Counter-Currents
1,425 words
I’ve been accused of trying to offend people ever since I started writing, and it never rang true to me. Hurting other people’s feelings is not my motivation; discovering the truth, no matter how unpalatable it may be, is what drives my writing. I understand that some people will get offended, but I don’t understand why. Whether or not they get upset is incidental. It’s also entirely their choice.
This is why, about a dozen years ago, I needed someone a wee bit younger than me to explain the concept of “trolling,” because it was something I couldn’t comprehend.
Perhaps it’s because I come from an era where people predominantly interacted in person rather than digitally, where people could see — and punch — the face from which the words issued, an era where your words were backed up by your identity and your willingness to bang fists to defend them, an era where no one hid behind black glass screens to endlessly poke at people, that I simply couldn’t process the level of emptiness, sadness, and dishonor required to get pleasure out of anonymously annoying others.
Before anyone starts yipping at me about why anonymity is required in the current climate, spare me. I’ve heard all of the arguments before, and I’ve swatted them down with ease.
I’ve seen the defenders of anonymity say that the Founding Fathers used surnames. Sure, if you’re trying to topple the power structure, there’s an argument for hiding your identity, but I don’t see many of the Huddled Legions of Anonymity sharing nuclear secrets or attempting to reveal exactly what the CIA’s budget is and what they do with it. And I don’t recall Alexander Hamilton using a pseudonym to write, “The King’s wife has herpes LOL.” There’s a huge difference between a whistleblower and a crank-yanker, and nearly all of the anons fall into the latter category.
There’s also the tired “I have bills to pay” argument. Yeah, so do I. There’s hardly one day a month, including weekends, where I’m not working to pay my bills. Neither that, nor imprisonment, nor endless public scorn ever made me hide behind a screen name, though.
But if having bills to pay is more important to you than actually changing the world — if that’s what you’re pretending to do by endlessly chattering about politics — just admit you’d rather be comfortable than change the world and are fine with the status quo so long as you don’t experience any discomfort, because that’s exactly what you’re signaling by remaining anonymous. Simply concede that your temporal personal comfort is more important than changing the world in the long run. At least that way, you aren’t full of shit.
Be as anonymous as you want. But realize that by doing so, you relinquish the right to complain about “cancel culture,” because you’re enabling it. You also surrender the right to refer to people who don’t cloak their identity as cowards. It makes me strongly suspect that you want other people, the ones on the front lines who aren’t hiding, to take bullets before you become bold enough to peep out of your foxhole.
Now that I’ve swatted down that pesky fly, my main subject isn’t people who conceal their identity to avoid the negative effects of expressing opinions that may lead to unfortunate social circumstances because, y’know, comfort and social approval are more important than fixing what’s wrong with the world, no matter how many hours they waste per day bitching about what’s wrong with the world.
My main subject is the troll: the person whose life is such a gaping vagina of emptiness that their only pleasure comes from constantly trying to annoy people and then acting as if it’s some kind of moral and rhetorical triumph when people get annoyed at them.
Brazilians have a term for this type — pombos enxadistras (“chess-player pigeons”) — and an accompanying adage: “Arguing with so-and-so is the same as playing chess with a pigeon: It defecates on the table, drops the pieces, and simply flies off, claiming victory.”
A decade after learning about what a “troll” is, it’s still impossible for me to understand the thinking of someone who anonymously tries to annoy people, then counts it as a victory when they get annoyed. I’ve been through some hard times, but that’s a level of sadness I will never be able to fathom.
No one who is remotely happy, who is within 10,000 galaxies of happiness, does such things. In my loneliest moments, I’ve never needed attention so badly that I’d lash out into the darkness seeking negative attention from someone I’ll never meet and who has no idea who I am.
If you lose respect for someone merely because they turned around and paid attention to you, what are you saying about yourself?
From what I can tell, growing up online has not proved to be a character-builder for today’s young’uns. If anything, it has made them vastly more dishonorable than all preceding generations. I was already into my thirties before I ever so much as used a dial-up modem, but after more than a quarter-century of being online, I still can’t quite untangle the paradox of people simultaneously being more connected and more alienated than ever. The internet has served to nurture and amplify behavior that is simultaneously cowardly and sadistic because I don’t think the human brain is ready for this sort of almost-but-not-quite-real interaction with others. Online culture has only served to turn weaklings into bullies.
Well‚ cowardly bullies, which are a whole different breed. Bullies who never risk being hit back. The main problem with anonymity is the degree to which it allows people to harass others without repercussions.
At Oregon State Penitentiary — which, I can assure you, is a much more authentic environment than any chat room you’ll find online — we inhabited tiny cramped cells in five-tier cellblocks. The bottom tier was occupied by those in protective custody: the child molesters, snitches, and high-profile media cases who’d likely be shanked the moment they were released into the general population. And boy, did they spend all day and night taunting those on the tiers directly above them who had no ability to strangle them. That’s when I first heard the term “cell warrior.”
It was years later that I first heard the term “keyboard warrior” and realized to my horror that there was a life form even lower than the cell warrior.
“Oh, can’t take the bullying?” scoffs the person who can’t even handle their own identity being revealed. Talk about being able to dish it out and not take it! Who’s actually the fragile one if they can’t even bear their identity being known without fleeing for the exit with their hands covering their face?
To date, the most glorious example of a living human being taking vengeance against an anonymous troll is that of British boxer Curtis Woodhouse, who’d been taunted for months by a Twitter user who called himself “Jimmyob88.” Then one night after losing his English light-welterweight title — and being called a “disgrace” by his tormenter — he asked for assistance from his followers to find exactly where “Jimmyob88” lived. They helped him get all the way to the troll’s street, where he posted a picture of a street sign proving he’d found out where he lived, and Tweeted, “Right Jimbob im here. . . . Someone tell me what number he lives at or do I have to knock on every door #itsshowtime.”
Suddenly, Jimmyob88 was back in the real world. He quickly tweeted, “I am sorry it’s getting a bit out of hand. I am in the wrong. I accept that.” Woodhouse laughed and drove back home.
It’s astounding how much more respectfully people act when there are consequences for their behavior.
And it’s crucial to realize there’s a difference between words and behavior. Trolls hardly ever discuss ideas, which appears to be the purpose of the First Amendment; they simply hide behind a mask to insult people. But if someone blocks them on social media or bans them from a message board, they’ll whine about censorship all while reserving the right to censor their own name.
Cloak your sadistic little cowardly self all you want in the First Amendment, but what about the freedom to see who’s speaking — to face your accuser? That’s in the Sixth Amendment: “the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” but it only applies to criminal prosecutions.
I think it should apply to everything.
Either that, or bring back dueling.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
80 comments
Does the editor have anything to say on this subject?
I ask since one of the instructions to people wanting to sign up for the paywall is to give their “Desired username (this should not be your real name)”.
Presumably, you’re not using your counter-currents paywall privileges for trolling.
Wait…. we’re NOT supposed to do that?
Regardless of intent, this is a valid question, though repeated comments about respecting others’ respective levels of exposure would suggest GJ is not in lockstep with JG on this one.
Indeed we saw what happened to that Tucker Carlson writer.
Yep, trolls are annoying trash and misuse anonymity. Still, I prefer that anonymity be available to allow nontrolls the capability to communicate without making it easy for govt or sjw swarms to harm them out of hand. Knowing others hold similar views, even if they are anonymous, is heartening. We are social critters after all. Most of us, anyway.
I assume Jim is sincere. His writing over time indicates that he is a bit atypical in the noggin, lacking some of the social software most are born with. Jim wouldnt be jim otherwise, but it does occlude his understanding of more typical folks’ concerns that lead them to anonymity. I am sure his comfort critique is correct in some cases. Still, making oneself a martyr is counterproductive when raising a family. Martyrdom is not something chosen by one’s children and martyrdom makes raising children who hold decent values much more difficult.
If my roommates even had an inkling I’m posting on a (heaven forbid!) White Nationalist site, I would be even more ostracized than I am now! I only stay in this household because neither of us can afford a decent living space in Southern California without combining our rent money. We do our best to keep our snarky comments under the level of outright war.
I’m sure you have good reasons for staying, but as a rule, places where people choose to live on yachts because it’s cheaper than buying a condo aren’t great retirement locales for the 99.9%.
Omg, I LOVE trolling! Few things give me more pleasure than to walk into a chat room of angry dissidents and extoll the prowess of black muscle or Jewish IQ to dissident howls of rage and anguish, which I drink up in sadistic glee! But of late I’ve left off trolling because of one greater, much as Walter Scott gave up poetry because of lord Byron. Tiny Duck is the greatest troll ever. HE is an artistic genius. The way how he distills the leftist position down to its bare essence and throws it out their like a cold fish, Hemingway-like and smug, can’t be matched.
Seriously, I don’t understand how things people say on the internet upset some people so much. I know this guy, for example, who plays the massive online video games and gets uncontrollably upset at the little put downs and jibes these peri pubescent boys like to throw around. This is a middle aged man. He will actually contact the company and go through steps to get them reprimanded. Actually invest his time like that! I find trash talk and such amusing, adds some spice to it. I can’t imagine how small minded someone would have to be to get so exercised about something teenage boys said online to get up and “do something” about it.
But of late I’ve left off trolling because of one greater, much as Walter Scott gave up poetry because of lord Byron. Tiny Duck is the greatest troll ever. HE is an artistic genius.
You were typing too fast. (The “U” is right next to the “I” on the keyboard.) You must’ve meant “Tiny Dick”.
Does Steve Sailer know who Tiny Duck is? That’s the question.
There not their!
I think that “I ain’t doxxing myself, but I ain’t hiding either” is a respectable position to have on the anonymity question.
Obviously not wanting to broadcast your real identity to random strangers on the internet, especially when discussing heretical ideas is reasonable.
But being ready and willing to backup whatever you say online on the personal, professional or legal level is a good rule to live by. It helps if you make yourself as anti-fragile as possible.
Jim raises some key points, to which I’d add that for younger generations of males raised on the internet, anonymity and trolling is what they know. It is a generation gap, and a bad one. If Jim has balls and force of personality, we must accept that others do not. While some anonymity is necessary and prudent (i.e. not getting needlessly fired from a not easily replaceable job), it can’t be permanently relied on for lack of courage. Admittedly, many people are scared, deformed, and lacking in manly virtues. If this is the sad state of play, we must deal with what we’ve got. In practical terms, re-socializing someone over the internet is probably a non-starter. But we can still keep chats and forums well-pruned and set positive examples by our own behavior.
Jim is correct in the operative word: sad. Even if one restricts trolling to political enemies, it generally produces little to no tangible real-world progress. Our platforms should be about the exchanging of ideas, honest debate, and supporting one another; not mindless and empty trouble-making. There’s just no time for that.
Well said
Speaking of Tiny Duck, who I’m sure is a rightwinger who has perfected Leftist talking points: I’m not sure if he counts as “troll” exactly but back during the “Mortgage Crisis” the Housing Panic blog was haunted by a chap calling himself Andrew Hac, who posted wonderfully surrealistic rants about Bush and Cheney (“Dubya Shrub + Penis Shooter = “Little Boy” + “Fat Man””), fat Americans and the collapse of the debt economy and the rise of China, with recurring passages like this:
“The Americano is a skewered and roasting snapping turtle. He bastes in his own fatty juices. Hear the sizzle as they hit the hot glowing embers which rest below his belly.
“The fat spittles and sizzles on the glowing embers as the turtle slowly roasts in his own juices, slowly turning, slowly basting in warm salty brine until he can be popped out of his charred shell and eaten from a stick.”
Much more creative than “You guys are toast.”
“Heeeee… Haaaaa… Arrrrr…
“So, tell me, does the average Americano take it enough in the rear orifice yet by the forceful penetration of “Little Boy” + “Fat Man”, or do you want more “Enter The Dragon” ?
“Americano = Being Entered By The Dragon up the Kazook
“Heeeee… Haaaaa… Arrrrr…
“And all of you retards, ass-head that voted for SHRUB and worshipped his ASS over the last 8 years, guess what, the chicken are coming home to roost on your head-ass. The ancient snapper turtle probably have more brain cell than you and your children combined together. Are you sorry yet ? Do you feel ashamed and stupid about your shallow thinking, narrow-minded love and swoon for DUBYA ? Do you, do you, do you ???”
Eventually they devoted a thread to speculations on who Hac was, and what his point was.
https://housingpanic.blogspot.com/2008/03/housingpanic-stupid-question-of-day_19.html
Too bad he never returned for the Trump years, that would have been epic.
I still think tiny is better. Obviously yeah or he wouldn’t use that name. It’s his restraint, it’s in what he doesn’t say. A comic genius in my book!
Mr. Goad,
You appreciate value of the opportunity for getting punched in the face. If I was as funny as you are, I might empathize. I don’t.
Canada’s parliament has tabled a bill which would allow anonymous offendees to extract direct payment of up to $20,000 per offense. The complaints will be arbitrated by SJWs who will consider discrimination on “sexual expression”.
You have physical courage, but even you might think twice when you have to pay lesbians for each sly allusion to blue hair.
I see no reason to deny people the opportunity to poke fun. You’re getting paid to do it. In Canada, people will be getting paid to get offended. I’d say that counts as a little more than “discomfort”.
By the way, we won’t have a right to face our accusers.
As for enabling cancel culture, a core problem with cancel culture is that it is a weapon to transpose comments from a context where a comment is appropriate to one where it is not.
Having the courage to stand up openly is laudable, but Cancel culture has no trouble whatsoever destroying people’s livelihoods when they go by their own name. I’m not sure how making it harder to doxx people for legal and professional harassment enables it.
You raise a very valid point. The bar for “hate speech”(which can be as mild as unintentionally hurting the feelings of someone who is intent on being offended) has never been lower, and the stakes for heresy have never been higher. A punch in the nose would frankly be mild compared to the possible repercussions of losing anonymity.
Off-line, one might actually end up in jail for offending a Black person, without even using the n#gger-word. If the offending words go viral, at the very least, the “offender” is probably going to lose his/her job and find it near-impossible to find another. And every post ever made will absolutely be revealed and even be used to justify a more harsh punishment.
The insanity (and true injustice) of the times we live in boggles my mind–everyday.
“But if having bills to pay is more important to you than actually changing the world — if that’s what you’re pretending to do by endlessly chattering about politics — just admit you’d rather be comfortable than change the world and are fine with the status quo so long as you don’t experience any discomfort . . .”
It’s always been confusing to me that many people think the Dissident Right is a “movement.” If it is a movement, then it’s a movement 90% (at minimum) made up of people hiding their identities who are deathly afraid of ever having their identities revealed (in many cases even to their closest intimates), who do nothing but look to blogs such as CC and other content creators merely for entertainment or escapism, and who have no intention of ever doing anything in the real world related to these ideas or principles. I guess the theory is that one day, there will be one migrant too many or one instance of black crime too many, and then suddenly all whites in America will collectively snap and become Dissident Rightists, sort of like Marx’s concept of spontaneous revolution (which never happened). After that, everyone will proudly reveal themselves, come out into the streets, and set America to right. But it seems much more likely that things will just continue to get worse and these people will remain on the sidelines until it’s too late to actually do anything. Call me crazy.
Well, in my case, as a person of limited personal attributes, I would add nothing to the movement
Oh sorry, continuing, I would add nothing and might even be a liability to the movement. Strategically speaking, my role is best as I am, working a job which I might lose if doxxed, contributing monetarily to sites such as counter currents when able, and fertilizing the idea factory in the comments section, to the extent my abilities allow(flattering myself here). I would like to interact with other nationalists if I lived in a population center, but I don’t. I’m not afraid to explicate wn talking points in person, only I never interact with anyone who would even begin to comprehend the issues. One day, if we are ever in a position to have political power, we will need people who have the skills to run society.
In my personal life everyone I know either gets a full broadside from me about these issues or they get extremely strong hints. One thing you can do from the WN POV is to agree with a leftist that US history is racist, white supremacy defines colonialism and add that it’s a jolly good thing too. White people did all the cool stuff. I think we get a few things confused about what trolling is exactly. There’s none on here really. Almost everyone’s comments are reasonable and enlightening. Trolling is a Twitter thing at this point.
Same here. Everyone with whom I have an actual relationship knows how I feel; I forward them C-C articles and talk frankly about the failure of diversity, the reasonableness of WN any time the matter is on the table, etc.
Mr. Goad is right about trolls being insufferable, but I don’t believe he is right about all anonymity being cowardice. The sniper metaphor is apt. A sniper who doesn’t rely on concealment (that is, a kind of anonymity) is worthless. The minute he gives up his position his efficacy is nothing compared to what it had been. And olive officers in a place like Mexico had better wear balaclavas or else they may come and find their family members all butchered on the porch.
The “every anon is a coward” deal reminds me of the “you’d let me search your car if you had nothing to hide” cop argument. It fails to recognize the great advantage one gives to an enemy to do one harm that he would NOT have had otherwise the minute you get baited into letting down your guard.
“…is to agree with a leftist that US history is racist, white supremacy defines colonialism and add that it’s a jolly good thing too. White people did all the cool stuff.”
Steady on Captain! You are right.
I spent many years and much time and energy in my younger decades very much in the real world trying to get things done (mainly about stopping immigration, but also pushing the Republicans with whom I daily interacted to the Right). But The People, my people, let me down (not the other way). Whites have no spirit – except the leftists, whose spirit is deformed and deranged.
Anyway, your rant begs the question, what then are you doing in the Dissident Right if you have such a negative opinion of its acolytes? And more – aren’t you crapping on the whole theory informing CC and its “metapolitics”? That a white nationalist cognitive and cultural infrastructure must be created (it certainly can’t be said to be thriving, or perhaps even exist much now) so as to lay the groundwork for future politics? Maybe I’m confused about the mission around here.
And note: I myself have often wondered whether the whole white nationalist movement is in fact politically serious (as the usual tenor of my comments here proves I am), or really just a place for high IQ but alienated white guys to hang out and be clever with each other. I’m still unsure.
Since there aren’t any membership cards or rosters, I’m not sure if I am in the “Dissident Right” or not. I’ve been a publisher, an editor, and a writer, but I’ve never been or tried to be a politician, nor would I. But I always saw my work as a way of helping individuals, not of “building a movement.” I hang around these circles because it’s the only place where certain ideas are still discussed. Also, I don’t speak for Counter-Currents, so someone else will have to talk about what CC’s strategy is — although I always assumed CC is a webzine, not a political action organization. If it is the latter, it’s news to me.
My only point in my original comment was to suggest something that to me should be obvious: that one can’t call something a “movement” when the vast majority of its alleged participants have no involvement in it apart from anonymously participating in internet and social media forums. Being on social media can, in some cases, be a spark for political activity, but in itself it is not a form of political activity. And even if you take the entirety of the Dissident Right in the US over the past decade as a whole, it has not prevented one immigrant from coming to the US, one crime from being committed, and has not influenced even slightly a single piece of legislation that has been passed or a single foreign policy decision. So if our measure is results rather than numbers of anonymous internet followers, the Dissident Right has been a total failure. Will its metapolitics result in some sort of real change in the future? I can’t say, but the track record isn’t good so far. And I think this needs to be said, since my impression is that a lot of people in these circles seem to think that their internet activity is “saving the white race” or whatever. They need to be reminded that it isn’t.
I’m the same way; I see this as soul food for the disaffected. I don’t think we can stem the tide of events, but I do think we, as a broad movement, have had an impact through trump, but unfortunately that has accelerated our decline, much like Charlottesville writ large. But I see all those events as historical inevitabilities, not strategical mistakes that could have been avoided, like the economic vs great man view of history, favoring the economic.
It seems to me that one of the main functions of a site like Counter-Currents is that it provides some of the most valuable food for thought that nourishes the reader. I spread ideas that have been refined here (and from other quality sites) to non-hostile people in all the varied sphere in my life. This gives ‘normies’ a foundation of psychological defense again the daily anti-White barrage every one of us is subjected to.
I do see these ideas reflected back to me, over time, in my daily conversations with these same people.
Changing hearts and minds, as it’s called, is key to our survival. I sincerely believe that.
From the lofty perch of age, I can see why so many otherwise lovely, charming young men in our group are 1) not married and raising 3+ White children, and/or 2) not engaged in seriously pursuing a Ph.D. in European History or Philosophy or Literature, etc., in order to be a more believable and reliable asset to White Nationalism, and/or 3) at the very least, not pursuing a career in the military, which grants you many useful skills, and the right to talk intelligently on defending our country and way of life. Why, instead do you all waste untold amounts of time on video games and absurd chat rooms? It’s beyond my comprehension. I do know ‘it’s a man thing’, and I try to be reasonable about it, but do try one of the other three pathways mentioned above as a ‘sideline’.
You forgot the /s
Once again, Jim is absolutely spot on. My brother turned me on to Jim a few months back after we were talking about this, that, and the other. I was just saying what I thought, the way I see it using facts, and basic logic and reasoning, (you know, the traits that are supposed to separate us from all other living creatures) not feelings to back up my arguments. He laughed and said that I needed to check this dude out. I did. I was, and still am astonished that there is someone out there that says the same things I say, albeit with proper structure, prose and all that fun stuff in writing that I failed to hone when I was in school. (I am just a simple carpenter)
Women and faggots use feelings to justify their actions and/or stance on a particular subject or event in life. Men operate off of logic and reason, Feelings are what you tell your wife, your girlfriend, your kids, etc. when you are trying to make one feel better about themselves. Other than that they are for pussies. As Ben Shapiro says, “facts don’t care about your feelings” and neither do I. If someone, anyone is “offended” by what I say, then that is their problem, not mine, and they should seek some serious help.
As for this whole troll “thing,” like Jim, it’s like Chinese, I just don’t understand it. From the outside looking in I believe it is just another unfortunate byproduct of neutering the American male. I too have spent time behind bars, and if you ever want to experience the true, raw nature of the real world, go take yourself a little vacation. There are real consequences for one’s behavior, intentional or not. Outside the prison walls there are little to no consequences for one’s actions these days and there are plenty examples of this disheartening trend. We see the results of this everyday.
Just a couple weeks ago I commented on some writer’s story, he commented back asking me a couple questions. I responded and answered his questions to the best of my ability. Now, I may have come across as a little crass, possibly even a tad combative. The fact of the matter is, my response was censored and this website didn’t post it. I can only assume that some editor “felt” that I was trolling or some bullshit. Seeing what I have read on this site I was shocked to say the least. I wasn’t trolling anyone, I was just telling it how I see it and wasn’t even given the chance to let any reader decide that for themself. Funny thing was, they have my email and they didn’t even respond to me privately. Chicken shit I say. Though, I still have faith in free speech and have my fingers crossed that what I have written here today makes the cut
I have absolutely no problem putting my name behind what I say or write. I can’t even fathom acting any other way. Oh, you are scared to get fired?? Pfffff!!!! I was looking for a job when I found this one!! That is a pretty piss poor excuse for any man. Oh, you are scared some maniac might assault you, harm or hurt your family?? Then just shut your mouth all together. We don’t need to hear from you because when push comes to shove, you will be the first one running away with your tail between your twat. Just my thoughts based on logic, reason, and life experience.
So you agree with Jim about trolling not being good, but then when you respond to an author with valid points in your opinion which might fall under the threshold , so deemed to be a troll for that author, you are pissed and call him a coward. Then you mention that jew Ben Shapiro who lies and contradicts himself for every jew agenda on twitter supporting immigration in America but not for Israel due to Jews existence against demographic replacement. Jim Goad has used so many ad hominems and indirect aspersions i n this article about trolls, yet you are claiming that he is using facts. I find the cognitive dissonance and contradictory points interesting, were you perhaps born between 1945 – 69 ?
Drop a few more J-bombs under the safety of a pseudonym and keep proving my point without even realizing it.
Quoting Shapiro in this context is a false note by the original poster. Shapiro’s entire routine is a Feels Based Confidence Trick gifting off white grievances on behalf of Israel’s interests. Who quotes Shapiro as authoritative? Who?
The Ben Shapiro quote has everything to do with what I was saying, are you fucking kidding me?? I wasn’t talking about Ben Shapiro at all. At all. I happened to catch a saying of his that resonates with me and jives with exactly what I was trying to get across on the subject of “feelings”. Apparently just writing his name “triggered” you and a few others which actually solidifies exactly what I was talking about. I wasn’t referencing his politics and views, but you clowns did. Still don’t know what his ideology has to do with what I was talking about. Who quotes Ben Shapiro? I did. And I will in the future as well if it has any relevance to an argument or opinion of mine.
I’m not trigger by the mention of Shapiro. He’s a false note. I’m not sure why he’s got a platform or why any right winger would bother to quote him. He’s a Feels Based type of guy. A lot of unease that whites experience around blacks is a feeling. One could also call it instinct. plenty of people feel disgust when Jews speak on art and politics, queasy not quite sure why what they say is off somehow. Can’t put your finger on why they make you want to vomit when it’s their pseudo conservative chameleon act at work. There are several of these figures Kristol, Shapiro, Tapper, Pipes and until a listener has it spelled out why they feel something awful they’ll never know. I never felt disgust reading or listening to Rand Paul, Kier Hardy, Duke of Wellington, Napoleon, Rasputin, St Augustine, Ted Kazinsky, Evelyn Waugh, Jim Goad, James Locklock, John Grey…Shapiro doesn’t make me queasy anymore now that I know he’s got an ethnic agenda everytime he opens his mouth. He’s not an authority on rhetoric or logic.
Again, I think you may be looking too deep or over-analyzing what I said. I wasn’t promoting or sympathizing with any particular idea of Ben’s. Just the simple statement that facts don’t care about your feelings. Period. I think that statement can be applied to any ideology out there. As for how or why he has a platform, well last time I looked, it is a free country. Anybody and everybody has the right to say or write what they believe in. Again, it is a free country, you don’t have to listen to him or even like him. Just do you. But for to claim he shouldn’t have a platform is just absurd and flat out dangerous. I understand that he has an agenda or angle, however you want to put it. He should. He is standing up for and trying to protect his people. Wow, what a novel concept!!! Honestly, I wouldn’t respect him if he didn’t do just that. Why should he care about people who aren’t his kind?? And lastly, who is anybody to be the arbiter of “authority on rhetoric or logic”? Pffff!!!! In my world, I am that authority as I assume in your world, you are. Basically there are 7 billion different arbiters. Oh, and I am not a “right winger”, please don’t put me in that box.
Trolling is generally either making snarky comments, or outright lying or baseless insulting, or attacking statement.
I am guessing you consider my statement ” jew Ben Shapiro who … against demographic” . Are you saying thats a trolling statement. If its not trolling and this statement is true, what does my anonymity have anything to do with it ?
You’re attacking someone who has claimed he’s using his real name by hiding behind the screen name “golem.” Why did you need this explained?
I didn’t say you were trolling. Anonymity and trolling are two separate parts of my article. But you were attacking someone who used their name while you didn’t have the guts to use yours. Read more slowly next time. I shouldn’t need to keep clarifying what should be obvious.
I understood Shapiro’s comment: “forget the disrespect: the facts don’t care about your Feelings” to Bruce Caitlin Jenner, was a troll when he said it. I don’t for a moment, think this guy has a problem with transsexuals and homosexuals. He’d never have agreed to debate the monstrosity of Ms Jenner if he actually though such people should be rounded up and gassed, electrocuted, or merely banned from marrying and banned from adoption. Let alone care about calling a tranny her\him she\he. He doesn’t give a shit. That guy couldn’t give a shit about the consequences of the facts he claims he stands by or he’d have beaten the freak when it assaulted him. Being on the same stage suggests he’s just playing the heel.
Surely, Mr Goad, the truth value of Golem’s statement should be more important than weather he used his real name or not on an Internet chat.
Also, you seem to be acting under the impression that using handles is somehow not par for the course on the Internet, even in totally innocuous places and situations. Quite the contrary, most of us see using your real name as poor etiquette unless done by a figure with some degree of notoriety to the people s/he is addressing e.g. yourself and other writers on C-C, or someone like Bill Sweetman on aviation forums. It otherwise gives a narcissistic vibe; or is done in an attempt to strike some emotional points for your argument, like our friend Marchi here is doing — no, Mr. Marchi, no one here cares about the real name of some carpenter who can’t contribute anything substantial to the movement; except maybe for an over-zealous anti-fa out to fuck-up your life.
I like the people on Youtube who feel the need to anonymously dislike a song by Gary Puckett & The Union Gap.
a dial-up modem
If you still have one, it might be worth a few bob on the antiques market.
Anonymity might at least be a delaying tactic for those in the UK, whose citizens (actually ‘subjects’) don’t have First Amendment protection. On which, see this case-law brief:
Where an offender had produced racially inflammatory material and posted it on a website hosted by a remote server in the United States, he could be tried in England and Wales.
One good (albeit relatively minor) advantage of web anonymity is that it keeps mum about the tastes, interests, likes and dislikes of the real you. When two strangers meet, don’t they want to reveal themselves and find out about the other in their own good time? The thought that people could just Google your name and know so much about one in advance is unappealing.
Either that, or bring back dueling
Lord Snooty laments that the days of the field of honor are long gone. Today it would be: “Rules? In a knife fight? No rules.”
Mr Goad.
“If anything, it has made them vastly more dishonorable than all preceding generations.” – Are you sure about that ? The Greatest Generation , the Silent Generation and Boomer Generation literally destroyed entire Europe though fraternal wars, are you sure murdering 10’s of millions of your brothers is more honorable than trolling people who have severe misconceptions especially related to world Jewry and all the problems we see today!
Associating trolls tangentially with pedophiles, child molester and snitches – COOL TRICK, that flew under the radar like an 800lb elephant, very quiet like a tiny mouse.
Yes, brave “golem,” I’m absolutely sure of that. If you think it’s braver to snipe anonymously at someone on 4Chan than to sit in a trench with bombs exploding all around you during World War I, I think you don’t have a clue about what constitutes true bravery.
Despite the World Wars, the West I’ll assume you love so much is completely falling to pieces right now, at a far faster rate than it was back then. I could be really naive, invoke “Generational Astrology,” and blame all the Zoomers and Millennials for Black Lives Matter, the Plandemic, unimpeded immigration, and Drag Queen Story Hour for what’s happening “under their watch,” but unlike the Generational Astrologists, I realize that circumstances shape people, not the inverse. Ah, fuck, I’ll just pin the blame on you for all these things, accuse you of being in denial when you rightly say none of these things are your fault, and let you see how that feels.
The material wealth of western society is still firmly in the grip off the Silent, Boomer generations. GenX has only just broken even with boomers according to the data. Answering the Pandemic what did the US do? Promptly elects a scared venal old man as president. Keeps a witchy desicated Pelosi running the Congress. There are plenty of 40 somethings who ought to be in charge. Yet, they ain’t it’s unnatural. I’m not even a critic of the generations before but, why don’t these frightened old people retire gracefully? Let younger and fitter men run things. Don’t confuse your own generation’s decay with the viability of white guys in the 30s. Chances are they’ll fight the imm race war the boomers dodged.
Should say “in their 30s” and imm should be “immanent”.
If their absolute terror at even having their names revealed is any indication, chances are they’re not going to fight in any war except anonymous online pissing matches.
Why is it the Boomers’ fault that Biden got elected? Boomers voted for Trump at a higher clip than any other generation. According to opinion polls, 20-year-olds are by far the most leftist generation yet. Pretty sure anyone over 18 can vote. Weird to blame only one generation, when all generations over 18 have a say in the nominating process.
Blaming a certain generation for having wealth and not sharing it reeks of socialist sympathies. It also smacks of blind self-righteousness. Does anyone seriously think that if 20-year-olds were handed the exact same economic situation the Boomers inherited, they’d be any less allegedly “selfish”? If so, you misunderstand human nature.
The problem is that tiny elites structurally changed the economy. To even think that a majority of any generation had a say in outsourcing and immigration is naive. This is why I rail so hard against “Generational Astrology”: It assumes that certain generations decide to be a certain way. No, they are molded by their circumstances.
Another point that consistently gets missed is that having people from different generations blaming one another—when otherwise they’d agree about most matters of policy—makes me strongly suspect it’s a divide-and-conquer scheme that most of you have fallen for HARD.
I’m not keen on peddling intergenerational warfare, because as you pointed out the old can have a concealed cleverness when they rebuke truly terrible ideas. They can be wise. Indeed Joe Biden is widely getting out of Afghanistan. I also know that many opposed each state of the liberalisation of society. That the silent and Boomer were victimised by the war and civil rights. All points conceded.
I’ll also admit there’s some good in socialism. George Orwell pointed out that the National Socialists NSDAP had stolen a march on the liberal democracies by using planned economic policy and wrote about this elegantly in the book Lion & Unicorn. The Blitzkreig was planned and planned down to the last widget. It caught the Democracies off guard. While the NatSoc was of the right, it used socialist methods to build after the liberal mess of Weimar.
but it is difficult to see how anything moves in the right direction If basic boomer (and to a lesser extents Silents) taboos about racial equality remain. That generation has a lock on power. The white boys in the Zoomer cohort are going to have a fight on their hands. Generational classifications will break down when it’s obvious that white boys around 20-30 will have to look to their own defences.
In nature a gerontocracy is rare. It can happen in a Republic. But even in Rome the top guys were often in their late 30s or early 40s. It’s a very bad sign that the senior leadership in the US is older than the politburo in 1970s USSR. Its not about sharing monetary wealth the point is more the vigorous and ambitious leading politically. Even if they are self interested crooks.
Another point that consistently gets missed is that having people from different generations blaming one another—when otherwise they’d agree about most matters of policy—makes me strongly suspect it’s a divide-and-conquer scheme that most of you have fallen for HARD.
Thank you for saying these things.
“…the imm race war the boomers dodged.”
Don’t know what “imm” means, but conscription was still in force during the 60’s and, though entities like Clinton and Bush 2 dodged the Viet Nam war, I lost several hundred boomer classmates and personal friends in LBJ’s VN fiasco. My former college roommate, a company commander, was shot in the back by a drug-addled black soldier who took offense at simply being ordered to return to his own company area.
This Taliban event has essentially thrown the chess board up in the air. The state was gearing up for a war on whitey. The State certainly conducted one in the late 1960s as you pointed out. Get white boys killed in SE Asia and deracinated them at home. Now? More paranoia aimed at getting young guys to die abroad. Something terrible is coming. Focus is needed. There are precious few white lads in the Zoomer cohort they shouldn’t be aimed at Central Asia. I don’t know if the Taliban did us a favor or a foul with this Kabul Caper. The fighting at home is probably immanent as various atrocities in Kabul are reported back to the US public. There’s going to be a military purge among other things.
You are correct, its not those generations’ fault, not only were they tricked and fed to the meat grinder, they were force conscripted and the young are always clueless. I am not casting blame on them directly but objectively i am correct that the brother wars are a disaster with real bodies. But remember, they are not blameless, after WW1, Congressional investigations came out who was responsible for the war, it was very public so outright ignorance cannot be claimed. Just like today with all the agenda’s. No one can claim ignorance with the info available across the internet. All your claims about what is happening in our generation is correct, and we know who is doing it, every head and staff of the NGO’s and their funding for just the refugee question is all public info, the Open society funding, as usual top down, just the same as the French rev, or every other thing in history where the people were fooled yet once again. Unfortunately, the few that recognize the reason for the problems have no power, and worst yet, when we inform the victims, they deny it and will fight and ostracize us even though its easily all verifiable. The reality is that the human is a defective slave cattle race, in this the Jews are correct, we are goyim.
I further think that we are worse than cattle, a cow will freak, their eyes will dilate and start darting everywhere when its tied on the killing floor hearing its fellow bovine being butchered all around, but humans, they see people drop after getting the vaccine and still roll up their sleeves to be next. Some of us might be lower than cattle !
OK, we agree on this. I don’t blame 20-year-olds for being glued to their digital devices and having extremely short attention spans. Nor do I blame them for having lower testosterone levels than previous generations. It wasn’t their choice. It was done to them. Circumstances shape generations. The biggest flaw of Generational Astrology is that it has this principle entirely backward and preaches that generations shape circumstances. I think someone has to live a while to appreciate what little say you actually have in how the world changes.
I decided to use my name early on expecting that other professionals would do likewise, but it is hard to think of one academic, media person, or professionally educated white person in Canada, who has openly questioned the replacement of whites. It is understandable that young whites raising a family don’t want to reveal their identities. I always warn young men of the risks. But there are many white men out there who have enough financial means to risk coming out in the open. They don’t. A big reason is they fear ostracism, the moral wrath of the anti-whites. This is cowardice. If now and then, momentarily, I second guess my decision to use my name, it is due to my disappointment that there is still, as John Morgan notes, no dissident right movement. Canada is far worse off now than a decade ago. I wonder if the price I have paid (in more ways than one) was in vain. But then I despise what’s going on and enjoy being pro-white, so I don’t regret using my name. Would do it again.
White peoples need an abstraction. An arbitrary one preferably.
What is the prize that your are providing for them to put out their name , the Republican party? Libertarianism ? Trump ? , its all fake and ghey, everything has to be destroyed , even the founding fathers who were subversive or like Hamilton straight Jewish, or Jefferson who wanted to slaughter Americans like in the French revolution and was key in keeping the country secular, or like Washington who used us troops against the citizenry 10 years in. A complete new framework has to be built. We have no avenues now, the justice and court systems have been completely taken over, no recourse now
“What is the prize that your are providing for them to put out their name , the Republican party? Libertarianism ? Trump ? , its all fake and ghey, …”
No, It’s about honor, honesty and respect from those who matter. Why do you think BLM and other cowards cover their face in public ? It is because they know at some level their actions are degenerate and against nature. They do not have the integrity of their convictions at a deeper level. Additionally, ( I feel) inter-generational disagreements among Europeans is just another jew trick and should be avoided. We can argue as gentlemen if needed, but our focus must be on the 14 words and not distractions which favor our enemies.
I’m with Mr. Goad on this. Edgy sock-puppetry might be fun but it does not seem to be very productive; it does not enlighten, it does not teach, it doesn’t really move any new ideas forward.
My advice for younger generations ─ drowning in a sea of digital Leftist bunkum ─ is to learn how to sift the cognitive wheat from the chaff. What is the Truth and why is it so? Sometimes the real world can be unpleasant and scary.
For example, I certainly don’t deify the Founding Fathers. They were venerable leaders and great men, but they were not demigods. Surely we can in good faith accept some Marxist criticisms ─ especially from principled Liberals such as Prof. Beard or Mr. Orwell ─ but sometimes there is a great gulf between the dippy conspiracy-theory and Real History.
Alexander Hamilton was not any more Jewish than Reichsbank Pres. Hjalmar Schacht. But some are so obsessed with Talmudic choreography that even Adolf Hitler himself necessarily becomes “the enemy of the German people.”
If my Online observations are any indication, few these days ever learned how to detect basic bullshit, or to weight ideas and evidence as proper historians or scientists would. The critical importance of this should be obvious.
One reason why I find Holocaust Revisionism so fascinating is because it is a guaranteed crossing of the Kosher pale; it weighs core questions and scrutinizes Thoughtcrime that the “traditional enemies of free-speech” cannot credibly hide from.
I use my real name and am known to the usual suspects. I wear my sympathies on my sleeve, so to speak. As an American, I presumably have full First Amendment protections ─ and I am hardly important enough to bother with ─ but who really knows? Who gets to define the sacred taboos? Even little old ladies get tossed into jail for saying the wrong things. I guess you always have to choose your battles wisely.
Every school of thought has had its trolls. Every generation also stands on the shoulders of its giants. I think it is important for curious persons to test academic and intellectual integrity for themselves ─ and to an extent commensurate with their own comfort levels and qualifications. And yes, sometimes there is a price to be paid for honesty and for asking dodgy questions.
But ours would be a much sadder society if Galileo had not challenged the Inquisition and bade them to look for themselves through his telescope.
🙂
principled Liberals such as Prof. Beard
Is that a dig at bearded professors? Surely, you aren’t talking about classicist Mary Beard? Her Civilisations TV series – co-presented with Simon Schama (Jewish) and David Olusoga (black) – was a deliberately subversive insult to patrician art historian Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation: A Personal View. Fortunately, it had dire ratings.
She’s the worst kind of liberal, living in an echo chamber of feminists, LGBT types and “anti-racists”. Hell, she thinks Spartacus was a hero; we know it was actually Crassus.
>> ” principled Liberals such as Prof. Beard ”
Is that a dig at bearded professors? Surely, you aren’t talking about classicist Mary Beard? <<
No, specifically Columbia Prof. of History Charles A. Beard ─ who wrote the classic An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913), which is basically a Marxist or at least a Left-Liberal critique of the prevailing mythology that the Founding Fathers were not demigods (quelle surprise) but had rather pedestrian “economic” motivations for their idealism.
Some edgy podcasters (obviously with questionable historical training) have tried to besmirch the Founding Fathers as if they were all Joos or otherwise Fake & Ghey.
A lot of Trad Caths likewise think that all was peachy before Vatican II, and that racial-nationalism is somehow a Joo plot.
I would argue that the only political tradition more pozzed than the Latin Rite is actual Judeo-Bolshevism/Zionism, but I don’t want to be too hard on decent White Christians. (I am an atheist and ex-Mormon.)
I think the idea that George Washington had to have been a Zionist apparatchik somehow because (like most elites) he dabbled in Freemasonry and was one of the wealthiest men in the 13 colonies, or that the illegitimate Alexander Hamilton immigrated from colonial Nevis and was given an elite New England education thanks to the Protestants ─ and therefore was an un-circumcised Jew somehow ─ is a bit stupid. (Maybe Dr. E. Michael Jones and Michael A. Hoffman II should get right on that.) Btw, Francis Parker Yockey rightly rates Hamilton as a superlative Founding Father.
Anyway, Right-Libertarians and those unhappy about gubbamint and taxes in general tend to worship at the altar of Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic-Republican Party.
But then so did modern plutocratic Democrat machine pols like Franklin Roosevelt and Henry Morgenthau, Jr. both consider themselves to be staunch Jeffersonian disciples, especially Tom’s ideas of extreme agricultural romanticism when it came time for a Carthaginian Peace to correctively deindustrialize defeated Germany ─ a Genocidal plan that cowardly anarchist Unabomber Ted Kaczynski might have approved of if implemented on a more radical scale globally.
In my view, using Prof. Charles A. Beard’s classic in this amateurish way is a bit of a straw man argument because people with actual historical training rarely ascribe mystical motivations to political leaders and theorists, nor do they routinely eschew basic economic interests for Marxist utopianism. Everyone surely knows already that all “Great Men” were human, and that all icons have their faults.
The study of Real History past the sixth grade is not an Independence Day bandstand, so there is no need to crash through the wide open door that, gosh darn!, even the practical Founding Fathers had many rational “economic” and personal motives for wanting a country and a government that actually works!
The current year is not 1913, and there has been significantly more historiography since then (some of it good).
I was permanently banned recently at a skeptics discussion forum merely for pointing out that the Great Man-theory historian himself, Thomas Carlyle, in his treatise on the French Revolution about Napoleon Bonaparte putting down the revolutionary mobs, wrote that the General had simply used a “whiff of grapeshot.”
(My point was only that BLM/Antifa insurrections could be dealt with succinctly if there was actually the political will to do so. But as the popular Rock group The Eagles might have sang, “we haven’t had that spirit here since 1933.”)
Prof. Charles A. Beard was a “principled Liberal” in no small part because he opposed FDR’s warmongering later in life, when he was regarded as an authentic and formidable academic critic of what the Libertarian sociologist and Columbia-trained Prof. of History Harry Elmer Barnes later called “Totalitarian Liberalism.”
Harry Elmer Barnes was one of the founders of postwar Historical Revisionism, and he wrote extensively about how “1984 trends” threaten American life.
Eric Blair, the 1984 author “George Orwell,” was another Leftist idealist who balked at the Totalitarian aspects of this Brave New World of Liberal/Marxist Progress.
🙂
Thanks for your detailed response to my reply to you. (For some reason I can’t see a “Reply” option to your reply informing me about Columbia Prof. of History Charles A. Beard.)
I’ve learned something(s) new.
And if you’ve never encountered classicist Mary Beard, trust me, you haven’t missed anything.
Again trying to get Dissident Rightists to dox themselves I see.
Ever day I wait with bated breath to find out whether or not Jim, witty as he is, will turn out to the the O’Brien of White Nationalism.
Doxxing is for school girls.
Brilliant takeaway from me saying, “Be as anonymous as you want.“
I am right there with you Goad, except I don’t do it because I am too lazy.
I simply do not have the time or the interest
Trolling is simply virtue signaling – online – I have a happy life, kind of a slacker.
I work online and am online all of the time. I do network installs – big-uns
I love my job. I don’t share my views in chats or calls – there aint no money in it.
Let them find it out on their own. Darwin in action
“There ain’t no money in it..”
No, there is not. There can be money in it, though, if you are infamous for being a rebel and writing intellectually honest, hard-as-nails commentary, as Mr. Glad does. Most of us, frankly, aren’t talented enough or courageous enough to pay the bills by infamous.
Mr. Goad — not “Glad”. Good grief, what an embarrassing typo!
True – Like I said I am kinda a slacker.
I have looked at the human race for 60 years, myself included, and I don’t see that much interesting or really worth fighting for.
Innocence – yes I will defend children – with my life if necessary, but once you are grown you are on your own.
I do not have any children or even really like them very much, they are smelly and messy, and loud and they leak, but they deserve to be un-molested. What happens after you have reached majority is mainly on you.
I am a unrepentant Libertarian (I never vote – what is the point and also the not really caring thing) Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff is a pretty good motto, if I cared enough to have a motto.
The last line of this essay is the most important but I don’t see others discussing the value of the duel.
There are no “human rights” there are only mutually-insured behaviors that are mutually beneficial. The First Amendment, which is a good idea for citizens but a terrible idea for media which is cooked by a coffee elite, only makes sense if there is a balancing force of responsibility against that right.
The public duel-to-the-death is exactly that counterbalance. Once there are legal and possible fatal consequences for being an asshole or a liar, The behavior of both individuals and corporations suddenly become much better for society and civilization.
Sorry mistyped:
The First Amendment, which is a good idea for citizens but a terrible idea for media which is CONTROLLED by a HOSTILE elite
The duel to the death is anachronistic wack jobbery. It was a fad of Europe that had no precedent before or after. See the article in Popular Delusions And Maddness of Crowds. Plus, many animals fight to the death over mates and various things. Hegel was soft.
I cannot believe, that I have to point this out. Really? Did everyone forgot how important the trolling is?
This article reads like it is a result of a certain meeting (insert the details yourself). Problem, solution, action, right? And certainly the anonymous trolls are a big problem (for who-answer yourself). Wouldn’t be nice if only the professionals (paid ones, or nowadays in a from of AI) would remain? Those WILL stay. Having to deal with pesky jokes, power of the crowd, changing narratives. Would be lovely to get rid of it and have only staged word fights, to control it all.
Trolls, please do continue, a well placed joke can change the course of a history. But there is so much more to trolling. The truth will prevail.
Dear Mr. Goad,
I was one of those who criticized your reply to a commenter in your article on dating and “Incels”, “Hey, Where Are the White Women At?”, 8/12/21. I had to look up the term “Incel” as I was unfamiliar with it.
My opinion is that while I appreciate your writing and contributions to the White Indentitarian (WI) cause; at times, you can be not understanding of others’ viewpoints. This is not with respect to critical WI tenets, on which there can be no compromise, but on other issues.
For example, you wrote “WRONG” when responding to another guy’s post about the difficulty of finding a girlfriend. I don’t believe this was particularly helpful towards the guy writing. Also, the vast majority of people responding on Counter-Currents are guys and if some of these are having problems finding girlfriends/ potential spouses, then just telling them to “man up and be more like Clint” may not be helpful. It is also in our best interest to help these “Incels” to eventually find a girlfriend and start white families.
Sometimes guys are in my situation. I’m a mathematician/scientist in a very technical field. My co-workers are all guys AND are Indians/ Chinese. I am white, of European ancestry. These others (since whites are the only others-oriented altruistic species) won’t even show me the technical documentation/ equations I need for work, let alone providing any useful dating advice. Thus no going out with other guys to a watering hole or having friends hook you up. Yes, eventually I did learn the ropes but I’m actually even older than you, hard as that is to imagine.
On the issue of anonymity; this is not merely “a fly to be swatted” as you wrote as some people have legitimate concerns about being outed. You’re in a position to publish your identity as it’s part of what you do as a writer for Counter-Currents. Nobody’s going to write Greg Johnson and have you fired for your statements here. You have to understand that many people are not in this position. Some people have worked their entire professional lives to achieve a certain position in a company and one published comment posted on a racist website can get them fired. Not only fired, but they’ll never be able to find work in their field again. They may have kids in school, or mortgages on their homes and of course, some are chicken.
As you pointed out there are bigger problems. Years ago I used to post on WI websites and also include my website so that people could contact me by regular email. In the approx. three years that I did this nobody bothered contacting me. I thought it’d be useful to know other white identitarians living nearby; not that I’m planning to do anything illegal, but just in case they wanted to grab a 0-calorie ice tea and sit down to yak about things. Of those I tried to write to, only three ever gave me their contact info. Thus at this point in time, for many of us, there are few rewards and many penalties for going public. If you ever wanted to contact me though, I’ll let Greg Johnson know to give you have my name & email. That way you can at least see that I’m a real person.
Trolls: yes they are evil but I wanted to keep my reply short so I’ll spare you my analysis of these.
You can be a good writer but also having empathy for others is not fatal.
Yours,
Nicolas Bourbaki
Goad is wanting to bait you.
Trolling is dumb and responding to it is exactly what spurs them to keep doing it.
If someone is ahem, “out”, great if that works for them. But it’s a near ludicrous proposal to fancy it will work across the board in this climate. Sort of like saying Afghanis were cowards for fighting a guerilla war instead to facing US troops in the open. It is a time tested strategy when outgunned (eg. by a leftist media that carves out inconvenient facts). If everyone loses their jobs, then a chunk will then just aspire to be bloggers and commentators and add more competition for your own income anyhow.
Didn’t the author groan at the Capitol Hill riots (excuse me, “insurrection” in Halloween costumes)? Beyond even this site, signs of a broader movement are there when poll after poll predicted easy presidential wins for Hillary and Joe Biden, and yet the actual votes didn’t turn out so lopsided. Small battles are won in this fight by clearly and succinctly outlining hypocrisy and frequent insanity of the left. Goad often does it extremely well, just not in this one. Despite endless virtue signaling, the left will partly un-woke when they start personally feeling the pain of their decisions, hopefully before its too late. But its good to direct their attention to what they’re missing from the usual sources. Even if Trump bungled too many things worth naming, what he and Mitch McM did for the supreme court slows things down enough for the pendulum to swing back to the middle. Remember the 60s eventually became the 70s and 80s.
Dude, you’ve made a living from being a troll.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment