Jul 20, 2022·edited Jul 20, 2022Liked by John Carter
Personally, I think that choosing to use a pseudonym allows the writer to project something. Your choice of John Carter says something about you. Those unfamiliar can read Princess, which I enjoyed immensely many years ago. My opinion about those who are criticizing your pseudonymity (?) is simple: They are not your friends. Why do they want to know who you are? Either they are so naive as to be useless, or they have an agenda. If they want to send flowers, provide them with a P.O. box address. Otherwise, nunya. Thanks for another episode of philosophic adventure!
I think it's mostly naïvety rather than hostility. Usually bad actors are more subtle.
Like I said, it seems to be largely a generational issue. Although, one thing I didn't mention, and should have, was that this may be changing. Zoomers don't seem to care quite as much who knows what they think. Maybe because they're so used to using their real names online, or maybe because they figure they're so fucked anyways that it can't get any worse. The preference for pseudonymity seems to be especially strong for Xers and millennials.
Oddly, the "so fucked anyways" angle is my motivation as well. After a few times when I had to ask myself "did you guys just not read my CV before hiring me?" while being lynched, I figure the more signaling of what I am like can't hurt, and probably helps find the right people :)
You'd really think "But what happens when they have nothing to lose?" would be a question they'd ask at some point, but nah.
Anyhow. Networking, man. If you've got no job but 100 quality friends, you're fine. If you've got a job but no real friends you're ngmi. There are enough of us now that parallel society is becoming a practical possibility.
Sounds to me like an attempt to expose John to the nefarious woke crowd by trying to manipulate him into throwing himself under the bus.
Nope. Not buying the false claims of innocent posturing adopted by whoever would encourage John — or anyone else for that matter — to offer himself as a sacrifice upon the altars if black magicians — whether public or secret govt agencies or trolls who enjoy destroying people out of sick sadistic satisfaction.
I’m beyond finished with being reasonable with evil. And accusing someone of cowardice who is actually practicing strategic enclosure strategies in order to protect and conserve his life and livelihood and avoid being dismembered by the insatiable, voracious vampires just for the lulz? Hell no.
Another illustration of snakes tempting us via guilt manipulation tactics to accept the apple. Don’t “fall” for it. Accepting the apple was what led to the Fall in the first place. I’m speaking metaphorically and symbolically.
What “I” mean by refusing to be reasonable with evil is refusing to sympathize with them.
I don’t mean I lack sympathy. I mean I actively choose to refuse to sympathize with them. I refuse to accept their justifications, excuses, rationalizations, arguments, pleas for sympathy, outrage that I refuse to succumb or bend the knee to their demands that I see them as they want me to see them rather than seeing them for what they are. And what they are doing is attempting to hide and mask their true nature within a cloak of being good and virtuous. The ultimate virtue signaling. What they do is attempt to deceive and they want me to agree to be deceived. I refuse.
What do you think evil hopes being reasonable with it means?
Which is precisely why exorcists and shamans do NOT engage with evil by sitting down to a comfy chat over a nice cup of tea.
In my case, I seem to either refuse to sympathize or to discipline myself to refrain from going off into peels of laughter because — from my point of view — evil is so little but puffs itself up as if I should feel terrified and in awe of its power and super-duper strength and ability to annihilate me.
Result? It resents me for not succumbing yet shrivels up impotently when it can’t dominate me.
What's interesting though is that when you observe the directionality of ideas, it is no longer
credentialed experts at institutions -> general population
But instead
Anons -> facefags
(I refuse to be family friendly, this Substack if rated M for imMature)
You regularly see media personalities presenting ideas that were being discussed years before in pseudonymous fora. They pretend to ignore us but really, they work for us. The disseminate our ideas to the normies.
Precisely. They get rich doing it and we don't, but then, they value money and we value changing the world; and in a generation, one wonders who will be remembered more affectionately.
Relying on name status recognition rather than content value sounds similar to flaunting any well known fashion or sports wear attire emblazoned with their logos. May as well rely on Good Housekeeping Seals of approval in order to bypass any questioning of the quality.
Name recognition short circuits a lot of doubt. Who would dare to question those whose names are placed on pedestals?
Thanks for another puzzle piece to the big picture.
"The author of a good book should remain anonymous, for it is to his work, not to himself, that admiration is due." Auden
I vote for pseudonymity, because I'm only interested in your words and ideas and how you present them (no offense).
Also, in my Substack wanderings I enjoy writers like NS Lyons, El Gato Malo, Eugyppius etc and I have no clue if they're male or female or young or old or black or white etc, and could care less.
I consider this a refutation of the Identity Cult and its elevation of the personal characteristics and pet grievances of an author over their individual talent, ability, intelligence, style etc.
Once a book, essay, painting etc exists it has no need of its creator anymore—its creator can be anyone or no one.
No offense taken. In real life I'm profoundly uninteresting, as are most people. Which is why I don't care for Facebook: I really don't care what someone had for dinner.
The author of Beowulf is quite anonymous, which takes away nothing from the power of that work.
there is nothing i enjoy more than a long-dead author...i don't know their thoughts on current controversies, don't read their Tweets, don't have to be disappointed when i see how much of their brain they've outsourced to the Times, don't have to know their thoughts on Trump or the Oscars etc etc...all the noise is gone and all that remains is the music.
(oh, and im also profoundly uninteresting, but I do enjoy your work....cheers!)
Agreed. The only value in knowing who wrote a variety of things is in being able to calibrate trust based on how often they contradict themselves or screw up over time. For example, Paul Krugman contradicts himself frequently based on whatever political hackery needs to be done that day. Not knowing who wrote his various pieces loses the visibility to that perfidy.
Granted, that is a small thing, but it is nice to be able to track a writer such that you can tell whether they are consistent over time or entirely unprincipled.
Correct. Reputation tracking is a valuable function.
Although, Krugman's shit reputation doesn't prevent his credentials from earning him a regular spot in legacy media. Somehow, the fact that he is Paul Fucking Krugman is all he needs. Were his columns published anonymously, his turgid prose, midwit insights, and terrible arguments would be ignored.
Jul 21, 2022·edited Jul 21, 2022Liked by John Carter
Your substack has been a joy to read. There are many writers on here that I really enjoy, but whenever you or Chris Bray (Tell Me How This Ends) publish something new, I pretty much always drop what I'm doing or rearrange my schedule to read it ASAP -- and it's always time well spent!
It's not just that what you (and Chris) say is interesting and insightful, although it always is -- indeed, much more insightful and interesting than anything I'm capable of writing -- but the real value of your work is this: you are both voices of reason in a world gone completely insane. Call it a red-pill moment or whatever, at some point in life I realized that practically every sense-making institution in my culture has been completely corrupted by a nonstop smoke-and-mirrors psyops campaign. I don't understand who's behind it or what their agenda is, although I do have my suspicions, but a memetic war has been actively waged against Truth and Reason for longer than I've been alive, to the point that even the agents of this psyops have been driven criminally insane by their own psychological weapons. And it's not just that so many cultural norms are based on obviously absurd fictions, but so many of these norms are diametrically opposed to human nature. We're being poisoned, in some cases literally, yet told that the toxins are actually medically necessary, and we're threatened with cancellation if we even ask questions too loudly. In the midst of this dehumanizing cultural wasteland, the quest to develop and come to terms with one's own humanity seems a lonely, treacherous, and even impossible task, given the limits of human knowledge and the even greater limits of what one solitary individual can learn in a single lifetime. So when you encounter someone who's daring to make a similar journey, especially someone who freely shares their greater insights and wisdom, and especially when that person writes as well as Chris Bray and you write on your respective substacks, that encounter is balm for the soul, like a cold bottle of water to one dying of thirst.
As to writing pseudonymously, I'm sure all of us who question the regime on here will eventually be outed IRL. I think it is a risk worth taking. I think there are many more of us than them, and our numbers are growing daily, especially as the regime tips its hand with bad strategies and botched execution and arrogant overreach. As you wrote in your series on the hydra, the smart and competent people are increasingly falling out of favor with the regime, as it demands unblinking fealty to an idiotic ideology and unapologetically chooses its leadership based on DEI tokenism. Truth and Reason are on our side by default, as the regime has effectively declared war on them. Our side is strong and getting stronger. Big changes are no doubt coming, and with them, real reversals of fortune and wild opportunities. The regime's threats will matter less and less, until it is no more than a toothless, terminally ill paper tiger. For those who make it through the coming troubles without betraying their values, I think a bright and rewarding future awaits.
Your long term prognosis is exactly on point. As the regime squeezes out ability in favor of blind obedience, it will be left supported only by fools, while those calling the shots are increasingly trapped in their own hall of mirrors and unable to make tactically sound decisions. Their own methods will be their downfall. But there's a lot of ruin in a nation....
One thing that helps my morale - and one does not need to believe this, obviously - is the doctrine of metempsychosis. This isn't our first rodeo (well, it might be ... for some), and moreover, we aren't here by accident. We incarnated at this time because we chose to; likely specifically because the challenges it presents would test us. I'm agnostic as to its literal truth, but simply considering the implications of an idea can yield much of its benefit.
Metempsychosis and similar ideas are fascinating. Like you, I'm agnostic about its literal truth, and there may be no way to prove or falsify it from a strictly human point of view, but like certain myths and dreams, the concept of metempsychosis itself does seem to point to something real.
I also like the idea that we may have chosen to incarnate at this time and place, or that we maybe accepted that we needed to be here for this historical moment -- maybe in the same way that a regular infantryman might choose to go to Ranger school, not because he would enjoy it for its own sake, but because he believes it is an irreplaceable ingredient in becoming the person he wants to be.
Also wild to consider: the Gnostic idea of most people being Hylics (aka, NPCs). Sometimes -- okay, much of the time, I hear people talk, and I really wonder, what if they seem so shallow and empty because there's actually nothing there? Shit, for all I know, there may be only a relatively small number of us who participate in whatever the base reality is. Maybe we're plugged into some VR training system because the base reality is a world where the problems needed for real growth and character development simply do not exist, so we have to use a VR experience to have the experience of overcoming adversity. Or maybe not. But it is interesting to note that the religious view of our world from Christianity is essentially that it is a simulation, with the spirit realm being the base reality. Whatever this is, I feel certain there's a base reality from which the paradoxes of our world are seamlessly resolved, and towards which our best myths and stories point.
Military deployment is exactly how I look at it. Soldiers for eternity.
NPCs are 100% a contemporary expression of a perennial doctrine - hylics, organic portals, etc. I believe this is true. There are people for whom there is no one home. Ditto simulation hypothesis, which is just maya all over again, only expressed in computer game language. As ever we describe reality in the language of available technology.
Well put, and congratulations on 1000 subs! Your DIE articles are what won me over, and I'd say earned you 2000 eye balls right there.
And keep the mask if it pleases you; ideas and arguments are far more important on their own than by who made them, and so long as you keep the same name we can tell if you start going to the dark side. That's all we really need unless you decide to run for Congress or something, and I would happily write in "John Carter" in any case. Hell... I might just anyway.
Congress pfft I will accept nothing less than Supreme Overlord of the Education and Science Directorate.
I actually meant to use the DIEing Academy series as more of an extended intro to motivate an exploration of ways to solve the problem, predominantly by moving scholarship and science outside of the academy. Which, I've sort of touched on, but not to the degree I'd intended. ADHD is a bitch.
John, the question of authorial self-presentation has so many answers that it is impossible for anyone to exhaust the topic. The re-emergence of pseudonymous and anonymous publication is creating a world that Michel Foucault would have embraced with enthusiasm. In an interview Foucault once proposed a game: that for a full year no book should be published using the author's name. Foucault anticipated that authors would probably wait until the year had expired before publishing. And he once famously wrote: "I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to the bureaucrats to see that our papers are in order."
Your handle and the title of the newsletter are perfect: they advertise your condition as a frustrated North American feeling unaccommodated in the condition in which you find yourself. So far you have done a pretty good job concealing the details that would put you at risk.
My advice is that the longer you write, the greater the risk of doxing, so consider reviewing your writing/editorial practices on a regular basis and perhaps think of how to develop best practice. If you can, get advice from those close and listen to them carefully, even if you do not decide to accept their advice. And have something like a half-developed plan on what to do if you are doxed.
Honestly, my plan is basically shrugging, saying, ahhh you caught me, and if asked to recant, snorting "I regret nothing!"
I'm not actually terribly worried. My paranoia level as compared to say, three or four years ago is a lot lower. The prevailing winds of social psychology are pointing in the direction of widespread exhaustion with the nagging church ladies of Woke, and while we probably haven't reached the peak of the storm (and may only be in its eye), the pushback they're getting is already becoming substantial.
Even in real life, when not dealing with some sort of officials, I've always used a sort of pseudonym first name.
since I share first names with my male birth parent, it's always been easier to use half of my middle name instead, then it became habit.
when I'm dealing with paperwork related things, it's the legal first name.
this makes it really easy to tell if an incoming interaction is friendly or official by the first name used.
social media, including substack, gets a full on pseudonym.
I typically speak my mind in most any real life situation short of court, cops, or potential employment, and fairly freely on social media... but social media has too many Agent Smiths and aggressive types for me to want to expose my real identity. I'm way too mouthy about politically incorrect and prohibited topics.
I'm pretty blunt in person, too. Especially when the night reaches the fourth whiskey soda. No one who knows me well personally doesn't know the broad outlines of my views.
What you and Winston write shows you both to be absolute paragons. How are people to follow your lead if they don't know who you are? The idea that someone like you would lose your job because of your clear and obvious excellence is an affront to the natural order. If this were to happen, it would make you a great hero in the culture war and expand your power and influence to affect the cultural shift away from wokeism and fear towards the human singularity. To fully leverage our asymmetric advantage in building genuine connection faces must be shown. Do you really believe that you couldn't make it at this point after getting 1000 subscribers in a few months that if you got fired and started writing science fiction novels full time? There are people that have such a degree of competence that they still can't be controlled. You and Winston unmasking would send a very powerful message and have significant impact in showing that you are such people. Of course there is downside risk, but safety last, no? Since you're talking of tactics and strategy, consider if you were able to inspire other academics to follow in your footsteps. This would create a huge dilemma for the enemy. In such a circumstance the only academics to come forward and speak their minds would be only those who had the confidence that they could do so without support from the system. The most competent. This would indict academia for what it has become, a mental prison destined to shackle all but the most brilliant and competent minds in nominal service of the cathedral. I believe that if you are speaking your mind in good faith, then all attacks upon you further discredit the enemy advance us ever closer to cultural dominance of the hydra. The joy to be had from connecting with the brilliant people that are engaged in this spiritual war is incredible. Just like in the covid context, the mask fucks that all up. I don't think you or Winston are cowards, I just think you're missing out on something beautiful that has to be experienced to be believed and I fucking hate it. I suppose I'm just outraged at the injustice. The woke should be the ones afraid to speak their minds in a culture dominated by commitment to free and open dialogue, not you and Winston. The idea of "cancellation" being acceptable should be the lowest of low-status positions. It can happen if people like you lead the way.
Appreciate the sentiment, man. I'll probably unmask at some point; but today is not that day. Partly I'm just enjoying it. Partly, I haven't fully given up on a professional career. It's not that I'm worried about losing my job; there's a hard stop on that in the near future. It's finding another one that's the issue; THEN I get to be worried about losing it.
All that said. The feedback I've gotten here, and the growth this project has experienced, is really encouraging in terms of the plausibility of supporting myself as in independent writer in the long run, and your comment certainly reinforces that.
Jul 21, 2022·edited Jul 21, 2022Liked by John Carter
I appreciate this comment, if only for this bit.
"The woke should be the ones afraid to speak their minds in a culture dominated by commitment to free and open dialogue, not you and Winston."
However, I think the time for unmasking -- for the end of subterfuge and general ninjutsu -- is not at hand. I'm no academic. I'm a mere freelance contractor, a hireling at the mercy of vast corporate entitites, which are themselves at the mercy of intangible waves that emanate ceaselessly from a chialistic religious cult of insane children. This cult openly eschews debate, and pursues mad ends for evil reasons (or vice versa). The whole apparatus is uniquely dangerous, and I for one would much prefer us to be victors rather than martyrs. If John must be Batman for a little while longer, let him be Batman. Let us all be Batmen, or midnight sappers, or ninjas. Leviathan possesses many advantages against sailors, less so against submarines.
Jul 21, 2022·edited Jul 21, 2022Liked by John Carter
On the bright side, censorship makes it very easy to prioritise one's reading. In the old days many people used to get a copy of the Vatican's Index of Prohibited books and work their way through it. The emergence of samizdat across the West reveals the character of the regime better than any single critic. It is fortifying the intellectual quality of dissenting opinion and further developing decentralised alternatives to the cathedral's compliant infotainment industry. Censorship deprives the cathedral of the best insights from the best minds and diverts these into dissident fora. This is a win for us.
On a rarefied level, censorship is forcing serious people to re-engage with basics about epistemology, authority, intellectual processes about inquiry and expression. This is will help renew the intellectual life of the West outside of official institutions.
Agree 100%, one of the first articles I wrote on substack touched on this. I realized that just reading a bunch of substack articles for entertainment over the course of a few months I had become ridiculously well informed. I think the first place I saw this explicitly articulated was Eugyppius. The highest quality information is being market selected on the few platforms that don't censor. Another asymmetric advantage for team hydra. https://grantesmith.substack.com/p/why-substack
Agreed. The benefits extend far beyond mere information. As the number of people who have developed their powers of inquiry and analysis outside of the system grows, they will become more disruptive across the entire spectrum of activities. The contrast between those that have swallowed the blue pill and shut down and those that have not will widen. Differentiation will demonstrate the inherent value of thinking for oneself (the vaccination-related toll of injuries and premature death already shows this). The costs and difficulties involved in managing this disruptive element should prove significant. At least that is my hope.
It's always been clear from the tech end of things that true anonymity is perfectly impossible. The intel agencies have always monitored everything, and always know who's who. So the remaining variable is difficulty of search for ordinary people who don't own the clouds and nodes.
But the most important variable is just the proportion of fish / pond. For small fish, it's better to use the big ponds like FB and Twitter. Using a small well-lighted pond like Gab guarantees that the intel operatives are watching you closely.
I only use my official legal name for legal documents — banking & taxes.
Initially, because I never resonated with my given birth name.
Subsequently, because at different times during my sojourn through life, I simply enjoy adopting various names that more accurately match my different affinities towards various inner aspects of my personality traits.
When I wore my hair extremely long, and dressed in ankle-length flowing dresses, one name suited that version of art. A three syllable name that was elegant and flowy.
When I cut my hair short and switched to short skirts, another name seemed more suitable. A one syllable name that was cute and sassy.
One of my friends altered the name I was using at that time and since I liked her version better than my own, I switched my nsme to her version. Why not? I could, so I did.
Changing names is akin to changing my wardrobe styles. I’m unattached to any of my names so some of my friends call me one name and others call me a different name. And my family members call me by a third name. More fun for me. Lol
If people choose to use pseudonyms or made up names online hurray for them.
If they choose to use their legal names online then yay for them.
If it isn’t obvious by now that there’s a cancel culture war against all those who deviate from the officially approved narratives being promoted and rammed down our deviant throats, time to open one’s eyes and ears, non?
Predators are extremely skilled at manipulating their prey into acting in ways and adopting behavior that is to their advantage and to the prey’s disadvantage.
One way is to present what they consider convincing arguments in favor of choosing behavior that makes us more vulnerable to these vampires.
Arguing that GMO & glyphosate are healthy for us falls into the same pit of specious reasoning as arguing in favor of outing oneself on the public chopping block before that same public outs you first. Suiciding oneself as if that is an act of courage rather than an act of stupidity in order to avoid being murdered is the height of conversive thinking.
Another form of Transmarginal Inhibition tactics imo. Attempting to weaken the strong in order to break their spirit.
I wish I had the confidence to fluidly change my name in public in that fashion. Hat's off.
And yeah, it's all the same to me if someone uses their 'true' name or not online. I find it's generally a subset of true-name people - and not a majority, I hasten to add - who make an issue of pseudonymous authorship. Pseuds and Anons don't really care.
As for changing your own public name as breezily as I do — we’re dealing with apples and oranges imo.
You are in an entirely different situation than I am.
It would be considered beyond strange if you did so. Change your name I mean.
In my own case, I have much more freedom to not only to do strange things like change my name, people, including strangers seem to just accept that I do weird and strange things. They almost expect it. It’s not even a thing. And they’re not even surprised. It’s like the Sun rises in the East.
It could just be because I actually enjoy and get a kick out of being me and I frankly don’t seek or need people to like me or approve of my choices. And since my choices aren’t harming anyone else or myself, why not choose to have phun?
I hadn’t considered it before, but now you’ve made me aware that it’s actually a luxury to have the freedom to be more outrageously silly than most people can be.
If you are a professional in any field, you have a reputation to uphold out of courtesy to your fellow professionals. Goes with the territory. There are certain boundaries you’re honor bound to observe in order to be considered a bonafide member of a certain class. It’s the honorable and courteous thing to do in that situation. So why not have fun doing just that?
If our situations were reversed, I’d feel just as happy to accept and honor those boundaries.
I can't think of any other pseudonym that would fit you better. Edgar Rice Burroughs would be proud of the choice as Tarzan just wouldn't fit or go with the fantastic artwork as well!!! Linking your thoughts tomorrow @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Not to come off as pedantic or anything, but Bakhtin corrected Saussure by showing that the identities of sender and receiver, along with context (including identites of all participants in contextual discourse) IS the message, or a big part of it anyway. Anonymous communication, if such a thing even exists, is severely impoverished. And people who have skin in the game are more attention-worthy than those who don't (read Taleb for details). So the rule of thumb is: If you want to be taken seriously, use your real name unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason not to.
Sure. In pseudonymous subversive/dissident writings the amount of skin is "price you'll pay (or, less likely, gain) if exposed" times "odds you'll be exposed."
I dunno; I think I'd agree with John on this. On these stacks, I'm here for the intellectual exchange. The writer's pseudonym and the icon give all the identity I need. If I have no plans to come around to interact with you in the flesh, then I don't need to know your real name, face, or address, and if your nom de plume is more interesting than your legal name, then I don't even want to. A pseudonymous poster with a deep mind is much more attention-worthy to me than an onymous one who can only offer banalities.
Just give me your riveting thoughts, and I don't care if you're really a dog. :)
Actually, Kevin, would you mind giving a quick summary of Bakhtin's argument, and Taleb's? I'm not familiar with either one of them, or these particular demonstrations.
Nassim Taleb wrote Black Swan, which discusses the financial crisis of 2008 - 2009 and how Black Swans (difficult to predict events) must be considered. He also wrote Skin In The Game and Antifragile - both of which I would highly recommend. I would say that today’s Woke population is exactly the opposite of Antifragile - with that being said, rub some dirt on it and get back in the game!
Impoverished? Surely that would depend on the author's purposes. If an author writes to seek recognition, either anonymity or pseudonymity frustrates that purpose. However, an author who seeks to exercise their mind by formalising their views in writing and then seeks feedback does not necessarily seek or need recognition at all. Furthermore, there are those who seek a voice, to intervene in the disputes of their day, but who have no need beyond making that intervention.
Also, the valuation of ideas by association with their author's name disgusts some. Ignazio Silone famously chose his pseudonym precisely because his name (Secondino Tranquilli) was so beautiful he thought that he would run the risk of unearned attention if he used it. Silone/Tranquilli wanted his work appreciated for nothing other than what it was. This position offers an invaluable rebuke to the stupidity of intellectual and literary fashion. Michel Foucault was famously fed up with the infantile obsession that the French intellectual world had with public intellectuals, most of whom were preposterous and dishonest (Sartre and Beauvoir). A similar obsession with public intellectuals has long plagued North America and has cheapened and coarsened its intellectual and academic life.
As for anything being attention-worthy, that depends on what has been written. The intrinsic merit of a text does not depend upon its author, but on its content, as well as on its style and its relationship to other texts and the world as a whole. The whole idea of the value or credibility of a text being wedded to the public identity of its author recalls pre-modern ideas of authority, which in turn derive ultimately from the distant past when texts established their value by claiming a revealed or inspired origin.
Concerning the issue of being taken seriously, readers worth having should have the intelligence to engage and appreciate ideas even when they are not being presented seriously. That is the whole point of serio-comic literature, which has played such an extraordinary role in the intellectual life of our culture and its antecedents from ancient times. The dissident/dissenting literature now emerging draws much of its vitality from being playful. The powers that be are so invested in the authority that they think they enjoy that they are at a disadvantage when confronted by something, anything, that does not conform to their dreary preferred house-styles. We should leave those powers to enjoy their pretended seriousness, their euphemisms, evasions and pretensions....these all reek of dishonesty and speak of decadence. We have a world to enjoy.
>suffering no consequences because he says nothing of any worth.
This is the case for the overwhelming majority of facefags. Not all - there are some exceptions out there, who say very interesting things under their real names. It's rare, though. They're usually the types that don't give a shit about being 'taken seriously', at least by anyone operating inside the regime institutions.
TIL I'm a facefag lol. I think the desire to be taken seriously for your thoughts alone is confined to the pure intellectual. For anyone who has a trade or skill that produces measurable real-world results, associating ego with that particular competence allows one to "shrug off" concerns that positions on philosophical matters might be considered ridiculous. Come to think of it, there are a lot of other things that you can ground your ego on that can insulate you from this pressure. Supporting a family is another that comes to mind. I think physical size might also play a role. I've noticed that Owen Benjamin seems to have no issue with 99% of people thinking he is bat-shit insane, and has expressed that his commitment to family, God, and his height all play a role in his willingness to be a heterodox facefag. Of course, financial independence, as you've noted, is another example.
Financial independence is a huge, perhaps dominant, factor in the willingness to publicly defy the herd. When Americans were generally independent farmers, entrepreneurs, and small business owners, they were far more outspoken. Now that most exist at the sufferance of impersonal bureaucracies, they've become more cautious and conformist - at least in public.
You see this in fashion, too. The only outrageous street fashions you see are trannies, who have regime sanction. Blue hair is a hall monitor sash. For the rest, they try to blend in. Observe the way kids dress - the weird subcultures of the 80s and 90s are dead. The kids instinctively understand that they're in a reeducation camp, and therefore adopt the gray man strategy.
Jul 22, 2022·edited Jul 22, 2022Liked by John Carter
Any serious dissenting politics requires rebuilding the material capacity for independence: maximising opportunities for individual savings and investment, promoting small and medium business, fostering employee co-ownership, encouraging the development of trade skills. Dependence is the petri dish of servility of all kinds. The extraordinary thing is that this reaches upwards now too. Historically the privileged classes (land-owners and industrialists) prided themselves on their independence; nowadays they too relish ideological conformism. This is probably due to the fact that the professional and managerial classes rely on networking and peer-recognition quite heavily, while the wealthy are keenly aware of the fusion of public and private power and so are unwilling to rock the boat. The professions (once defined by the practice of independent judgement) are now heavily regulated. policed and supervised. Medical drs now are very plebeianised: a friend who is a retired physician relates extraordinary stuff about drs, especially young ones, who are now bullied by managers and over-supervised in a way that would never have been tolerated a few years back.
Great point about fashion. The presentation of the self (especially amongst the young) is about ego ideals, individuation and self-expression. The fact that kids are shutting down fashion-wise is probably connected with the fall in testosterone levels amongst males, the sky high rates of anxiety disorders amongst girls...it reveals a widespread disruption in sexuality, fertility and ego-formation. It is one more sign that something is very wrong.
You are onto something. Establishing an identity between the ego and one's ideas comes naturally. Disciplined thinking teaches us to separate the two, but people craving emotional validation through the affirmation of their ideas by others will always prize being taken seriously for their thoughts alone. This can lead to all sorts of trouble, especially now that many people do not have a stable grounding in fixed social roles (families above all). The fluidity and fragility of contemporary life drives people to seek affirmation wherever they can find it. Not a happy situation.
I also think that part of the problem is that too few people understand or are comfortable with ideas/abstractions. Historically, only a tiny number of people ever got overly absorbed in intellectual matters of any kind. Now vast numbers are online all the time, consuming information, forming opinions and the psychic effort required to process it all is destabilising people on an emotional level. Living inside one's own head is difficult for the best of us, unhealthy for most, dangerous for many.
>Now vast numbers are online all the time, consuming information, forming opinions and the psychic effort required to process it all is destabilising people on an emotional level. Living inside one's own head is difficult for the best of us, unhealthy for most, dangerous for many.
Very often, this leads to conflict. Arguments start because people are attacking the hologram in their head, a superposition of electronic stereotypes generated by their favored echo chambers, triggered by the use of a word or a choice of fashion. They're not seeing the person in front of them.
It doesn't help that many people seem to actively try to conform to that hallucination.
In spite of my last comment not accounting for it at all, I realize that I've noticed some people seem to think that they can be virtuous because of what they believe. Basking in unearned virtue is a great way to ensure you'll never develop any significant skill. Why work hard when you can be a good person by simply believing and saying the "right" things.
John, congrats on hitting the 1,000 subscriber mark - I greatly enjoy your witty observations of our anti-reason, anti-free speech, intolerant, lovers-of-all-things-not-human world. The problem has been identified, and it’s fun to criticize the source of the problem, but now is the time to propose solutions. Without a clear vision of the future a “revolution” will end like the French Revolution, with guillotines for all.
Aug 24, 2023·edited Aug 24, 2023Liked by John Carter
Samuel L. Clemens used Mark Twain to write for many of the same excellent reasons you posit.
There is a corner of this 1984 world to pause, think, and learn how to deal with it.
The threat matrix of manmade and natural disasters can be learned and mastered.
The skills learned there can help you blunt the impact of the current evil demons on you and your family so you have a happier, more family friendly, holy life.
I just restacked one of your articles and comment “the comments are almost as good as the writing”. I’m glad you see that as well. Well done sir. I thoroughly enjoy this shit show!
Personally, I think that choosing to use a pseudonym allows the writer to project something. Your choice of John Carter says something about you. Those unfamiliar can read Princess, which I enjoyed immensely many years ago. My opinion about those who are criticizing your pseudonymity (?) is simple: They are not your friends. Why do they want to know who you are? Either they are so naive as to be useless, or they have an agenda. If they want to send flowers, provide them with a P.O. box address. Otherwise, nunya. Thanks for another episode of philosophic adventure!
I think it's mostly naïvety rather than hostility. Usually bad actors are more subtle.
Like I said, it seems to be largely a generational issue. Although, one thing I didn't mention, and should have, was that this may be changing. Zoomers don't seem to care quite as much who knows what they think. Maybe because they're so used to using their real names online, or maybe because they figure they're so fucked anyways that it can't get any worse. The preference for pseudonymity seems to be especially strong for Xers and millennials.
Oddly, the "so fucked anyways" angle is my motivation as well. After a few times when I had to ask myself "did you guys just not read my CV before hiring me?" while being lynched, I figure the more signaling of what I am like can't hurt, and probably helps find the right people :)
You'd really think "But what happens when they have nothing to lose?" would be a question they'd ask at some point, but nah.
Anyhow. Networking, man. If you've got no job but 100 quality friends, you're fine. If you've got a job but no real friends you're ngmi. There are enough of us now that parallel society is becoming a practical possibility.
My thoughts exactly.
Sounds to me like an attempt to expose John to the nefarious woke crowd by trying to manipulate him into throwing himself under the bus.
Nope. Not buying the false claims of innocent posturing adopted by whoever would encourage John — or anyone else for that matter — to offer himself as a sacrifice upon the altars if black magicians — whether public or secret govt agencies or trolls who enjoy destroying people out of sick sadistic satisfaction.
I’m beyond finished with being reasonable with evil. And accusing someone of cowardice who is actually practicing strategic enclosure strategies in order to protect and conserve his life and livelihood and avoid being dismembered by the insatiable, voracious vampires just for the lulz? Hell no.
Another illustration of snakes tempting us via guilt manipulation tactics to accept the apple. Don’t “fall” for it. Accepting the apple was what led to the Fall in the first place. I’m speaking metaphorically and symbolically.
Being reasonable with evil does not necessarily mean what evil hopes it means.
I sincerely hope so. Lol
What “I” mean by refusing to be reasonable with evil is refusing to sympathize with them.
I don’t mean I lack sympathy. I mean I actively choose to refuse to sympathize with them. I refuse to accept their justifications, excuses, rationalizations, arguments, pleas for sympathy, outrage that I refuse to succumb or bend the knee to their demands that I see them as they want me to see them rather than seeing them for what they are. And what they are doing is attempting to hide and mask their true nature within a cloak of being good and virtuous. The ultimate virtue signaling. What they do is attempt to deceive and they want me to agree to be deceived. I refuse.
What do you think evil hopes being reasonable with it means?
Evil thinks being reasonable means to bend to its will, when really it means to mock it, fight it, avoid it, and subdue it.
Oh right. I see your point.
Which is precisely why exorcists and shamans do NOT engage with evil by sitting down to a comfy chat over a nice cup of tea.
In my case, I seem to either refuse to sympathize or to discipline myself to refrain from going off into peels of laughter because — from my point of view — evil is so little but puffs itself up as if I should feel terrified and in awe of its power and super-duper strength and ability to annihilate me.
Result? It resents me for not succumbing yet shrivels up impotently when it can’t dominate me.
Oh well.
Thanks for your clarification.
Exactly.
What's interesting though is that when you observe the directionality of ideas, it is no longer
credentialed experts at institutions -> general population
But instead
Anons -> facefags
(I refuse to be family friendly, this Substack if rated M for imMature)
You regularly see media personalities presenting ideas that were being discussed years before in pseudonymous fora. They pretend to ignore us but really, they work for us. The disseminate our ideas to the normies.
Precisely. They get rich doing it and we don't, but then, they value money and we value changing the world; and in a generation, one wonders who will be remembered more affectionately.
An opening once again, for your brilliant compatriot’s brilliant words 😊
🗨 Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers. ~~Marshall McLuhan
That's been true since they made Socrates choose between exile and hemlock, and probably before.
Now that is a very interesting perspective.
Relying on name status recognition rather than content value sounds similar to flaunting any well known fashion or sports wear attire emblazoned with their logos. May as well rely on Good Housekeeping Seals of approval in order to bypass any questioning of the quality.
Name recognition short circuits a lot of doubt. Who would dare to question those whose names are placed on pedestals?
Thanks for another puzzle piece to the big picture.
"The author of a good book should remain anonymous, for it is to his work, not to himself, that admiration is due." Auden
I vote for pseudonymity, because I'm only interested in your words and ideas and how you present them (no offense).
Also, in my Substack wanderings I enjoy writers like NS Lyons, El Gato Malo, Eugyppius etc and I have no clue if they're male or female or young or old or black or white etc, and could care less.
I consider this a refutation of the Identity Cult and its elevation of the personal characteristics and pet grievances of an author over their individual talent, ability, intelligence, style etc.
Once a book, essay, painting etc exists it has no need of its creator anymore—its creator can be anyone or no one.
No offense taken. In real life I'm profoundly uninteresting, as are most people. Which is why I don't care for Facebook: I really don't care what someone had for dinner.
The author of Beowulf is quite anonymous, which takes away nothing from the power of that work.
there is nothing i enjoy more than a long-dead author...i don't know their thoughts on current controversies, don't read their Tweets, don't have to be disappointed when i see how much of their brain they've outsourced to the Times, don't have to know their thoughts on Trump or the Oscars etc etc...all the noise is gone and all that remains is the music.
(oh, and im also profoundly uninteresting, but I do enjoy your work....cheers!)
Agreed. The only value in knowing who wrote a variety of things is in being able to calibrate trust based on how often they contradict themselves or screw up over time. For example, Paul Krugman contradicts himself frequently based on whatever political hackery needs to be done that day. Not knowing who wrote his various pieces loses the visibility to that perfidy.
Granted, that is a small thing, but it is nice to be able to track a writer such that you can tell whether they are consistent over time or entirely unprincipled.
Correct. Reputation tracking is a valuable function.
Although, Krugman's shit reputation doesn't prevent his credentials from earning him a regular spot in legacy media. Somehow, the fact that he is Paul Fucking Krugman is all he needs. Were his columns published anonymously, his turgid prose, midwit insights, and terrible arguments would be ignored.
My thoughts exactly.
Thank you for so elegantly and eloquently stating them.
Cheers! 🧚♀️
hey thanks!
💬 ...and could care less.
So why won‘t ya [care less]? 😝
"Zorro: Unmasked" would be a three-minute movie.
Spoilers: That's about how long it takes to properly hang a man.
Your substack has been a joy to read. There are many writers on here that I really enjoy, but whenever you or Chris Bray (Tell Me How This Ends) publish something new, I pretty much always drop what I'm doing or rearrange my schedule to read it ASAP -- and it's always time well spent!
It's not just that what you (and Chris) say is interesting and insightful, although it always is -- indeed, much more insightful and interesting than anything I'm capable of writing -- but the real value of your work is this: you are both voices of reason in a world gone completely insane. Call it a red-pill moment or whatever, at some point in life I realized that practically every sense-making institution in my culture has been completely corrupted by a nonstop smoke-and-mirrors psyops campaign. I don't understand who's behind it or what their agenda is, although I do have my suspicions, but a memetic war has been actively waged against Truth and Reason for longer than I've been alive, to the point that even the agents of this psyops have been driven criminally insane by their own psychological weapons. And it's not just that so many cultural norms are based on obviously absurd fictions, but so many of these norms are diametrically opposed to human nature. We're being poisoned, in some cases literally, yet told that the toxins are actually medically necessary, and we're threatened with cancellation if we even ask questions too loudly. In the midst of this dehumanizing cultural wasteland, the quest to develop and come to terms with one's own humanity seems a lonely, treacherous, and even impossible task, given the limits of human knowledge and the even greater limits of what one solitary individual can learn in a single lifetime. So when you encounter someone who's daring to make a similar journey, especially someone who freely shares their greater insights and wisdom, and especially when that person writes as well as Chris Bray and you write on your respective substacks, that encounter is balm for the soul, like a cold bottle of water to one dying of thirst.
As to writing pseudonymously, I'm sure all of us who question the regime on here will eventually be outed IRL. I think it is a risk worth taking. I think there are many more of us than them, and our numbers are growing daily, especially as the regime tips its hand with bad strategies and botched execution and arrogant overreach. As you wrote in your series on the hydra, the smart and competent people are increasingly falling out of favor with the regime, as it demands unblinking fealty to an idiotic ideology and unapologetically chooses its leadership based on DEI tokenism. Truth and Reason are on our side by default, as the regime has effectively declared war on them. Our side is strong and getting stronger. Big changes are no doubt coming, and with them, real reversals of fortune and wild opportunities. The regime's threats will matter less and less, until it is no more than a toothless, terminally ill paper tiger. For those who make it through the coming troubles without betraying their values, I think a bright and rewarding future awaits.
Your long term prognosis is exactly on point. As the regime squeezes out ability in favor of blind obedience, it will be left supported only by fools, while those calling the shots are increasingly trapped in their own hall of mirrors and unable to make tactically sound decisions. Their own methods will be their downfall. But there's a lot of ruin in a nation....
One thing that helps my morale - and one does not need to believe this, obviously - is the doctrine of metempsychosis. This isn't our first rodeo (well, it might be ... for some), and moreover, we aren't here by accident. We incarnated at this time because we chose to; likely specifically because the challenges it presents would test us. I'm agnostic as to its literal truth, but simply considering the implications of an idea can yield much of its benefit.
Metempsychosis and similar ideas are fascinating. Like you, I'm agnostic about its literal truth, and there may be no way to prove or falsify it from a strictly human point of view, but like certain myths and dreams, the concept of metempsychosis itself does seem to point to something real.
I also like the idea that we may have chosen to incarnate at this time and place, or that we maybe accepted that we needed to be here for this historical moment -- maybe in the same way that a regular infantryman might choose to go to Ranger school, not because he would enjoy it for its own sake, but because he believes it is an irreplaceable ingredient in becoming the person he wants to be.
Also wild to consider: the Gnostic idea of most people being Hylics (aka, NPCs). Sometimes -- okay, much of the time, I hear people talk, and I really wonder, what if they seem so shallow and empty because there's actually nothing there? Shit, for all I know, there may be only a relatively small number of us who participate in whatever the base reality is. Maybe we're plugged into some VR training system because the base reality is a world where the problems needed for real growth and character development simply do not exist, so we have to use a VR experience to have the experience of overcoming adversity. Or maybe not. But it is interesting to note that the religious view of our world from Christianity is essentially that it is a simulation, with the spirit realm being the base reality. Whatever this is, I feel certain there's a base reality from which the paradoxes of our world are seamlessly resolved, and towards which our best myths and stories point.
Military deployment is exactly how I look at it. Soldiers for eternity.
NPCs are 100% a contemporary expression of a perennial doctrine - hylics, organic portals, etc. I believe this is true. There are people for whom there is no one home. Ditto simulation hypothesis, which is just maya all over again, only expressed in computer game language. As ever we describe reality in the language of available technology.
Well put, and congratulations on 1000 subs! Your DIE articles are what won me over, and I'd say earned you 2000 eye balls right there.
And keep the mask if it pleases you; ideas and arguments are far more important on their own than by who made them, and so long as you keep the same name we can tell if you start going to the dark side. That's all we really need unless you decide to run for Congress or something, and I would happily write in "John Carter" in any case. Hell... I might just anyway.
Congress pfft I will accept nothing less than Supreme Overlord of the Education and Science Directorate.
I actually meant to use the DIEing Academy series as more of an extended intro to motivate an exploration of ways to solve the problem, predominantly by moving scholarship and science outside of the academy. Which, I've sort of touched on, but not to the degree I'd intended. ADHD is a bitch.
John, the question of authorial self-presentation has so many answers that it is impossible for anyone to exhaust the topic. The re-emergence of pseudonymous and anonymous publication is creating a world that Michel Foucault would have embraced with enthusiasm. In an interview Foucault once proposed a game: that for a full year no book should be published using the author's name. Foucault anticipated that authors would probably wait until the year had expired before publishing. And he once famously wrote: "I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to the bureaucrats to see that our papers are in order."
Your handle and the title of the newsletter are perfect: they advertise your condition as a frustrated North American feeling unaccommodated in the condition in which you find yourself. So far you have done a pretty good job concealing the details that would put you at risk.
My advice is that the longer you write, the greater the risk of doxing, so consider reviewing your writing/editorial practices on a regular basis and perhaps think of how to develop best practice. If you can, get advice from those close and listen to them carefully, even if you do not decide to accept their advice. And have something like a half-developed plan on what to do if you are doxed.
Honestly, my plan is basically shrugging, saying, ahhh you caught me, and if asked to recant, snorting "I regret nothing!"
I'm not actually terribly worried. My paranoia level as compared to say, three or four years ago is a lot lower. The prevailing winds of social psychology are pointing in the direction of widespread exhaustion with the nagging church ladies of Woke, and while we probably haven't reached the peak of the storm (and may only be in its eye), the pushback they're getting is already becoming substantial.
Even in real life, when not dealing with some sort of officials, I've always used a sort of pseudonym first name.
since I share first names with my male birth parent, it's always been easier to use half of my middle name instead, then it became habit.
when I'm dealing with paperwork related things, it's the legal first name.
this makes it really easy to tell if an incoming interaction is friendly or official by the first name used.
social media, including substack, gets a full on pseudonym.
I typically speak my mind in most any real life situation short of court, cops, or potential employment, and fairly freely on social media... but social media has too many Agent Smiths and aggressive types for me to want to expose my real identity. I'm way too mouthy about politically incorrect and prohibited topics.
I'm pretty blunt in person, too. Especially when the night reaches the fourth whiskey soda. No one who knows me well personally doesn't know the broad outlines of my views.
You dare pollute the sacred Uisge Beath with the devil's caffeinated sugar-piss?!!
UNSUBSCRIBED!
Caffeine? Whiskey soda is whiskey and club soda.
And no one would waste a fine single malt on such a cocktail. Sacrilege indeed. Only the basest and most plebeian of blended American whiskeys will do
Okay, re-subscribed. Begrudgingly. Even I must confess to mixing swill like Cutty Sark with a bit of the ol' H-20,, back in my callow days.
Still... thy ungodly thirst for bubbles confounds me, John Carter. Must be a Martian thing.
The additional CO2 is necessary to adjust to the strange atmospheric balance here.
Okay, I have been putting this off, but does Dejah have a sister? Asking for a friend. 👍
Only a sister in law, but she's got cousins.
Fair warning: your kid will be hatched in an egg. Weird customs in the Old World.
What you and Winston write shows you both to be absolute paragons. How are people to follow your lead if they don't know who you are? The idea that someone like you would lose your job because of your clear and obvious excellence is an affront to the natural order. If this were to happen, it would make you a great hero in the culture war and expand your power and influence to affect the cultural shift away from wokeism and fear towards the human singularity. To fully leverage our asymmetric advantage in building genuine connection faces must be shown. Do you really believe that you couldn't make it at this point after getting 1000 subscribers in a few months that if you got fired and started writing science fiction novels full time? There are people that have such a degree of competence that they still can't be controlled. You and Winston unmasking would send a very powerful message and have significant impact in showing that you are such people. Of course there is downside risk, but safety last, no? Since you're talking of tactics and strategy, consider if you were able to inspire other academics to follow in your footsteps. This would create a huge dilemma for the enemy. In such a circumstance the only academics to come forward and speak their minds would be only those who had the confidence that they could do so without support from the system. The most competent. This would indict academia for what it has become, a mental prison destined to shackle all but the most brilliant and competent minds in nominal service of the cathedral. I believe that if you are speaking your mind in good faith, then all attacks upon you further discredit the enemy advance us ever closer to cultural dominance of the hydra. The joy to be had from connecting with the brilliant people that are engaged in this spiritual war is incredible. Just like in the covid context, the mask fucks that all up. I don't think you or Winston are cowards, I just think you're missing out on something beautiful that has to be experienced to be believed and I fucking hate it. I suppose I'm just outraged at the injustice. The woke should be the ones afraid to speak their minds in a culture dominated by commitment to free and open dialogue, not you and Winston. The idea of "cancellation" being acceptable should be the lowest of low-status positions. It can happen if people like you lead the way.
Appreciate the sentiment, man. I'll probably unmask at some point; but today is not that day. Partly I'm just enjoying it. Partly, I haven't fully given up on a professional career. It's not that I'm worried about losing my job; there's a hard stop on that in the near future. It's finding another one that's the issue; THEN I get to be worried about losing it.
All that said. The feedback I've gotten here, and the growth this project has experienced, is really encouraging in terms of the plausibility of supporting myself as in independent writer in the long run, and your comment certainly reinforces that.
I appreciate this comment, if only for this bit.
"The woke should be the ones afraid to speak their minds in a culture dominated by commitment to free and open dialogue, not you and Winston."
However, I think the time for unmasking -- for the end of subterfuge and general ninjutsu -- is not at hand. I'm no academic. I'm a mere freelance contractor, a hireling at the mercy of vast corporate entitites, which are themselves at the mercy of intangible waves that emanate ceaselessly from a chialistic religious cult of insane children. This cult openly eschews debate, and pursues mad ends for evil reasons (or vice versa). The whole apparatus is uniquely dangerous, and I for one would much prefer us to be victors rather than martyrs. If John must be Batman for a little while longer, let him be Batman. Let us all be Batmen, or midnight sappers, or ninjas. Leviathan possesses many advantages against sailors, less so against submarines.
Guerrilla warfare is the Achilles heel of every hated occupation.
On the bright side, censorship makes it very easy to prioritise one's reading. In the old days many people used to get a copy of the Vatican's Index of Prohibited books and work their way through it. The emergence of samizdat across the West reveals the character of the regime better than any single critic. It is fortifying the intellectual quality of dissenting opinion and further developing decentralised alternatives to the cathedral's compliant infotainment industry. Censorship deprives the cathedral of the best insights from the best minds and diverts these into dissident fora. This is a win for us.
On a rarefied level, censorship is forcing serious people to re-engage with basics about epistemology, authority, intellectual processes about inquiry and expression. This is will help renew the intellectual life of the West outside of official institutions.
Agree 100%, one of the first articles I wrote on substack touched on this. I realized that just reading a bunch of substack articles for entertainment over the course of a few months I had become ridiculously well informed. I think the first place I saw this explicitly articulated was Eugyppius. The highest quality information is being market selected on the few platforms that don't censor. Another asymmetric advantage for team hydra. https://grantesmith.substack.com/p/why-substack
Agreed. The benefits extend far beyond mere information. As the number of people who have developed their powers of inquiry and analysis outside of the system grows, they will become more disruptive across the entire spectrum of activities. The contrast between those that have swallowed the blue pill and shut down and those that have not will widen. Differentiation will demonstrate the inherent value of thinking for oneself (the vaccination-related toll of injuries and premature death already shows this). The costs and difficulties involved in managing this disruptive element should prove significant. At least that is my hope.
getting inside the enemy's decision cycle by creating multiple dilemmas. Observe, orient, decide, act.
It's always been clear from the tech end of things that true anonymity is perfectly impossible. The intel agencies have always monitored everything, and always know who's who. So the remaining variable is difficulty of search for ordinary people who don't own the clouds and nodes.
But the most important variable is just the proportion of fish / pond. For small fish, it's better to use the big ponds like FB and Twitter. Using a small well-lighted pond like Gab guarantees that the intel operatives are watching you closely.
Absolutely. Hiding from Intel is basically impossible. It's more a matter of hiding from the casual observer.
I only use my official legal name for legal documents — banking & taxes.
Initially, because I never resonated with my given birth name.
Subsequently, because at different times during my sojourn through life, I simply enjoy adopting various names that more accurately match my different affinities towards various inner aspects of my personality traits.
When I wore my hair extremely long, and dressed in ankle-length flowing dresses, one name suited that version of art. A three syllable name that was elegant and flowy.
When I cut my hair short and switched to short skirts, another name seemed more suitable. A one syllable name that was cute and sassy.
One of my friends altered the name I was using at that time and since I liked her version better than my own, I switched my nsme to her version. Why not? I could, so I did.
Changing names is akin to changing my wardrobe styles. I’m unattached to any of my names so some of my friends call me one name and others call me a different name. And my family members call me by a third name. More fun for me. Lol
If people choose to use pseudonyms or made up names online hurray for them.
If they choose to use their legal names online then yay for them.
If it isn’t obvious by now that there’s a cancel culture war against all those who deviate from the officially approved narratives being promoted and rammed down our deviant throats, time to open one’s eyes and ears, non?
Predators are extremely skilled at manipulating their prey into acting in ways and adopting behavior that is to their advantage and to the prey’s disadvantage.
One way is to present what they consider convincing arguments in favor of choosing behavior that makes us more vulnerable to these vampires.
Arguing that GMO & glyphosate are healthy for us falls into the same pit of specious reasoning as arguing in favor of outing oneself on the public chopping block before that same public outs you first. Suiciding oneself as if that is an act of courage rather than an act of stupidity in order to avoid being murdered is the height of conversive thinking.
Another form of Transmarginal Inhibition tactics imo. Attempting to weaken the strong in order to break their spirit.
Fie and bah humbug on that.
I wish I had the confidence to fluidly change my name in public in that fashion. Hat's off.
And yeah, it's all the same to me if someone uses their 'true' name or not online. I find it's generally a subset of true-name people - and not a majority, I hasten to add - who make an issue of pseudonymous authorship. Pseuds and Anons don't really care.
Laughing out loud at that.
As for changing your own public name as breezily as I do — we’re dealing with apples and oranges imo.
You are in an entirely different situation than I am.
It would be considered beyond strange if you did so. Change your name I mean.
In my own case, I have much more freedom to not only to do strange things like change my name, people, including strangers seem to just accept that I do weird and strange things. They almost expect it. It’s not even a thing. And they’re not even surprised. It’s like the Sun rises in the East.
It could just be because I actually enjoy and get a kick out of being me and I frankly don’t seek or need people to like me or approve of my choices. And since my choices aren’t harming anyone else or myself, why not choose to have phun?
I hadn’t considered it before, but now you’ve made me aware that it’s actually a luxury to have the freedom to be more outrageously silly than most people can be.
If you are a professional in any field, you have a reputation to uphold out of courtesy to your fellow professionals. Goes with the territory. There are certain boundaries you’re honor bound to observe in order to be considered a bonafide member of a certain class. It’s the honorable and courteous thing to do in that situation. So why not have fun doing just that?
If our situations were reversed, I’d feel just as happy to accept and honor those boundaries.
I can't think of any other pseudonym that would fit you better. Edgar Rice Burroughs would be proud of the choice as Tarzan just wouldn't fit or go with the fantastic artwork as well!!! Linking your thoughts tomorrow @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Thanks bro!
Not to come off as pedantic or anything, but Bakhtin corrected Saussure by showing that the identities of sender and receiver, along with context (including identites of all participants in contextual discourse) IS the message, or a big part of it anyway. Anonymous communication, if such a thing even exists, is severely impoverished. And people who have skin in the game are more attention-worthy than those who don't (read Taleb for details). So the rule of thumb is: If you want to be taken seriously, use your real name unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason not to.
Did those writing the Federalist Papers have skin in the game? Or those writing pamphlets against the king in the pre-Revolutionary era?
Sure. In pseudonymous subversive/dissident writings the amount of skin is "price you'll pay (or, less likely, gain) if exposed" times "odds you'll be exposed."
That sounds more like a theoretical formulation than an own, tbh.
I dunno; I think I'd agree with John on this. On these stacks, I'm here for the intellectual exchange. The writer's pseudonym and the icon give all the identity I need. If I have no plans to come around to interact with you in the flesh, then I don't need to know your real name, face, or address, and if your nom de plume is more interesting than your legal name, then I don't even want to. A pseudonymous poster with a deep mind is much more attention-worthy to me than an onymous one who can only offer banalities.
Just give me your riveting thoughts, and I don't care if you're really a dog. :)
I, for one, have a deep appreciation for the earthy wisdom of dogs.
Actually, Kevin, would you mind giving a quick summary of Bakhtin's argument, and Taleb's? I'm not familiar with either one of them, or these particular demonstrations.
Same. I'm also curious.
Nassim Taleb wrote Black Swan, which discusses the financial crisis of 2008 - 2009 and how Black Swans (difficult to predict events) must be considered. He also wrote Skin In The Game and Antifragile - both of which I would highly recommend. I would say that today’s Woke population is exactly the opposite of Antifragile - with that being said, rub some dirt on it and get back in the game!
Sorry, that's above my pay grade in this comment section. But they're both well-known and you can easily find reviews, Wikipedia on Bakhtin, etc.
Impoverished? Surely that would depend on the author's purposes. If an author writes to seek recognition, either anonymity or pseudonymity frustrates that purpose. However, an author who seeks to exercise their mind by formalising their views in writing and then seeks feedback does not necessarily seek or need recognition at all. Furthermore, there are those who seek a voice, to intervene in the disputes of their day, but who have no need beyond making that intervention.
Also, the valuation of ideas by association with their author's name disgusts some. Ignazio Silone famously chose his pseudonym precisely because his name (Secondino Tranquilli) was so beautiful he thought that he would run the risk of unearned attention if he used it. Silone/Tranquilli wanted his work appreciated for nothing other than what it was. This position offers an invaluable rebuke to the stupidity of intellectual and literary fashion. Michel Foucault was famously fed up with the infantile obsession that the French intellectual world had with public intellectuals, most of whom were preposterous and dishonest (Sartre and Beauvoir). A similar obsession with public intellectuals has long plagued North America and has cheapened and coarsened its intellectual and academic life.
As for anything being attention-worthy, that depends on what has been written. The intrinsic merit of a text does not depend upon its author, but on its content, as well as on its style and its relationship to other texts and the world as a whole. The whole idea of the value or credibility of a text being wedded to the public identity of its author recalls pre-modern ideas of authority, which in turn derive ultimately from the distant past when texts established their value by claiming a revealed or inspired origin.
Concerning the issue of being taken seriously, readers worth having should have the intelligence to engage and appreciate ideas even when they are not being presented seriously. That is the whole point of serio-comic literature, which has played such an extraordinary role in the intellectual life of our culture and its antecedents from ancient times. The dissident/dissenting literature now emerging draws much of its vitality from being playful. The powers that be are so invested in the authority that they think they enjoy that they are at a disadvantage when confronted by something, anything, that does not conform to their dreary preferred house-styles. We should leave those powers to enjoy their pretended seriousness, their euphemisms, evasions and pretensions....these all reek of dishonesty and speak of decadence. We have a world to enjoy.
>suffering no consequences because he says nothing of any worth.
This is the case for the overwhelming majority of facefags. Not all - there are some exceptions out there, who say very interesting things under their real names. It's rare, though. They're usually the types that don't give a shit about being 'taken seriously', at least by anyone operating inside the regime institutions.
I suspect that many of those who don't give a shit have a trust fund.
TIL I'm a facefag lol. I think the desire to be taken seriously for your thoughts alone is confined to the pure intellectual. For anyone who has a trade or skill that produces measurable real-world results, associating ego with that particular competence allows one to "shrug off" concerns that positions on philosophical matters might be considered ridiculous. Come to think of it, there are a lot of other things that you can ground your ego on that can insulate you from this pressure. Supporting a family is another that comes to mind. I think physical size might also play a role. I've noticed that Owen Benjamin seems to have no issue with 99% of people thinking he is bat-shit insane, and has expressed that his commitment to family, God, and his height all play a role in his willingness to be a heterodox facefag. Of course, financial independence, as you've noted, is another example.
Financial independence is a huge, perhaps dominant, factor in the willingness to publicly defy the herd. When Americans were generally independent farmers, entrepreneurs, and small business owners, they were far more outspoken. Now that most exist at the sufferance of impersonal bureaucracies, they've become more cautious and conformist - at least in public.
You see this in fashion, too. The only outrageous street fashions you see are trannies, who have regime sanction. Blue hair is a hall monitor sash. For the rest, they try to blend in. Observe the way kids dress - the weird subcultures of the 80s and 90s are dead. The kids instinctively understand that they're in a reeducation camp, and therefore adopt the gray man strategy.
Any serious dissenting politics requires rebuilding the material capacity for independence: maximising opportunities for individual savings and investment, promoting small and medium business, fostering employee co-ownership, encouraging the development of trade skills. Dependence is the petri dish of servility of all kinds. The extraordinary thing is that this reaches upwards now too. Historically the privileged classes (land-owners and industrialists) prided themselves on their independence; nowadays they too relish ideological conformism. This is probably due to the fact that the professional and managerial classes rely on networking and peer-recognition quite heavily, while the wealthy are keenly aware of the fusion of public and private power and so are unwilling to rock the boat. The professions (once defined by the practice of independent judgement) are now heavily regulated. policed and supervised. Medical drs now are very plebeianised: a friend who is a retired physician relates extraordinary stuff about drs, especially young ones, who are now bullied by managers and over-supervised in a way that would never have been tolerated a few years back.
Great point about fashion. The presentation of the self (especially amongst the young) is about ego ideals, individuation and self-expression. The fact that kids are shutting down fashion-wise is probably connected with the fall in testosterone levels amongst males, the sky high rates of anxiety disorders amongst girls...it reveals a widespread disruption in sexuality, fertility and ego-formation. It is one more sign that something is very wrong.
You are onto something. Establishing an identity between the ego and one's ideas comes naturally. Disciplined thinking teaches us to separate the two, but people craving emotional validation through the affirmation of their ideas by others will always prize being taken seriously for their thoughts alone. This can lead to all sorts of trouble, especially now that many people do not have a stable grounding in fixed social roles (families above all). The fluidity and fragility of contemporary life drives people to seek affirmation wherever they can find it. Not a happy situation.
I also think that part of the problem is that too few people understand or are comfortable with ideas/abstractions. Historically, only a tiny number of people ever got overly absorbed in intellectual matters of any kind. Now vast numbers are online all the time, consuming information, forming opinions and the psychic effort required to process it all is destabilising people on an emotional level. Living inside one's own head is difficult for the best of us, unhealthy for most, dangerous for many.
>Now vast numbers are online all the time, consuming information, forming opinions and the psychic effort required to process it all is destabilising people on an emotional level. Living inside one's own head is difficult for the best of us, unhealthy for most, dangerous for many.
Very often, this leads to conflict. Arguments start because people are attacking the hologram in their head, a superposition of electronic stereotypes generated by their favored echo chambers, triggered by the use of a word or a choice of fashion. They're not seeing the person in front of them.
It doesn't help that many people seem to actively try to conform to that hallucination.
In spite of my last comment not accounting for it at all, I realize that I've noticed some people seem to think that they can be virtuous because of what they believe. Basking in unearned virtue is a great way to ensure you'll never develop any significant skill. Why work hard when you can be a good person by simply believing and saying the "right" things.
John, congrats on hitting the 1,000 subscriber mark - I greatly enjoy your witty observations of our anti-reason, anti-free speech, intolerant, lovers-of-all-things-not-human world. The problem has been identified, and it’s fun to criticize the source of the problem, but now is the time to propose solutions. Without a clear vision of the future a “revolution” will end like the French Revolution, with guillotines for all.
Thank you, although a bit late ... I'm well beyond 1k subscribers, now ;)
Samuel L. Clemens used Mark Twain to write for many of the same excellent reasons you posit.
There is a corner of this 1984 world to pause, think, and learn how to deal with it.
The threat matrix of manmade and natural disasters can be learned and mastered.
The skills learned there can help you blunt the impact of the current evil demons on you and your family so you have a happier, more family friendly, holy life.
Here is the primer to begin learning how.
https://tacda.org/
I just restacked one of your articles and comment “the comments are almost as good as the writing”. I’m glad you see that as well. Well done sir. I thoroughly enjoy this shit show!