard and are considered to be conspiracy theorists and fake news promoters by their centrist opponents. On the one hand it’s easy to the logic: America is already at a point where it looks like Silicon Valley capitalists can generate a monopoly on what is considered true and false because of their entrenchment within mainstream political circles. This may partly explain why they have wanted Alex Jones gone for some time now, because they believe he is spreading fake news (which, to be fair, he is and that’s his business model). On the other hand, I do have to stress again that Jones has a record of incitement, and I believe this sets him apart from people like Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore, who never come close to inciting anything.

Another argument you could make, one that I think might have more weight, is that deplatforming Alex Jones will only give people more reason to believe his ideas or give them credence, as The Guardian’s Sam Levin has argued. It makes sense because the removal can seen by devotees or sympathizers of the conspiracy theorists as proof that they are trying to shut that person down for his ideas, even in cases where that’s not actually true and you can point to cases of incitement to violence as a reason for their deplatforming.

Regardless, I will say this to any self-proclaimed free speech warriors thinking of unequivocally defending him. Why is it that someone like Alex Jones, who skirts the line between free speech and incitement to violence, worthy of defence in the name of free speech, and someone like Jake Flores, a comedian who made a joke on Twitter about ICE agents getting killed, gets his door knocked down by the US government is treated to radio silence? Keep in mind, when Count Dankula made jokingly taught his dog to give Nazi salutes, you guys rightly defended him. But when the US government bust down someone’s door over a joke, I don’t see you guys saying anything, and not only that but some of you guys defend the very state organization that violates your free speech principles. The Spanish government also arrests people for joking about public officials being assassinated and insulting the monarchy, and I have never, ever seen anyone outside the left talk about that. And aren’t you usually the people who, when you’re not talking about people you like getting deplatformed by private companies, you defend the very architecture of capital and private property that allows social media companies to have flagrant disregard for your freedom of speech? Well, even within that premise, why does Alex Jones getting deplatformed elicit moral outrage, but not when Facebook targets pro-Palestine groups at the behest of Israel and the US government? Is it because Alex Jones is somehow anti-establishment? Never mind of course that Alex Jones defends the people now in power in America on a regular basis, says nothing about the detention camps that ICE has implemented since the Obama administration even though he was the same guy who claimed Barack Obama was going to implement FEMA camps on his way out of office, and no matter how many times Trumps bombs Syria and goes against his supposedly non-interventionist America First program, he will always go back to supporting him out of Republican partisanship. Or is it simply because of some sort of partisanship wherein if it happens anyone who isn’t to your left you don’t care? Gee, it really gets my almonds going when even fundamentalist right-wing Christians like Rick Wiles decide that Alex Jones is going too far their liking, but the average online “free speech warrior” takes Alex Jones’ side.

Overall, this for me is not about hate speech. I oppose the concept of hate speech, but I also oppose incitement to violence. I can’t take Alex Jones’ side on this one. I’m not gonna cheer for his apparent censorship, but I’m not going to shed a tear either because I think Alex Jones might have ultimately brought this on himself.

Kek is dead

In October 2016, I devoted a Mythological Spotlight to an obscure Egyptian deity of darkness named Kuk. The reason I decided to do so was because I became fascinated with the development of what was called the “Cult of Kek”, a memetic movement based around the meme of Pepe the Frog cast as a deity named Kek, who was also treated as somewhat identical to the Egyptian deity Kuk (who at this point is now just referred to as Kek anyway). Such fascination was partly fueled by the idea of a god of darkness being propelled to prominence via meme “magic” and the political arena through the US presidential election in 2016, and in a seemingly rebellious context given not just the chaotic nature of the Internet, let alone the imageboard culture the meme spawned from. For that, at the time, I praised the Cult of Kek for taking such an obscure deity and giving Kuk new life and quite possibly more prominence than he ever had in ancient Egypt.

My post was written the month before Donald Trump’s election in America, and since then interest in the obscure Egyptian deity has grown in the aftermath of Trump’s election, and it seemed that there was something energizing about the Kek meme deity. Even during the beginnings of the Kekistan meme, which looking back now seems utterly pointless and cringeworthy, it appeared as though the meme was growing and gaining a new mythology, one that seemed to have a purpose – namely, to parody identity politics from both intersectionalist liberals and right-wing ethno-nationalists by the creation of a “nation of ethnic shitposters”. Of course, Kekistan has since morphed into either nothing more than a new millennial habitat for boomer generation conservative thought (as in the kind of shit you see from the likes of Dinesh D’Souza) or UKIP style right-populism – which considering the slide of the Sargonites towards full-throated, unquestioning worship of Donald Trump should probably come as no surprise. I swear I’ve seen a few actual fascists and/or neo-Nazis operate under the Kekistan banner as well, which really goes to show the failure of the Kekistan meme at ridiculing or repelling such figures.

Despite what some self-styled “rational skeptics” on the Internet wanted to believe, there’s a reason the Kekistan movement, Pepe the Frog and by extension Kek got dismissed as purely right-wing momentum or even racist propaganda. It’s not because Pepe or Kek are inherently racist or reactionary symbols to begin with (by all accounts Pepe the Frog started as a politically neutral comic character), but because the symbol was so mercilessly co-opted and capitalized on by right wing movements: conservatives, libertarians, right wing nationalists, alt-righters, across the wing really. And the funny thing about right-wing movements in the current climate is that, with right-wing movements rising across the West and winning elections across Europe, not to mention already controlling the government in the USA, the transgressive nature, or rather the mask of transgression, of such a movement became stale and wore-off as it became clear that the Kekists, alt-right or not, were simply culture warriors fighting alongside inane political issues, in so doing failing to truly challenge society. But how can they truly transgress and challenge society when, after gaining political power across the board, the only thing the new American right lacks is respect? And so the Kekistan movement descends into a movement that exists solely to own the libs, and fittingly enough the politics of the man who propelled the Kekistan meme, one Carl Benjamin, has openly admitted that his politics is now basically the same idea. Before the end of 2017, Kekistan was established as a den of losers and failsons, not the bold, transgressive cultural rebels they thought themselves to be, and a few neo-Nazis who stuck around to co-opt the idea.

Returning to Pepe the Frog in general, the creator of the character, Matt Furie, obviously wasn’t too happy seeing his creation take on a life of its own and turn into a mascot for right-wing politics that he didn’t agree with, so at one point he tried “killing” his character within his universe, thinking that the rightists who appropriated him for their own ends would go along with it. But of course, they didn’t. Instead they took exception to it, condemned Matt Furie, and predictably memed the shit out of Pepe’s death (not to mention “resurrecting” Pepe the Frog by creating new memes). More recently, however, Furie succeeded in getting the Daily Stormer, the flagship news outfit for neo-Nazis everywhere, to remove images of Pepe the Frog from their website.

So where does this leave Kek, exactly?

Before we answer that, I think it’s worth addressing where exactly the transgressive power that fueled Kek’s modern day rise came from. In broad terms, it was fueled by the stagnation and declining legitimacy of modern liberalism. By allying itself with the hollow internationalism of big capital, liberalism became a very establishmentarian ideology, and this has lead to a widespread contradiciton within society at large. It’s quite obvious when you think about it: how can one preach about how equal we all are as many liberals do while economic inequality remains a feature of capitalism and runs rampant particularly in the USA? How does one preach of how free a society we are while we face increasing restrictions on our civil liberty in response to terrorism, “hate speech” and new technological developments? How does one preach of the integrity of our democratic values as the machinations of the political system appear increasingly corrupt, and our leaders so distant from the people? But for the right, one concern in particular is set on immigration. Namely, the perception that the ruling class of liberals values foreigners above native citizens. This is of course the product of the juxtaposition of immigration pursued for cheap labour, alongside the challenges of the European migration crisis, alongside the dislocation and alienation of the native working class.

The problem, of course, arises in the failure to trace all of this contradiction back to its economic roots in capitalism. After all, so long as capitalism must transcend the borders of the nation state it can never, ever, remain tied to the nation and its people. And all the while it also does a good job of fucking over the third world through neo-imperial economic policies, contributing to the conditions that generate mass migration from third world countries into first world countries. Not to mention the widening contradiction between free market capitalism, with its emphasis on the private individual’s ability to amass wealth and property, and democracy, with its inherent emphasis on the ability of the people as a mass to act and be represented politically. Instead of piecing this together, the right is distracted by culture war politics, national chauvinism, identity politics, and political correctness, placing them far above the material issues faced by society. However, to be honest, the left (or at least what passes for a left these days) did a poor job of answering this, with the dominant social-democratic movements more or less allying with modern liberalism while consolidating around the very phantoms the right fixates itself on, without truly addressing the material issues. And so the alliance of liberalism and social-democracy creates a polite, politically correct consensus for bourgeois interests, creating the framework for right-wing politics to appear transgressive where it wasn’t so transgressive before outside of maybe libertarianism.

These conditions fed into was what was at the time a delightfully transgressive movement, promising to destroy the old order of things. But of course, the reality is that they are incapable of such a task. If the UK is any indication, all that Europe will get from a Brexit from the right is a menagerie of countries seeking new masters. Or, if Hungary is any indication, one overbearing political order shall be replaced with another. But, in any case, Pepe the Frog will continue to be utilized as the symbol of the various right-wing movements consolidating around Europe and America, already the new symbol of this broad coalition dubbed “The New Right” (perhaps it should be The New New Right given the pre-existing New Right of the 1980s). But in the process it will be nothing more than that: just the emblem of a preset political movement that, ironically for a god of chaos, values the authority of the state to be exercised in order to uphold its own sovereignty (not the sovereignty of the people of course because right-wing nationalism only gives a shit about state sovereignty) and promote what they believe to be the traditional values of the given countries. The god of darkness and chaos will just be an emblem of strident, overbearing order.

And so Kek will stand as a bastardized idol, bereft of the transgressive power it briefly attained as the movements who appropriate him lose their transgressive qualities as they gain power, and the meaning of this obscure frog deity will be paved over by his new identity. And then, when these right-wing strivings die off in the end, and these movements lose their former momentum, Kek will fade from memory, as just another absurd symbol of the radical right, and he will die as a perverted husk of his former self, indeed he will be just as perverted as many pagan symbols that had become co-opted by fascistic movements in the past. And all the while, the party we had for him was already over.

Matt Furie’s comic wherein Pepe dies, created in response to Pepe’s relentless co-option by the alt-right

A long con

Twitter, Facebook, Google and the like, they will continue to bend the knee to the establishment until it no longer becomes profitable for them to do so. They will continue the business of suppressing information that they determine to be to false, as if it is their authority to do so. And they will hypocritically follow their doctrine of “hate speech” on ideological lines, targeting whatever directly opposes their ideological line while ignoring misinformation and abuse from their own ends of the political spectrum. But their competitors, such as Gab or Minds, from what I have understood based on developments I have seen within the last couple of months, are not the bastions of freedom of speech that they promise to be. They too will ban content that they dislike, often with minimal explanation if at all.

It’s becoming increasingly evident to me that social media is a long con. I would like that social media websites allow individuals to speak freely, post what they like that isn’t pornography, incitement or private information, and/or at the very least be honest about the terms that they’re setting for their users. But sadly, I predict that they aren’t going to me. In the meantime, we’re all suckers in the end because, in many ways, we depend on social media to sustain our modern lives. As I’ve mentioned before, communication with fellow students is pretty much one of the only reasons I’m on Facebook besides the fact that people like Summer Thunder and Sean Ridley Ravensdale are there with me. At least I still have some friends there. As much as it renders us into a situation where we’re pretty much stuck dealing with social media companies run by people who are, frankly, untrustworthy, it’s also the biggest reason why the struggle to actually have some rights is an important one, even if perhaps a tragic one (on account of how, like I said, there may not be much we can do). I do not want those companies being able to just trample over me like a dog, but if I don’t the only way I can do anything is to fight, and I don’t know how.

But if I’m convinced of anything in that direction, it’s that they will not be defeated by the self-serving. The people who would’ve been all for social media companies denying the liberty of the people who use it, were it not for the fact that the people they like received . The people who are against censorship, like myself, were warning about precisely this. There is no guarantee that the forces of censorship will spare you in their wrath, instead they will eventually target you, whether for ideological reasons or out of pure incompetence. You can’t control the censor once you allow him to censor anymore than you can control the Internet, so don’t complain if he decides to censor you or someone you like unless you are opposed to it on principle.

And I extent this principle to the fake news meme I still see going around. The fight against fake news is pointless. Those of us who aren’t sheep know it’s just a way of accusing someone else of spreading lies, when the people who started the meme in the first place started saying it in response the failure of an American presidential candidate they wanted to win. They needed a scapegoat, and social media was arguably the perfect fit in an age where it is so ubiquitous that it practically dominates our lives. Those who think the powers that be will save you from this think that all they ask is to protect the public from misinformation, when really all it is is making it a crime to either lie or spread something you think is true, but might not be. All we would be doing is surrendering our faculty, and duty, to determine for ourselves through reason whether or not we are being told lies. This is something that should not be given up so that politicians could win a game they lost over a year ago.

It’s all a long con. The only difference is with one con we can’t avoid without total hermitude, but the other, we can think our way out of. If, that is, we remain free to.

You’ve outdone yourself again, YouTube

Remember last month when I complained about YouTube shadowbanning Jeremy Crow’s videos, and in that post I pointed out how YouTube’s quest for censorship is nonsensical and serves no purpose other than to make YouTube look good to potential advertisers? Weeeeeelll, it appears YouTube has hit a major snag in that department.

For all the fuss that was generated over “extremist” video content, which mostly was just a way of saying they’re going to try to suppress politically incorrect content, YouTube didn’t count on what really fucked their brand this weekend: pedophiles. Or, more specifically, the presence of videos depicting real children appearing in suggestive situations for pedophiles to masturbate to, or the presence of pedophiles chortling to the comments sections of home videos featuring children in which they express their desire to have sex with them. According to an investigation from The Times this is being financially supported by ads from major corporations, including Amazon, eBay, BT and TalkTalk, appearing on those videos. This has resulted in overwhelming backlash from advertisers, who have been pulling their YouTube ads and expressing doubt over YouTube’s commercial viability.

So let’s just get this straight: YouTube, in a desperate bid to sanitize their platform by chasing the alt-right bogeymen away, left out the large numbers of pedophiles who are on their website, and searching for videos of scantily clad children so that they can leer at those children, and now that this has come to light it is hurting their brand, when they thought all they had to worry about was some Nazis ranting about Jews and the Holocaust. Good job YouTube. You’ve demonstrated once again how much of a farce your censorious policies are proving to be.

I’m sure YouTube are going to clean this up in the light of such a major boycott from advertisers – this is their bottom line we’re talking about – but, if you defended YouTube for removing content it doesn’t deem advertiser friendly before, are you now beginning to see a problem with this position? Apparently it’s not OK to shitpost or express opinions that the company deems offensive or disposable, but it is OK for pedophiles to lurk on your website for lord knows how long and leer at people’s prepubescent daughters. It is increasingly impossible defend YouTube, and by proxy its parent company Google, over its plans to regulate the content and information that appears on its platform when such scandals, and more, spread like wildfire so easily, and can be shown without much difficulty for the farce that they are. I sincerely hope that more people come to realize this as time goes by.

What Jeremy Crow shows us about YouTube’s crusade against offense

I think I’ve said in the past that YouTube is headed in a noticeably censorious direction, getting rid of content they deem offensive to either themselves or prospective advertisers, based on very arbitrary conceptions of hateful content. And recently, it appears that I was proven right, again. Jeremy Crow, a prominent Luciferian occultists and one of the founders of the Assembly of Light Bearers (formerly Greater Church of Lucifer), has announced that a number of his videos have been shadow-banned by YouTube.

As Crow himself explains:

About a month ago several of my videos were “shadow banned” by YouTube/Google. If you aren’t aware, this is something that has affected an insane number of YouTubers. This form of censorship doesn’t outright remove the video from the platform, but greatly diminishes it’s possible viewership and eliminates any potential revenue earned from it. A shadow banned video will never show up in search results, the trending page or related video suggestions. Often it won’t even serve up the video to people subscribed to the channel! The primary ways you can find a shadow banned video is by having the direct link or by browsing the uploaded videos on a specific channel. In addition, these videos are excluded from the advertising revenue share. In other words, you’re going to get way less views and will earn no money off the video.

So why is Crow being targeted for shadow-banning by YouTube? Well, looking at the examples of shadow-banned videos given on his Steemit article (which will be linked at the bottom of this post), you may have noticed that all of them except one deal with the subjects of Luciferianism and Satanism. He explains that YouTube’s criteria for what is deemed non-advertiser-friendly includes political content (though strangely enough The Young Turks or CNN don’t seem all that affected), profanity, unpopular religions and apparently having a disheveled/unattractive appearance.

Now I actually touched on this subject last year, when writing about the changes to YouTube’s content policies at the time, and I gave out a list quoted from YouTube’s policy guidelines on what is deemed non-advertiser friendly.

Content that is considered “not advertiser-friendly” includes, but is not limited to:

  • Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
  • Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
  • Inappropriate language, including vulgar harassment, swearing and vulgar language
  • Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use, and abuse of such items
  • Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown.

It might not be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that Jeremy Crow’s discussions of Satanism, Luciferianism and the occult would be filed under controversial subjects, but even so, I find it baffling to me how Jeremy Crows videos would be considered offensive. Last time I checked, the only people who might be offended are Christians, Jews or Muslims, and even then I don’t recall them having seen fit to mass report Satanist or Luciferian YouTube content. And setting aside the issues of “hate speech”, I’m not entirely sure what the threat is to YouTube’s bottom line. I notice in the article that Crow doesn’t mention a statement from YouTube on the issue, which if you’re shadow-banned you probably wouldn’t get anyway since you’re being banned without you knowing it. What this suggests to me is that YouTube flagged Luciferian videos for arbitrary reasons, without explanation.

Two things are certain in my eyes. Firstly, this is to me further proof of the utterly nonsensical and farcical nature of the parameters of hate speech. I have seen a number of YouTubers report videos being demonetized for absurd reasons, including a someone who uploaded a review of Sonic Adventure 2 it got demonetized for “controversial subject matter”. And a couple of months ago, YouTube introduced the limited state feature, which bans certain videos from receiving likes, shares, comments or revenue not necessarily for violating YouTube’s content policy, but for “offensive” content. It is done self-evidently to suppress wrongthink, but its supporters claim that it is supposed to be done to suppress extremist and radicalizing content. I have gone through lists of videos put under the limited state, in fact I have also seen a Twitter account that logs videos put under the limited state. You’ll find videos that can accurately be described as white nationalist or fascist propaganda, or videos that posit arguments for those systems, but you know what you won’t find on those lists? ISIS propaganda videos. And hey, if YouTube wanted to suppress videos advocating for totalitarian and violent political systems, you’d figure there’d be videos advocating for communism on these lists. But apparently not. The parameters for extremism are one-sided, driven by the ideological bias held by Google, which was documented in detail by former Google engineer James Damore in his essay. And when it isn’t, it’s just downright idiotic all round.

Second, if Jeremy Crow’s videos discussing Luciferianism and Satanism were shadowbanned, then it leaves me wondering just how many other occultists, particularly Left Hand Path occultists, have been shadowbanned. What about Michael W. Ford or E A Koetting, both of them prominent occultists in Left Hand Path systems who talk about largely similar subject matter to Jeremy Crow? Or Styxhexenhammer666, another occultist, albeit for more well known and popular because of his political commentary than for his occult videos? For all I know, Jeremy Crow may indeed be the only case of a Luciferian occultist getting shadow-banned, but if they’ve shadow-banned him, then why not others?

Link to Jeremy Crow’s Steemit article:

Vault 7

This most may seem sudden, but I want to share something very important, particularly for my American readership. Last month, Wikileaks released a series of cryptic tweets on their Twitter page regarding the mysterious Vault 7, and until now we didn’t know what it meant. But yesterday, Wikileaks released a document revealing the extent of CIA hacking tools and confidential documents. Vault 7, as it turns out, was the code name for these documents. It revealed, among other things, that the CIA under the Obama administration stole Russian malware and used it to hack into computer systems in order to extract information from them using that malware, and apparently they lost that malware along with other hacking tools.

Given that the CIA lost the malware recently in 2016, this was also probably some time before the election or even around that time (I can only speculate) and that the malware the CIA obtained was from Russia, I am wondering if this has something to do with the theory that Russia hacked the DNC, and why the CIA claimed to have evidence but refused to provide it or put a name to it. I can only speculate.

But it does show that the NSA was not the only intelligence agency under Obama that had been gathering information , and apparently they are doing this as some kind of larger project involving cyber warfare. As if I *needed* another reason to hate Obama.

Vault 7: