Sociopaths, Psychopaths and Death Eaters

It is now an undeniable fact that the UK establishment has, for decades, been run by people who tortured and killed children for entertainment, for political power, and just because they could.

The cognitive dissonance that statement produces in the majority of the population has provided the cloak of invisibility that has kept these people in power and their actions unpunished for all these years. When faced with an undeniable proof of any part of this, people’s shock was easily comforted by soothing assurances that the person was only one, that no one around him had been aware, that this would be taken care of. The idea of a society of torturing murderers, openly known to each other, controlling not just the UK but embedded in the upper echelons of many (if not all) countries was the stuff of conspiracy websites, those prolific disseminators of unbelievable truths well mixed with repellant bigotry and obvious falsehoods, presented as a whole to discredit all ingredients. Human trafficking is the largest criminal industry in the world. It is far less reasonable to believe it is conducted without the full knowledge and co-operation of those in power, but the power of deeply anti-social behaviour is how unwilling anyone is to believe another human is capable of it.

The propaganda arm of this international ring of torturers which attempted to normalize abuse of children and babies as ‘sex’ is still very apparent in the corporate media coverage of the CSA inquiry which depicts the torture and murder of children as “sex attacks on kids”, “child sex” or a “sex scandal”. Sex is not an attack. This is not sex. The fact that these people tortured and murdered children in their recreational hours does not make them simply pedosadists, or what corporate media still likes to call pedophiles in acquiescence to PIE’s demands that they be depicted as ‘child-lovers’. Their recreation may have revolved around torturing children, but their office hours as UK media and government establishment revolved around torture and mass murder of people from all demographics. It is not sufficient to call them psychopaths or sociopaths since very few of those seriously harm others and almost none to this extent. These people who want to be known as child lovers are death eaters. They feed on the agony of others. They torture and murder not because they have to, but because it feeds something in them. The only reason they are attracted to children is the increase in pain, horror, power, and taboo. They are no less attracted to mass slaughter than they are to the torture of children.

Sociopaths are attracted by what repels others. They seek filth, horror and destruction. Using the torture of children as bait to blackmail political opponents is a natural act for death eaters, as is destroying populations with ‘drug wars’ and ‘terrorism’ or using the slaughter of populations to advertise the weapons industry. People are products in the trade economy, and if death eaters are in control, people are their products to use as they wish. They are presiding over the destruction of the planet and beating back any who try to stop them because mass destruction is a compulsion for them.

The attempt to conflate torture and murder with sex is not unique to the UK establishment. “Our definition of sexy was something like Khadr.” said the man who decided to prosecute a tortured child. Militias in the DR Congo are promised magic power from raping women. Israel uses sexual imagery to promote the destruction of Palestine and rape is a constant in wars, torture, imprisonment, everywhere death eaters act. Death eaters gain power by manipulation of others. Hard coercion such as the control of military and police is theirs when they gain power, but until they have attained it they rely on seductive coercion. An insistence on hard coercion to control society is a denial of the power of seductive coercion. Conflation of torture and murder with sex is a perversion of that power. An attempt to depict deeply anti-social acts as sexual freedom is an attempt to normalize deeply anti-social behaviour.

Death eaters are not child lovers. Torture and murder are not a sex scandal. Sex is not an attack. Seductive coercion is used to create society. Its use in dissociated populations to incite acts of violence is a perversion of its power used against society.

Societal auto-immune disease

In industrialized states sociopathy is not only normal, it is normative. Industrialized society is the replacement of human relationships with corporations where people are products and human need is industry. To be dissociated from the approval economy is to be dissociated from society. A trade economy consists of sociopaths connected only by money. Antisocial personality is a natural trait of anyone who climbs to the top of a ponzi scheme built on systems of dissociation. Sociopaths cannot relate to others as human. They see them as products, the perfect outlook for success in the predatory trade economy.

Most definitions now define psychopaths as those born dissociated, and sociopaths as those created (and both categories are best used only for sweeping generalizations which this is). While psychopaths have always been with us, dissociated populations are producing sociopaths in unprecedented numbers. Huge populations of sociopaths and apathetics are necessary for death eaters to survive in power. ‘Shh, we need to torture children for your safety,’ say the death eaters and the sociopathic and apathetic public nods and turns away. Without the disinterested and complicit buffer, nothing would save the death eaters from the torches and pitchforks of those at the bottom.

Antisocial personality is a societal auto-immune disease. It manifests as the most obvious horrors in society. Self-identified narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths generally would like theirs to be an accepted part of the spectrum of human behaviour, as PIE lobbied to have abusing babies an accepted ‘liberation’ in the 70s. Trying to divert focus from their anti-social behaviour to a discussion on sexual orientation is part of their continual efforts to normalize their behaviour or at least to divert attention to understanding for them instead of protection for their victims. Depicting action against them as a feminist attack on male normative sexuality is an appeal for both sympathy and broad acceptance and a dismissal of the existence of their victims.

If anti-social behaviour was widely accepted, society would not exist (as it largely does not today) and human and most other life on earth would not survive much longer. It is not logical to accept self-destruction as a normal part of society or evolution. We cannot kill sociopathy, it is part of us. Like cancer, it will probably always be a part of us in small amounts and it would be very unwise to attempt to eliminate it entirely. Humanity cannot divide neatly into these categories, and there are a variety of factors that cause dissociated behaviour, all ‘normal’ but all unacceptable in a society that wishes to continue existence.

The UK media depiction of the subjects of the so-called Child Sexual Abuse inquiry as paedophiles is a very deliberate propaganda exercise and attempt to manipulate public opinion. People who rape, torture and murder are not child lovers. The victims of these people were not only children. The phrase ‘paedophile’ brings the focus from the vicim to their assailant, and the pseudo-medical op-eds claim a right for understanding for death eaters, not the children. The use of the word paedophile individualizes the problem and is an attempt to pretend there are a ‘few bad apples’ instead of an entire ruling society complicit in the cover up and normalization of the torture and murder of others.

Societies do have the right to shun those who seek to destroy them. This fairly obvious principle has been perverted beyond all recognition by states who use it as an excuse to destroy others as they have perverted every other personal right to endorse corporate tyranny. States are highly militarized economic markets, not societies. Societies can shun harmful and anti-social behaviour in all forms, whether it is normal or not, as we do every day in all of our social norms. We do not need to build society according to an anti-social structure or create society that feeds anti-social behaviour at the top of the power structure. We do not need to accept death eaters as child lovers. We do not need to accept their hopeful norms in our coercive media propaganda.

Societies have the right to associate or to refuse to associate. 

This article has been stigmergicly translated into French and Spanish.

Advertisements

A mythical Manichean world

“I know there is a God because in Rwanda I shook hands with the devil.” ― Roméo Dallaire, Shake Hands With The Devil

In Shake Hands with the Devil, Romeo Dallaire, former head of the UN mission to Rwanda, described shaking hands with commanders of the Hutu militias responsible for the 1994 Tutsi genocide. He felt he was in the presence of evil, or, to his Christian outlook, the devil. When faced with incomprehensible savagery it is hard to find human nature behind it and natural to look for some invisible hand of evil. The same outlook is understandable to some in west African countries, where the leaders have for years been suspected of complicity in ritual killings, or torturing their own citizens and using their body parts as amulets for power. Compulsory membership of politicians in certain Masonic lodges and the undeniable power and wealth wielded by the powerful, support both the cult rumours and the presumed effectiveness of evil forces being invoked. These so-called powers are also sought by some militias.

If a person is thought to embody evil in themselves, the person is demonized in the eyes of the other. Once a large group has designated another entire group as evil, actions no longer matter. The ensuing war will have nothing to do with good actions and bad actions and everything to do with one side exterminating the other. Those facing the side designated as evil are then depicted as Good, and any behaviour of theirs will be justified thereafter as can be seen in the excuses made for Rwanda actions even today. Some groups can carry their indestructible Good status in the face of all evidence of their actions for generations and against completely different opponents, as we see with Israel and the fact that they still have defenders justifying their ‘right’ to torment and murder others.

Countries that have had an acknowledged atrocity are much more self aware and able to recognize and stop new ones. If an atrocity is outside the Overton window of what a people will believe about themselves they will deny it happened or ignore it. For Canadians, the pull of the manufactured self-image of ‘nice’ is too attractive to confront, even when faced with human rights and environmental disasters Canada is responsible for worldwide. To acknowledge that global mining atrocities are a fundamental part of Canada, that a Canadian child has now been tortured and imprisoned for the thirteenth year, that these actions cannot be blamed on one government but are part of Canada itself, is an attack on their self-image that many Canadians refuse to face. The US was previously the same with their acceptance of ‘freedom’ propaganda and their refusal to see their own police state as anything but protection.

A good guy / bad guy, personality based morality is very helpful for any who wish to wage wars or destroy the lives of others. No one has to think, just identify the Good Guys and the Bad Guys, be for the one, beware the other. We really don’t need legions of security analysts, militaries and intelligence to sort out Good Guys from Bad Guys. Bad Guys are destroying, killing, enslaving and robbing, Good Guys are creating, researching and caring for others. Bad Guys are capable of becoming Good Guys as soon as they stop the actions harmful to society and start the ones helpful to society.

The myth of free will and the myth of equality

I was one of those children forced into fighting at the age of 13, in my country Sierra Leone, a war that claimed the lives of my mother, father and two brothers. I know too well the emotional, psychological and physical burden that comes with being exposed to violence as a child or at any age for that matter. – Ishmael Beah

In order to designate someone as evil and deserving of any horror that the powerful wish to inflict on them, they must be held personally responsible for the actions of themselves and their ‘side’. In order to hold people personally responsible even for their own actions, the public must believe they had free will, something that does not exist. The idea of personal responsibility also depends on an assumption that people have equal access to information and the ability to process it. Propaganda and coercion which comes from the top is denied and blame is cast to those at the bottom who acted upon it. The propaganda masters convince the public that the weak-minded and the vulnerable must take responsibility for acting as the zombie army of the powerful who are absolved of responsibility.

For punishment to be applied equally to all, the public must believe that all are equal, which is also falseThe myth of equality is essential for sustaining this binary outlook and careful censoring of information is essential to maintaining the myth of equality. ‘Hamas is evil, bomb Gaza’ cannot stand in the face of relentless social media pictures of babies, beautiful children and wonderful people well-known to the online community being blown up by Israel. ‘Boko Haram is evil, Nigeria military should kill them all’  is shocked by images of little boys fighting and being killed on both sides or Nigeria military torturing a little girl working for Boko Haram. Hillary Clinton deplores the loss of imperial control over information and Netanyahu bitterly calls his victims “telegenically dead“. The old media control which depicted all enemies of militias as adult men with guns was essential to justify any war.

We have a tendency to think of our villains as geniuses or assume they at least have the ability to predict the outcome of their actions but for those filling prisons and dying in wars that is not always the case.

While most people recognize the ability to rehabilitate child soldiers, what of those who are not rehabilitated? If they do not bear responsibility as children, why does the responsibility for their formation descend upon them as adults? How can anyone presume to know what has happened to the mind of anyone who has lived completely different experiences than them and possesses a completely different mind?

If it is agreed that charges should only be applied to criminals who have attained a certain standard of cognitive ability, why is the same penalty applied to all at that point? If the spectrum of ability and advantage continues above the line labeled competent, should the penalties not be a corresponding spectrum? If they must attain a standard of cognitive ability, why are moral imbeciles judged by the same standards as the socially normative? Why is sociopathy not recognized as a mental illness if insanity is? What if sociopathy is a physical disease? What of those with fetal alcohol syndrome and other forms of physical brain damage that currently fill prisons and militias?

The role of drugs in convincing militias to commit atrocities and overcome guilt is seldom reported. Not only non-state militias employ drugs, the US military even has a follow up anti-guilt nasal spray to prevent troops from feeling natural remorse.

Not all opponents are worthy of hate.

Social auto-coercion

Few believe that all of their own ancestors should have been wiped out, but everyone has ancestors who displayed what we like to call inhuman characteristics. Why do we believe they are absolved from the personal responsibility we bear today if not because we accept the power of social coercion and social norms? If social coercion and social norms applied in the past, why is their power denied today? The US government acknowledged the power of seductive coercion with what they cynically called the battle for hearts and minds in Iraq. They of all people understand coercion and knew that their actions would have the opposite affect.

Any suggestion of deliberate social auto-coercion is met with howls from free will advocates, especially from the US, that bastion of personal freedoms perverted to suit corporate ends. Every intelligence agency in the world, all corporations and all militaries constantly manipulate public norms and behaviour, but an attempt for a community to regain control is depicted (by corporate media) as an attack on freedom and autonomy instead of the assertion of it.

People can somehow become convinced that if we only kill enough people, inherent goodness will shine from the survivors. In the end, we can’t kill enough people to make the world a kinder gentler place. We have proven enough times that there is no time and place immune to an outbreak of human savagery. UN peacekeeping is incompetent, political, and after the fact. We need societies resilient to violence. In the end we will need to understand each other and use social auto-coercion as we do after the horrors of every war in order to return to normal life. We need to start using it before the outbreak of any violence, not to stop Bad Guys but to stop bad actions. Instead of spending vast sums tracking individuals and their connections in the search for Bad Guys, we need to strengthen social auto-coercion and fight the coercion coming from sociopathic power.

For those who insist societies will never function without military and police hard coercion, societies worldwide did, very well. For those, usually the same people, who insist that seductive coercion is immoral, seductive coercion is what creates a society out of a group of disconnected people. For those who do not believe that coercion ought to be in the hands of the people, coercion ought never to be anywhere else. The only way to prevent coercion by a secret oligarchy is to use it as community.

“If we don’t harness their potential for good, their societies will continue to reap their capacity for evil.” ― Roméo Dallaire, They Fight Like Soldiers, They Die Like Children

Roméo Dallaire, Shake Hands With The Devill: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda (2003)

Ishmael Beah, Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier (2007)

Roméo Dallaire, They Fight Like Soldiers, They Die Like Children (2010)

This article has been stigmergicly translated into French. 

The revolutionaries

The last shall be the first and the first last. – Frantz Fanon

The objective of a revolutionary is to keep everything exactly as it was but replace those in power with themselves, to become what they hate, to gain the approval of those they despise. The mark of a successful revolutionary is recognition and acceptance into the circles of oppressors.

A typical revolutionary is driven by a desire for justice and no imagination. They can see injustice, they see oppressors and oppressed, and they follow the obvious impulse to reverse the two without changing the system that allows for oppression. Revolution almost always sounds like a new system because revolutionaries almost always call themselves The People, or at least The [oppressed category] People, but in practice there is no change. Revolution follows a Good Guy / Bad Guy, Manichean morality and the goal is to kill all the Bad Guys until there is nothing left but Good Guys. Fanon replaces white with black, Marx replaces master with worker, no one replaces the paradigm. Malcolm X and Robert Mugabe desired a perfect negative image of the apartheid state. Feminists celebrate ‘what women have achieved’ along their path to be exactly like caucasian men.

A revolutionary outlook is binary. They see themselves, as they are usually elite or part of the large, cohesive block of powerful commoners required to keep the ruling class in power, and they see the ruling class. Anyone else is outside their consideration and will remain so. “I know nothing about her,” [1] says Fanon of indigenous African women as he derides the work where they detail their experience and describes the revolutionary desire to be a white woman’s master. Marx sees those below the proletariat and calls them “The “dangerous class,” the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society.” [2] When Marx speaks of the abolition of class, he means the abolition of all class except the proletariat.

Since people are never binary, revolutionary theory almost immediately has to start addressing the classification problem, who is black, who is white, who is bourgeoise or proletariat, who is male or female, and the rush to be at the extreme end of your side creates a new class war within the class war. If the last shall be first, the almost last have a new fight to be last. “Since the sole motto of the bourgeoisie is “Replace the foreigner,” … the “small people” of the nation… will be equally quick to insist that the Dahomans go home to their own country, or will even go further and demand that the Foulbis and the Peuhls return to their jungle or their mountains”[3]

If, as Fanon said, “The black man wants to be white”[1] then the justice sought is a very personal justice, for themselves only as Malcolm X proposed in his desire for a new black state within the US which would leave indigenous and others as unseen as always. Colonized revolutionaries seek to decolonize by becoming the colonizers as women seek to end subjection to men by entering masculinist establishment. Even if they have no wish to enslave their former masters, the revolutionary oppressed wish to master someone, to sit atop the patriarchy, to claim their turn as a matter of justice. As long as the paradigm remains, it matters not at all if those on top become the former oppressed, they are just branch managers for the empire and oppression continues uninterrupted. In no way did it make the world a better place or change the paradigm for the better to have Barack Obama as Commander in Chief of the world’s largest military or Condoleeza Rice as US Secretary of State. In no way did women holding 56% of the seats in Rwanda’s parliament, or having Louise Mushikiwabo, as Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs & Cooperation, make Rwanda a kinder, gentler state. In the end, the problems were not tied to gender, race or class, but to the paradigm itself.

In the middle of a revolutionary frenzy it is unwise to point out that oppressed may become oppressors as they are the Good Guys who must never be accused of wrongdoing, but we really don’t need any more Israels or Rwandas to prove the point. ‘You can’t be racist/sexist against the oppressor!’ shrieks the illogic from the revolutionary top, and any who question it are condemned as reactionary, racist and sexist regardless of their race or sex. Those lower in the revolutionary ponzi scheme of power are permitted be part of the revolution only by exact adherence to the utterances of power. Deviance is dangerous in a binary world.

Since the new power wants to be exactly like the old power, continuing revolutions have created a world where everyone of every race and gender strove to prove they were the same as powerful caucasian men. A world where everyone sought the top of the ponzi schemes of power, celebrity and wealth, where their desperate effort towards the centre created the centripetal force that kept the Great Men in power, that upheld the ponzi scheme of empire for all these years. Everyone is defined in relation to the caucasian man of power. It is the revolutionaries as much as the reactionaries that refuse to let the old system go.

A dual spotlight and those in the shadows

The history of revolution is the history of Great Men overthrowing Great Men. The revolutionary stories of oppression tell of the oppressiveness of unsated envy and covetousness. The glory that follows these revolutions is the glory of the new Great Man. Unheard forever are those condemned to just get on with it, the so-called lumpenproles who are understandably disinterested in who is currently atop the ponzi scheme they have no entrance to. 

Fanon overlooked completely the effect of European patriarchy meeting matriarchal societies and what that did to class relations between men and women. He exhaustively examines European attraction to African indigenous men but he speaks not at all of any attraction to African indigenous women despite admitting almost all mixed race children had indigenous mothers. He attributes European fear of the African to a repressed homosexuality in the men and a desire to be raped in the women, but finds no such cause in the Antilleans fear of the Senegalese. Everything pivots around the point at which he exists. His myopic, binary gaze at the balance of power between African and European in a patriarchy disregarded the imposition of the patriarchy in the first place. Fanon described men who wished to overthrow other men and sit in their place.

Marx ignored the fact that his proletariats were part of a system of dissociation that recognized as workers only those who served the powerful, not those who served the weak or themselves. He also wanted to overthrow the oppressor without acknowledging the first oppressed or the true size of the oppressive structure itself. His ambition to flip the proletariat with their masters required that autonomous individuals be locked in an even more solid and cohesive block of commoners than before. His failure to recognize the block of commoners as a creation of oligarchy caused him and all communists after to strengthen the club which held oligarchy in place.

Engels felt women lost their social power due to their loss of property ownership[4] instead of seeing that property ownership was created to remove their social power. The masculinist lens of Engels and Morgan was used to reinterpret matriarchal indigenous cultures as communist, as societies where everyone was assigned property and a place in society as birthright instead of as social approval. This owned property and its allocation must then be controlled by a patriarchal power or mini-state. The approval of First Nations women that for generations was essential, was suddenly to be disregarded as men were taught that to be a man meant to humiliate and degrade their own source of approval. The vicious degradation of women in formerly matrilineal societies served to destroy not just the old power but the old structure. Indigenous women were now last, their approval was replaced by control of currency, and colonial government structure was taken over by property thieves both petty and grand. Autonomy for First Nations in Canada now means following a colonial construct of band councils revolving around communist allocation of funds and property in formerly (mostly) moneyless gifting cultures. Management of nations no longer includes the most important authority, acceptance or rejection of individuals from the nation.

A perpetual motion pendulum of revolution

As long as it is people, not actions, which are classified as Good and Evil, we will maintain a perpetual motion pendulum of revolution. As every revolution is a simple reaction to the initial action, they are mirror images. Slave morality is a reaction to master morality, revolutionary militias are a reaction to a police state, feminism is a reaction to masculinism, men with guns are a reaction to men with guns. The centripetal force that creates power also creates the centrifugal force that destroys it. In every case, reactions will become what they destroy.

If you define yourself in relation to your enemy, you’ve lost. You cannot believe armed militias are a solution unless you believe in the worth or inevitability of a police state. You cannot be a Feminist without endorsing the gendered world of the Masculinist. The death penalty for murder reaffirms the right to murder. Mirrored reactions are a result of a lack of imagination to see outside the paradigm we live within. A reaction adds force to the initial action. Overthrow by men with guns will be followed with rule by men with guns. Justice through institutionalized bigotry will result in institutionalized bigotry. “The violence of the colonial regime and the counter-violence of the native balance each other and respond to each other in an extraordinary reciprocal homogeneity.”[3] We will have equilibrium when we step off the pendulum.

Those that protest the revolution are told they must be reactionaries. Any criticism of the left brutality and you must support the right brutality. Self-professed US anti-imperialists are even more rigid than the imperialists because they discovered the second spotlight and think they’ve seen all that there is. Those that scream for solidarity ‘on the same side’ attempt to hide the fact that a ponzi scheme has no sides, only a top and bottom. They will cling to the messiahs of revolution and support revolutionary ponzi schemes until it becomes absolutely indisputable that the two are one again. As the revolution fights for and wins seats on the same panels and the same international bodies as the reaction, the same dark alliance is formed once more. Empire remains intact.

Revolutionary replacement of authority will co-opt resistance. Revolution looks up not down. It seeks approval and acceptance from the spotlight, not the shadows. Not only does revolution not bring change, it brings progression down the same path and frequently widens the window of acceptable oppression. All revolution has simply entrenched and strengthened the hierarchy of power, all revolutions will need to be followed by more revolutions unless they are immediately replaced with resistance.

Between reaction and revolution there is nothing to choose. Neither leave the track, they just allow different people to drive while the same people are run over.

Revolution fights tyrants, resistance fights tyranny

It is not revolution we need, another turn of the same wheel along the same path, it is resistance. Resistance uses the tyrant’s own power against them rather than strengthening that power by reaction. Resistance fights all forms of oppression and bigotry regardless of source by building and defending a tolerant society. Resistance to patriarchy is not feminism, it is removal of masculinism. Resistance to bigotry is not bigotry, it is diversity and tolerance. Resistance to capitalism is not unions, it is dismantling of the trade economy. It is not enough to weed, a new system must be planted or the old seeds of tyranny will instantly grow again.

Oppressive power of the size in place today will not be removed by the creation of revolutionary power. Even if one chooses to think a new leader would stop the oppression it is no longer in the power of a leader or leaders. Mass disobedience and a refusal to acknowledge the authority of the powerful are the only hope to collapse the current empire.

Anyone who occupies the old places of power in a hierarchical ponzi scheme is an enemy of those below, even if they just fought alongside them and ‘earned’ their place. It is the position that is the enemy and it must be constantly collapsed by a removal of support from every ponzi scheme of celebrity, wealth and power. It is not enough to remove oppressors, the system of oppression must be dismantled. 

– – –

[1] Fanon, Frantz, Black Skin, White Masks (Peau noire, masques blancs, 1952

[2] Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Das Kommunistische Manifest), 1848

[3] Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth (Les Damnés de la Terre), Grove Press, 1961

[4] Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State: in the light of the researches of Lewis H. Morgan (Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats) 1884

This article has been stigmergicly translated into French.

The reactionaries

There are people in this world who do not want the systems of dissociation removed, the oligarchs dethroned and the principles that govern us rewritten. Some of those are people who know things are never so bad they can’t get worse. Some do not see the box they are in or a different way of living. Some are those advantaged by the current structure, now or in the recent past.

We can all spot reactionaries when they take the form of extreme nationalists fighting against immigration or against anyone from a different ethnicity, religion, gender or similar, but today the loudest voices calling for revolution are equally reactionary. The very fact that their voices are the loudest under the current system is reason enough that they don’t want to change the paradigm. A longing for tradition and nostalgia for the good old days, advocacy for reform, and focus on issues instead of underlying principles, all indicate the speaker is from a demographic only lately inconvenienced by the system.  

Anyone fighting for a reform or a reversal of the current system is a reactionary. Anyone objecting to one bill or victim at a time instead of universal principles is only objecting to one manifestation of a problem and that is the one which affects themselves. The principles we are ruled by were created to advantage an elite few and no matter how far back their effects are rewound, if the principles remain the same the elite few will recur and the ponzi schemes of wealth, celebrity and power will continue. Anyone wanting an effect of the principles reversed but not the principles themselves is asking for a personal exemption to a situation they have no problem seeing others living in. Their objective is to go back far enough that the whole process can continue again in the same way, rewinding only the parts where it became uncomfortable for them. As soon as other people’s problems are mentioned they become ‘realists’ who don’t want to ‘tackle the whole world’ at once (ever) just the part with them in it. They do not want to dismantle the structure or keep the door open, they just want to scuttle in themselves before it shuts. 

Exceptional lives

Those enjoying media spotlight for being questioned at international airports without mentioning the stateless masses in prisons, floating on oceans and being murdered by traffickers and fascists are co-opting and minimizing the global horror of militarized closed borders. US military personnel protesting US military force only when it is used in the streets of the US are saying they fought for their exceptional position in the ponzi scheme and they want to retain it. A US thermidor is far more likely than a US revolution as anyone who has enjoyed the sight of ‘anarchists’ demanding allegiance to their constitution can tell.

Occupy Sandy was a grass roots campaign which many inside the US Occupy movement considered their greatest achievement and many outside considered most illustrative of everything wrong with US Occupy. Sandy was one hurricane, occurring in one region, and US Occupy completely obliterated the voices of those dying in the Caribbean with their pleas for Hallowe’en candy for the children of Manhattan. All efforts to expand the action to include those outside the US with far greater need were ignored or dismissed as unrealistic and not their concern. While regional actions like Opsafewinter are required and have local variants worldwide, to co-opt one issue and section off only the part that concerns your own state is as nationalist and reactionary as any fascist fighting immigration.

The exact same US based social media accounts who built their platforms by appropriating everyone’s protests and revolutions, broadcasting information from others as if it was their own and fundraising to send themselves as war tourists to gain celebrity by broadcasting over top of local voices suddenly went into hard reversal when they had a protest of their own, calling for all of their hugely powerful circle to attack anyone outside the US attempting to discuss ‘their’ protest. The worst backlash was for those who dared compare a struggle in the US with one outside. While every conflict of any kind in the continent of Africa is happily billed by US pundits as ‘the next Rwanda’, pointing out that Israeli trained police were throwing US produced tear gas in the streets of both Palestine and the US was unacceptable co-opting of ‘their’ protest. They have no desire to stop tear gas production or dismantle the US or Israeli military, they simply want their exceptional status back. When they fight against minimum wage, they identify with the workers in Australia, not those in Bangladesh. The policies of trickle down economics they deplore for themselves are what they prescribe for the rest of the world.

Those in Ferguson fighting for the safety of their neighbourhood are part of a global movement against police and military violence worldwide. Those furious that Palestinians have pointed this out are imperialist exceptionalists demanding a global spotlight on them and only them. These are the same people, with the same mindset, who feel that three killed in Boston is worth far more media than thousands in Nigeria, that thousands killed in the US trade towers is worth hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq. Self governance is choosing who and what to amplify. Those demanding or taking greater amplification seek to be part of the oligarchy, not to dismantle it. They are not revolution, they are not resistance, they are simply reaction.

Panelists, the new politicians

The 2012 US NDAA caused an international uproar as exceptional lives used their exceptional media power to convince the world of the importance of this bill, which extended to citizens of the United States the same threat of indefinite detention that had been a fact for all non-citizens of the US since the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. In a wonderfully ironic twist, a very wealthy caucasian woman from New York (employed by her very wealthy stepfather) gave laughably false testimony that her interview with Guantanamo child detainee Omar Khadr (who she states is a member of al-Qaeda, with no evidence or background knowledge of the case whatsoever) put her at such risk that she refrained from publishing the interview out of fear of the NDAA. Omar Khadr has yet to be interviewed by anyone to this day and she had absolutely no authority over publication or anything else on the site she is claiming to have censored. I was the person fully responsible for all editorial and administrative decisions on the site she references and also for assigning interviews. I actually did censor an explosive interview I conducted around Omar Khadr which had absolutely nothing to do with her. Both Omar Khadr and myself were put at risk eleven years prior by the Patriot Act, and he had spent the last decade in hell due to the fact that this nightmare already existed for everyone but herself and other US citizens. This fact was completely ignored along with all of her other easily disproven false testimony in the hysteria surrounding the NDAA. An exceptional life appropriated the work and position of one and exploited the tragedy of another, both under real threat from the Patriot Act, and used it to wrap themselves in the aura of faux-persecution so essential to a position on the speaking circuit.

The Congolese who died fighting M23 in 2013 had their efforts neatly lifted and sold by the US based NGO Falling Whistles, which told their donors that their Twitter campaign, funded by selling sterling silver whistles, was responsible for reclaiming the areas of the DRC overtaken by a well armed militia that was only eventually countered by UN and state forces combined. In early 2011, I reported a story as it happened involving a Yemeni journalist ordered imprisoned by Obama for publishing the truth about US drone strikes in Yemen. My sources for the story were Amnesty and Yemeni bloggers, all well documenting the case at great personal risk. A year and a half later, Jeremy Scahill published the same story, celebrated by the old boy circle of US journalists as a coup of investigative journalism and an exclusive scoop. Scahill’s Wikipedia page contained almost nothing but this story with no mention that it had been well documented a year and a half earlier. When the earlier stories were pointed out to Greenwald by Wikileaks, he ignored and continued the same ill-placed hype around his friend that had led to his own success. Kony 2012, One Million Rising, and endless other NGOs and Thought Leaders made 2012 a lucrative year for those selling other people’s tragedy and resistance. Other people are simply a product to sell for celebrity, wealth and power, activism is just the all important panel seat.

The NSA is hardly the only intelligence agency spying on The People if The People are the world. Neither are the anti-NSA activists heroes if they are only disclosing that which violates their own privacy and keeping the rest secure in the name of ‘national security’. Anyone supporting ‘national’ security of the corporate empire which terrorizes, murders and enslaves the world is an enemy of the people, not a hero.

People with massive platforms act as gates to keep the real disadvantaged from power instead of bridges to ensure all voices are heard. This appropriation of the voices and stories of others is called assistance but those they assist are really just marketing gimmicks to aid in their own quest for celebrity, power and wealth. This sickness is now spreading to every part of the world as the Great Men reach out to lesser Great Men who fight first for the uniqueness of their group and then beat back their comrades as if they are the only representatives of that uniqueness needed. It is a ponzi scheme, if they rise, the rest will not. Because these people see tragedy and need as a product to feed off of and a highly lucrative path to the all-important panel seat, they compete for causes like old corporate media competes for stories. Victims are hoarded like sources, that so very apt term for the vampire-like tendencies of narcissistic old journalism. More online energy is devoted to wars over who started a hashtag than the problem the hashtag was meant to highlight. Problems cease to be problems when they reach a level the reactionaries are comfortable with. Noam Chomsky introduces the concepts of ‘normal torture’ and ‘serious torture’ and is happy that the levels at Guantanamo have reached normal

There are no sides, just a top and a bottom. No one on the top is a friend of anyone on the bottom. People from all the right demographics tweet that they are being repressed to scratch their way up onto a panel but once they have themselves firmly planted in a panel seat they will never look at anyone beneath them. They sigh and talk about ‘broke activists’ if confronted with others in need when they are far less broke than all those they claim to represent. If they were looking up before, they will continue their gaze upwards, sitting on panels in suits and starting NGOs and using those below as marketing product. Once they have stolen the voices below them to build their platform, they will defend it as their personal power and use it solely to present the most inoffensive pap to not lose their mainstream acceptance.

Ponzi schemes don’t trickle down, they siphon up.

Anti-imperialism but not really

The global elite cry “We should fix our problems at home!” but empire, communist internationalists and the so-called Islamic State are all borderless. Act local pretends that all goals are the same and what is good for one locality must bring good to others, but the nature of the ponzi scheme ensures that what feeds one, bleeds others. Self-professed ‘anti-imperialists’ pretend the empire starts when bombs start dropping and ignore the bomb manufacturers and the trade economy created to prop up dictators against the people’s will. Global warming and environmental destruction by multi-national corporations don’t know borders but when their victims seek refuge in the states which destroyed their homes they are killed and imprisoned and the reactionary population murmurs completely meaningless phrases like ‘it’s just not feasible’.

Nationalists pretending they are anti-imperialists pretend we live in a bi-polar, left-right world. We have a top down world with a core mafia cartel and outlying splinter mafias. Neutrality, especially by those at the top who are supporting the ponzi scheme, does not just help the oppressor, it is neutrality by the oppressor.

If anti-imperialists are truly anti-imperialist they will empty Coke products which were all violently stolen from others. They will stop Areva, the global blight which destroys Niger to power France. They will block Zim, the Israeli shipping firm allowed to profit off of the US funded Israeli occupation of Palestine, as the true anti-imperialists in the US have done. They will share copyrighted and patented material and dismantle their weapons industry. They will share their megaphone, not to speak for others but to amplify them. Anyone who has an exceptional life they are willing to risk could use it not to collect donations and media attention for themselves to appropriate another’s cause but to attract attention to their cause for them. The international human shields in the Gaza hospital who joined Gazans in solidarity as equals and risked their lives to attract a media spotlight showed international solidarity and respect. A UK livestreamer tastelessly exploiting Gaza tragedy and putting their lives at risk to feed his own celebrity did not.

Action to help people in need in a local neighbourhood is not reactionary until it is silencing others affected by the same problem. OpSafeWinter is not reactionary, it is part of a global autonomous resistance network of similar local initiatives. Occupy Sandy, which took all of the attention from the devastation of one hurricane and pulled the entire spotlight onto those least affected was embarrassingly reactionary. People in the streets of Ferguson and other US cities protesting police violence are acting locally. People in the US calling for the end of US military equipment being used on The People, only themselves, instead of an end to US military being used on any people, are reactionary. 

Anyone saying it is not realistic to look at others in a worse position than themselves, or trying to partition the same problem to address only the part which affect themselves, is a reactionary. Even if just in the rhetoric, solidarity with the full problem must be acknowledged and the megaphone must be shared or there is no global solidarity. Instead of expending all their energy fighting to protect their exceptional status they could recognize the common struggle they share with the exact same enemies as everyone else and instead of trying to lower the bar just far enough to get themselves over it they could remove it. The minimum wage workers in the US could recognize their common struggle is not with the minimum wage workers in Australia but those in Bangladesh, and instead of trying to scratch their way to the top of the ponzi scheme they could use their position already near the top to remove support and dismantle it. The massive and disproportional megaphone given to citizens of the US is to be shared. If it is not shared it should be taken.

Endless fights to pass or block laws recognizes the authority of the state and judiciary, exhausts activists and is a losing game. There is no adjustment to a trade economy possible that will not recreate the exact same situation we are in now. There is no master that will be benevolent and no messiah who will save us. Reform is not possible.

To create a new paradigm, we have to start at the bottom. The bottom is where the principles we live under failed first, it is the canary that predicts the future for all. We live in a world where some being delayed at the airport is considered a gross violation of civil liberties but others being tortured and killed so their own elected leaders can use their body parts as a good luck fetish is not a newsworthy topic. Invasion of privacy is a pimple on the face of the beast killing children in ritual murders to bring good luck for heads of state. Both are manifestations of an empire that thinks it owns its citizens, that they are products to be used for whatever whim the powerful choose, from props in weapons advertising to product for the prison industrial complex. Hysterics over the pimple while leaving the dragon intact will obviously lead to more pimples that will offend even the most privileged.

Installing new governance

The world we live in is still mostly governed by a ponzi scheme of power, wealth and celebrity. Those at the top of the ponzi scheme are standing on nothing but the world’s acceptance of their right to be there. This acceptance is coerced from the billions of people below by presentation and control of information. As soon as enough people realize the emperors have no clothes, it will collapse with incredible speed.

Megaphones

The five eyes empire has existed in a large part due to thought control through media ownership. The right to free speech was stolen from people, who are called trolls if they use their newfound voices, and perverted into a freedom for the powerful corporate press to overwhelm the voices of the people. NGOs force sovereign nations to allow huge corporate megaphones control of the presentation of information to their own populations. The only alternative that could compete in the past was state media. In the five eyes and much of the west, state media and imperial media are the same so the people were kept tranquilized. States with governments who want to combat imperial control face international wrath if they remove or restrict the imperial media.

The role of corporate media in the 2002 two day coup in Venezuela was widely recognized, particularly in spreading false information internationally to aid with a rapid recognition of an illegitimate government as also happened in Paraguay in 2012 and so many other places.  But when a heavily US funded campaign for another Venezuela coup attempt in 2014 complained that corporate media were being censored, some of those who fight censorship on the Internet leaped to help amplify the massive voice of English speaking corporate media over the voices of Venezuelans and punish Venezuela’s elected government for fighting imperial coercion and coup incitement. Anti-censorship anarchists acted as tools of the empire and censored the people with corporate noise.

The same mindset objected to the ‘silencing’ of RSD Nation which had speaking engagements canceled by the #takedownjulienblanc campaign. RSD Nation is a multinational corporation at the forefront of the ‘pick up artist’ scam industry. They promise to teach social skills to awkward young men and instead demean them and teach them behaviours certain to destroy their social life and likely to get them assaulted or arrested. They also teach men to assault women. They have a huge corporate platform which is further amplified by fawning corporate media profiles. When public outrage cancelled engagements, those brainwashed by a corporate definition of censorship were horrified.

People are taught to scream ‘Censorship!’ every time a demagogue or corporation has their volume reduced to a level more closely approaching that of everyone else. They were taught this by the demagogues and media corporations. Censorship is when a person is prevented from speaking. Everyone at RSD Nation could still speak, their defenders could still defend them. They have the right to speak, they do not have the right to international corporate amplification of their speech. If someone at your dinner table starts speaking into a bullhorn, removing it is not censorship. The bullhorn was censoring everyone else. Neither the boys and men he was exploiting nor the women he was teaching them to assault had equivalent platforms, and in any case, removal of a demagogue from his pedestal is not censorship. We are governed by propaganda and demagogues, this is just revocation of power.

The five eyes in general and caucasian men in particular have all censored everyone else in the world with the megaphones they themselves were born with. The people have the right to choose amplification and the people have the right to remove demagogues. Corporations don’t exist except as a concept, the principals behind them are the corporate oligarchs and turning down their volume is removing corporate influence. The people brought the oligarchs into this world and the people can take them out again, and this is how it is done. 

People who are actually being censored are ignored. No NGOs are fighting the censorship of those in refugee camps, those without regional Internet access, those in prisons, those homeless or too impoverished to afford online access, Gazans whose power has been cut, indigenous populations of South America with greatly restricted access, those with language barriers, or illiteracy. These obstacles are not even recognized as censorship but their right to be heard publicly has been taken.

There have been several actions in the last couple years to amplify those unheard voices. In 2013, OpRohingya brought a genocide which had been almost completely ignored by the media to global attention. In 2013, OpGabon convinced a much wider audience of the incredible but well-documented fact of ritual killings in Gabon and complicity at the highest levels of government. Prior to OpGabon, Gabon President Ali Bongo had denied ritual killings existed and refused permission for citizens to conduct a protest march. After the launch of the campaign, he not only acknowledged ritual killings and promised action against them, but his wife co-opted the march and posed as an activist fighting against her own husband’s policies for a cause he denied existing two weeks earlier. Fear of this new awareness canceled a visit between US President Obama and President Bongo, at that time both a member of the UNSC and frequent member and soon to be President of the UNHCR. 

With every campaign we move a bit closer, the bubble the oligarchs are standing on becomes thinner, the voices below become louder and the oligarchs become more nervous. A campaign to raise awareness of a hunger strike at Guantanamo contained four words, “We will shut Guantanamo” which caused the US military to disconnect the Internet at Guantanamo for five days, effectively silencing themselves and acknowledging their fear of simple public awareness. Several campaigns worldwide against ineffective or unjust police and court action have forced cases to be investigated or reopened.

Self governance is choosing who and what to amplify. Everyone has the right to be heard publicly, everyone does not have the right to be amplified.

Thought bubbles

Private conversations and quiet groups are essential for some people to feel comfortable sharing their thoughts and exploring ideas. Most people have some conversations they would like to have in small groups. Some of us belong to hundreds of restricted forums of one kind or another where we incubate ideas and collect our thoughts. Sometimes information needs to be shared that would be harmful shared publicly.

These closed forums with small trusted circles are essential if thought is to progress. Ideas which seem radical and dangerous if presented too quickly, developed improperly or to the wrong initial audience may be killed (sometimes along with their originator) before they ever have a chance to be presented or heard properly.

As soon as the idea is developed, it should be presented to the wider society it is meant to influence. A fully developed idea which is being taught and discussed by only one segment of the society runs the risk of developing a cult in the middle of a society. The nature of cults will lead to its members being isolated and probably shunned from the society they were a part of. Since many of these forums are closed due to a fear of rejection by society, the longer they remain echo chambers closed to outside thought, the greater their fear and isolation becomes. If a villain is presented for the cult to hate and the villain is sufficiently dehumanized that the cult loses empathy for them, the society is harbouring an auto-immune virus that will attack them in the future. States which act as closed thought bubbles and promote hatred are at risk of external war.

If the demagogues that grow out of these thought bubbles are powerful enough, they can turn large segments of a society against its own people, even convince them to commit long-term mass murder as the current examples of Monk Wirathu, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Abubakar Shekau are showing yet again. If their disciples are met with equal violence and hatred, the divide is complete, two polarized sides are formed, actions and reactions drive each farther apart. 

The sociopathic behaviour of the PUA industry is a very natural result of not being able to hear other voices, particularly as it is targeted at those already suffering from an inability to connect to others. People who do not feel accepted by society gather in closed forums where everyone reinforces each others beliefs and anyone who disagrees is banned or derided. Information is only presented which reinforces their beliefs. The ‘other’ is demonized as being impossible to talk to. The participants of RSD Nation seminars are derided and humiliated to further lower their self-esteem and make them more dependent on these forums for validation and more likely to behave in a way the group deems acceptable. Opposing closed bubbles with an exclusive interest in opposing information are created for the feminist communities and then the two react off each other with the media happily adding fuel. Just like the jihadi forums and others with extreme views, they find they are met with shock and disgust in the wider society and feel more and more like they can only talk freely among themselves. 

There is rarely an objection when a military or government ruler is tried for crimes against humanity they only ordered and did not commit themselves. Charles Manson was imprisoned for murders he did not physically take part in. Is the PUA community responsible for the recent murders by Elliot Rodger? Are the community leaders responsible? In a decentralized community, who is a leader? These thought bubbles provide opportunity for many dangerous legal precedents, more outlawing of conspiracy, of privacy and of thought.

Self-governance is auto-coercion. People are so accustomed to being moved in a solid ideological block by some paternalistic authority that they no longer take responsibility for their own thought much less that of others. The myth of free will frees everyone of responsibility for any action they did not actually take themselves. But social coercion always exists and no one is without potential influence on those around them. Those who let their forums become closed to outside thought, those who allowed demonization and othering of those locked outside, those who allowed dangerous demagogues to rise, all bear some responsibility. A society is a network of relationships. A self-governing society is one which uses those relationships to form an auto-coercive, living culture of norms and acceptable behaviour.

Self-governance does not mean no one is responsible. It means everyone is.

The right to associate or not to associate

A state is an economic market. People are catalogued as the product of a state and hard coercion in the form of death and imprisonment is used to force people in or out of the pre-ordained markets. A state is tyranny and its borders are tyranny.

A nation is a group voluntarily associated and bound by a living social contract of agreed upon behaviour and obligations to the nation. A nation has the right to accept anyone who agrees to the social contract and shun anyone who does not. Nations are completely within their rights to refuse to associate with demagogues from the PUA industry or anyone else they wish to shun. If other nations do not agree with them, if for instance a nation’s shunning creates apartheid or refusal of refugees or any other practice which outside nations disagree with, they can isolate and shun the first nation.

This has been happening recently with nations boycotting Israeli corporations in response to their war crimes. Even though the states are perfectly accepting of Israeli criminal action, the nations within them have used the BDS and BlockTheBoat actions to bypass states and shun Israeli corporations directly. State sanctions today such as those placed on Cuba, Iran and North Korea are directed at entire populations. Since the victims of state sanctions have not all voluntarily accepted the principles they are being shunned for, these sanctions are collective punishment and a war crime. Shunning Julien Blanc is not a war crime. Neither is shunning Israeli corporations.

One effect of a world run by imperialism is those from the top of the ponzi scheme are accustomed to what they feel is their right to travel everywhere and behave in any manner they wish as long as they do not actually violate laws. If they have enough money and the right passport, they have access to lodging, food, and all they require to treat traveling as an imperial safari where they can float above the inhabitants and the approval of those they are visiting is in no way necessary. Julien Blanc had the right passport and paperwork, he had the money, he had the approval of every corporate and government body internationally. The disapproval of people has stripped all of those privileges from him and left him just an unwelcome visitor, welcomed by states but shunned by nations.

The emperors have no clothes

This changes everything. No one realizes it yet, but nations took control of borders from states. States are being sanctioned directly by people worldwide with no involvement from their governments. International aid is being provided directly without NGOs. A demagogue was stripped of his power by the people he demonized. An international stigmergic action ordered a long string of international corporations to shun another international corporation. In 2010, corporate and government shunning was ordered by states against Wikileaks despite approval from the people. In 2014 a much bigger corporate and government shunning was ordered by people against RSD Nation despite approval from the states. 

If we can do this, we can also shun Bush, Blair, and every demagogue. If we can create an international stigmergic action to shun the entire PUA industry and the principals behind it, we can also shun the entire fracking industry and the principals behind it. If we can drive people from our nations, we can accept refugees and others into them.

We are in a prison of our own minds holding our own chains around us. We create our oligarchs and fight for their right to oppress us. We recognize their vapour wealth and vapour capital as real. But everywhere on earth, it is changing.

A new form of governance is already here.

This article has been stigmergicly translated into French by hellekin.

The other Battle for the Internet

In 1974, a group of sociopaths decided to change the world. They had ridden the wave of social activism pushing for equal rights for minorities in the 60s to conflate pedosadism with homosexuality and fight for its acceptance as just another personal choice of sexual preference. They (adults) fought for “children’s sexuality” as though children were a persecuted minority group fighting for their sexual freedom. In 1974 they formed the Pedophile Information Exchange, a propaganda movement that was more powerful than hasbara in dictating media coverage and influencing public dialogue. They campaigned for the complete removal of the age of consent (legalized sex with babies).

PIE was joined by The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in the US, the Paedophile Action for Liberation in the UK, the Australian Paedophile Support Group and others. They promoted terms like ‘moral hysteria’ for their opposition and ‘child-lovers’ for themselves. They worked with the UK National Council for Civil Liberties to direct media coverage of pedosadists and rape, normalizing guidelines still used today. They provided legal aid to those facing charges of pedosadism. They worked to conflate documentation of child abuse with pornography and free speech rights and they promoted pedosadism as the ‘sexual liberation’ of children and ‘free love’. They used the UK’s unequal age of consent of 16 for heterosexuals but 21 for homosexuals to push their issues through beside the fight for homosexual equality. They were the major propaganda arm of an international ring of pedosadists which has grown exponentially since then. Any doubts that their abuses were motivated by sadism, not love, and that they were part of the fabric of power, have been put to rest by the recent UK investigations. PIE was probably funded by the UK Government in the 1980s and they had an office address at the UK Home Office.

If you call a pedosadist a pedophile you are accepting their propaganda. Corporate media still very frequently write ‘sex with a child’ instead of rape and ‘child porn’ instead of child abuse documentation. The words rape and rapist appear in quotes constantly, and in conjunction with the words ‘accused’ and ‘alleged’ even after convicted far more often than words such as ‘murder’. UK media still use the term ‘rent-boy’ for victims of child abuse.

In the mid-1980s, and escalating dramatically into the 90s, something the pedosadist activists called the ‘sexual abuse movement’ and a ‘sexual inquisition’ created widespread revulsion for and awareness of pedosadism. Pedosadists were convinced that the media, which they and their sympathizers largely controlled, were persecuting them and blamed women as their primary ideological opponents. A 2005 paper argues the concept of paedophilia was a feminist attack on male normative sexuality. In 1984, PIE ostensibly ‘disbanded’, but in actuality retreated to primarily online and mailing list activity. A primary objective of PIE since its formation was networking between pedosadists for exchange of child victims, pedosadist houses, documentation of child abuse and related support. Online tools were used immediately for ‘secure’ networking.

By the mid-1990’s, this group and their propaganda were a very large influence on what became known as ‘Internet culture’. Their decades of immersion in propaganda techniques to change social norms overwhelmed disinterested others in online forums. Their rage at being ‘censored’ from mainstream media and not achieving their “utopian goals of the dissolution of the nuclear family and the abolition of the age of consent was directed at both women and those of the LGBT community who shunned them. They promoted dehumanization of both along with normalizing child abuse documentation as ‘free speech’ and ‘porn’.

Unofficial PIE stalked online forums and worked constantly to challenge social norms against them and instil hate for their opponents. Moral imbeciles taught the dismissal of moral ‘hysteria’ (that word used to dismiss anyone with a uterus since Hippocrates) and lately ‘social justice warriors’. They used their security knowledge, acquired of necessity to protect themselves from legal repercussions, to impress young boys newly arrived on the Internet and claim their position as elders to be emulated and shielded from criticism. The old talking points from the 70s were wrapped up as freedom and anarchy. New ideas of morality and rejection of adult norms were exciting to those just of an age to form their own principles. The wall of hate encouraged as ‘free speech’ against their old opponents protected their forums from outside influence. 

Unofficial PIE are the trolls who ‘attempt dialogue’ every time pedosadists are mentioned on the Internet. Their scripted 70’s talking points are everywhere. They co-opt every initiative which tries to counsel pedosadists with attempts to normalize it instead. So many people have absorbed PIE propaganda that most don’t even know the origin of what they are quoting. They use reason in public forums and hate in their safer forums, but the end goal is the same. 

Some media and politicians still leap to defend child abuse documentation under the banner of free speech with no concern for the continued trauma and invasion of privacy of their victims. Pedosadism advocates still maintain great influence and power. The exact same powerful people who have allowed human trafficking to become the most lucrative criminal career in the world, ahead of even weapons or drugs, have used ‘combating child porn’ as their excuse to restrict Internet freedom for everyone else, ensuring the wider population is suspicious of any attempt to combat pedosadists. The UK establishment which supported and attempted to normalize pedosadism is now conducting massive sweeps of people who accepted their propaganda while still refusing to investigate the high level complicity which promoted it. The criminalization of consumers of an industry created by the governing class is a reaction very reminiscent of the drug war or the war on terrorism.

Meanwhile the boys, and the girls who pretended to be boys, in the old pedosadist retreats have grown up. Many left for the more mainstream acceptable but still completely closed and moderated thought bubbles of reddit where feminists and masculinists go to percolate in closed forums of hate and othering which social auto-coercion cannot reach and where empathy cannot be learned. The same media which fostered and nurtured the division between men and women since its inception gleefully promote a he-said-she-said ‘Battle of the Sexes’. The thought bubbles have now produced self-proclaimed “pick up artists” who teach that the way to a woman’s heart is to use violence and humiliation against her.

But horrifyingly to the pedosadist propagandists, some of their most receptive protégés not only rejected their principles when they expanded their social group, they now openly combat pedosadists or use their principles against them. NAMBLA bemoans “Anonymous hipster vigilantes”, and their “partisan and paranoid” anti-pedosadist and anti-sociopath actions and old pedosadist Anon and their disciples do as well. The Internet hate machine they encouraged to mob little girls is deplored when it hates adult men. All the rules about free speech which are so sacrosanct when dehumanizing the weak collapse into hysteria when anyone says “white man”. The admonition to always disregard feelings is not to be applied to their feelings. ‘Anonymous is dead’  proclaim the few remaining apologists of the old PIE rules while thousands around the world carry on Anonymous without them.

Free will does not exist, there is always coercion. Representative democracy, NGOs which divide people into groups competing for advocacy, sensational corporate media and protected online thought bubbles create myopic societies with no empathy for those outside. Societies formed in these thought bubbles will always be challenged and perceive themselves as persecuted when they attempt to enter wider society. Censorship which prevents all voices from being heard is a tyranny of the majority or the powerful. Amplification controlled by corporate media and celebrity is governance by oligarchy.

The only way we will attain self-governance by auto-coercion is through free and open forums where every person is allowed to speak and the crowd chooses both who to amplify and what actions to shun.