Cultural Marxism: the conspiracy within a conspiracy

Do not click: <SEO>

I waited almost a year to go on about this. I wanted to see if anything would come of it. This is going to be as short as I can make it, so yes, I will miss things out. You can add things yourself and link them in the comments. I’m broadening out the topic too, for a laugh. Technically way OT in places but funny with it. Fun with it. Hopefully.
Welcome to The Magical Mystery Tour of Cultural Marxism.

Bravo and good tidings<joke about holes>


Child Molester?
Chief Manager?
Cuck Maestro?
Acronyms can mean many things. The usual meaning for CM online in these times, thanks to gg truthers, is Cultural Marxism. What is Cultural Marxism? It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. It refers to an undemocratic system of political control via media brainwashing. Because pop culture never gets stuck in your head, that’s just crazy.

But never throw away your TV because reasons.

Aragorn for president

Why is advertising so expensive, eh? The limited number of channels excuse doesn’t fly anymore.

n.b. This is uncannily similar to the notion of the Cathedral btw: comprised of Academia, Media and Government, who often tend to mimic one another somehow in a harmonizing array of vacuous lies to keep you docile and arguably, falsely conscious.
Hey, if they’re going to mock us….
Despite all the studies on how subliminal messaging is BS yet its brother priming is totally real, and the effect of barrages of propaganda on real populations, somehow this is still considered a conspiracy. In a world where adverts blare over loudspeaker in public and your phone is watching you. As if the sociopaths with power (pick a Poison) were to look at those findings, shrug them off and proceed to do nothing with them. Sounds legit.

If you were to ask 100 people: do you believe in conspiracy theories, most would say No. When pressed, they’d evoke a media image: with an aluminium hat. Hmm. Whereas if you asked: do you believe in abuse of power, the underlying premise of every single conspiracy theory, you’d achieve astronomical amounts of agreement. Same people, same topic, different questions. Different words. It’s almost like the media output shapes our ability to consider certain subjects. Restricts us to talking points from cognitive load. Like a mild version of PTSD, engrained from a young age, we have visceral visual responses (flashbacks) to something we have seen, not in real life, but on a screen.

Aawww yeah, that’s the stuff. Mock me baby, mock me, you can’t satire a satire!

But sitting your kid in front of the TV is good for them, despite that pesky evidence. Kid’s shows never have any subtle political points, memory tactics or adult humour. We freely admit to flashbacks of pleasant things, like beloved cartoons. Remember when…? That reminds me… Who else saw…?

What if the perception is true or proven? huh?

It’s become the new cultural touchstone, above national heritage symbols and stories. It has replaced history. As a friend of mine said: We are all Americans now.

err what wut wtf scared rdjONE OF US. ONE OF US. ONE OF US.

The term CM has slowly permeated into the mainstream via Twitter. So much so the Guardian, far-left right-on rag, had to cover it. This wasn’t a choice, it was a re-action. A decent rebuttal of the BS is here:

If it’s illusory, it begs the question, what’s the harm in discussing it? Like the sociopolitical implications of Elrond’s Rivendell.

The usual ad hominem ensued in the up-top article. You don’t debate AH (rhetoric) with dialectic (logos). That isn’t the way to kill it. You must mock it. I can do both so… fuck it.

You see, every time these words are now spoken, even in jest, the SJWs can link to that article, and remain oblivious to what the theory is about. Think about that – a group obsessed with definitions. So I’m here to fuck their shit up, 9 months later, like the demonic spawn of their critical ideology, since who TF is going to check for feedback on that article this late? Let alone mess up its SEO? We know most of their interns probably studied English, right?

and here we go joker come on

First, note: They keep referring to the ‘conspiracy’ as CM, instead of how it is commonly referred to: The Frankfurt School. Because if they called it that, their readers might think, wait, does that school exist? Did it ever exist? We could easily disprove these obvious hateful bigoted xeno-Nazis!

The title alone is intellectually dishonest. I haven’t seen anyone pick up on that for starters.

This is considered cool for a reason, it's the reaction of a person who can handle their shit
This is why I speak last.

CM is actually a division of The Frankfurt School’s works. A sub-division. Lesser than the whole of their theory.

Visual AIDs. I really wanna get this cited.

Visual AIDs. Made with ecoterrorist Green, Commie Red and Lib Dem yellow.
I really wanna get this cited. The black was being inclusive. It hurts my eyes.

When the thicko Guardian reader would care to look up the term “Frankfurt School building” on image search in rabid anticipation of finding precisely FA, the first hit is…

Looks pretty fucking real to me. Would the Marxists lie to you, Guardian reader? Comrade?
OK. We have you on that count. Batter up!

That doesn’t prove anything! We don’t know who occupied these buildings during that time! 

Thankfully these people liked to brag about their involvement.
Here’s what comes up from the same Marxists’ site under, I shit you not, group photo: 

frankfurt school group photo

Let’s look at the wikipedia page currently headed Cultural Marxism (the subject was almost deleted previously from the entire site but in Reddit uproar was reinstated).

Although sometimes only loosely affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists spoke with a common paradigm in mind, thus sharing the same assumptions and being preoccupied with similar questions.The school’s main figures sought to learn from and synthesize the works of such varied thinkers as Kant, Hegel, Marx,Freud, Weber, and Lukács.

Yet under Early Influences, Marx is clearly listed. Making them Marxists.

“The Institute made major contributions in two areas relating to the possibility of human subjects to be rational, i.e., individuals who could act rationally to take charge of their own society and their own history. The first consisted of social phenomena previously considered in Marxism as part of the “superstructure” or as ideology: personality, family and authority structures (one of the earliest works published bore the title Studies of Authority and the Family), and the realm of aesthetics and mass culture. Studies saw a common concern here in the ability of capitalism to destroy the preconditions of critical, revolutionary political consciousness. This meant arriving at a sophisticated awareness of the depth dimension in which social oppression sustains itself. It also meant the beginning of critical theory‘s recognition of ideology as part of the foundations of social structure.”

And what did they wish to do with that structure, pray tell? Lower down;

“During this period, Frankfurt School critical theory particularly influenced some segments of the left wing and leftist thought, particularly the New Left. …Their critique of technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civilization is an influence on anarcho-primitivism. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies.”

And they tried the Stalinist tactic of dismissing criticism by calling their opponents crazy: “criticized the Frankfurt School’s initial tendencies towards “automatically” rejecting opposing political criticisms on “psychiatric” grounds:” If you see anything wrong with this in Government-funded academia, I guess you’re a crazy conspiracy nutjob. As if to describe all champagne socialists in one fell swoop, the ‘academics’ were said to suffer from “bourgeois idealism” by people who knew what the hell they were talking about.
We’d never see anything like that today:

At the bottom, way down the page, it tries to be balanced;

“A 21st-century conspiracy theory regards the Frankfurt School as the origin of a contemporary movement in the political left to destroy western culture, referred to as “Cultural Marxism” by theory proponents.[51][52] It advocates the idea that multiculturalism and political correctness are products of critical theory, which originated with the Frankfurt School.”

But…. you just said………..all that?

I've been waiting ages to use this one, it's so apt to academics

These people made Marxist theory their life’s work, publishing essays and books (look those up separately, it was a whole school after all I can’t cover that much) and we’re supposed to believe they aren’t Communist? Riiiight. What else connected them?
Their only alternate connection appears to be their Jewish religion, as others have pointed out, “predominantly German Jews”. Hey, here’s a book about it by some unknown publisher nobody respects: and the blurb;

The history of the Frankfurt School cannot be fully told without examining the relationships of Critical Theorists to their Jewish family backgrounds. Jewish matters had significant effects on key figures in the Frankfurt School, including Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal and Herbert Marcuse. At some points, their Jewish family backgrounds clarify their life paths; at others, these backgrounds help to explain why the leaders of the School stressed the significance of antisemitism. In the post-Second World War era, the differing relationships of Critical Theorists to their Jewish origins illuminate their distinctive stances toward Israel. This book investigates how the Jewish backgrounds of major Critical Theorists, and the ways in which they related to their origins, impacted upon their work, the history of the Frankfurt School, and differences that emerged among them over time.

Why might this concern people? It isn’t as if they wish to control us or cause us harm in our homeland. After all, we wouldn’t dream of bossing around Israel or hurting their way of life. Take it away, the adroitly named Barbara Spectre!

Narrator: She believes Jews have an important role to play in a country undergoing profound change.
BS: I think there’s a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned to be multicultural. And I think we’re gonna be part of the throes of that, of that transformation, which must take place, Europe is not gonna be (smiles) the monolithic, uh, uh, societies that they once were in the last century. (brief cut) Jews are gonna be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make, they are now going into a multicultural mode – and Jews will be resented because of our leading role (nose in the air) but without that leading role and without that transformation Europe will not survive. (a small nod of approval, as camera cuts)

You know you can tell a lot about a person’s inner world by their body language. Micro-expressions in particular. When I said nose in the air

Face of a leader.

Lest you think I’m being unfair, many non-Jews are supporting this goal to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” with multiculturalism and mass immigration. source In Europe only, of course. The rest of the world doesn’t require ‘enrichment’ for some strange reason.

There are many accusations along the lines of a ‘Master Race’ levied at Jews (calling yourselves the Chosen People doesn’t help) but I’m sure the passages stating for example, that non-Jews aren’t human? I’m sure that sort of thing is just a misunderstanding, a mistranslation: “There are those who infer from these passages that the Talmud considers gentiles to be sub-human. After all, if the Talmud says that gentiles are not called man they must be considered sub-human” that does seem rather logical though. Given the context of the Chosen People bit? It isn’t as if they want to lead us like a flock of sheep, wherever did you get that idea?

Marx himself heard so little on the front of Jews in academia that he wrote this:
That’s right, the so-called Jewish Question is a Marxist invention! It’s so post-modern! We may only wonder at what he’d have had to say to the German Jews of the Frankfurt School.

“…You Jews are egoists if you demand a special emancipation for yourselves as Jews. As Germans, you ought to work for the political emancipation of Germany, and as human beings, for the emancipation of mankind, and you should feel the particular kind of your oppression and your shame not as an exception to the rule, but on the contrary as a confirmation of the rule….”

On the World Socialist Website, they quote;

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world?” Marx asks. “Usury. What is his worldly god? Money…. What is the foundation of the Jew in this world? Practical necessity, private advantage…. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.”

In fact, Marx seems to have been quite racially aware, by looking for real explanations in race itself: He wouldn’t last five minutes among his own academics.

It is ironic that the most acceptable white male in the curriculum for “diversity” on many campuses is Karl Marx, a world-class bigot. At one time, Marx referred to a Creole man who married his niece as a “gorilla offspring.”

Imagine the letters if he’d been pen-pals with Che G.
Other Marx/Engels quotes are to be found here, and they are well-sourced from the materials open to correction.
Bear in mind, we see many example of Marxist thought in everyday language. Objectification, for instance, is a Marxist idea borrowed by feminism. Originally called reification, it encompasses the process of a subject becoming an object.

Let’s do a reality check here.
Are the academic essays, books and theories imaginary?
The building is real.
The people are real.
Their written works (whatever their value) do exist.
Their influence is certainly real or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
OT: The European Jewish Fund is certainly real (Spectre’s sponsors in the video), as they go about “reinforcing Jews’ cultural pride and counteracting assimilation. The EJF actively fights xenophobia, antisemitism and racial discrimination”
Have there been any proofs of pop culture propaganda? I don’t mean the Red Scare.

“But what is most important in the music of the Gang of Four, and those groups who share their approach, is that for the first time since Brecht’s plays received wide attention in the 1920s, we are seeing a conscious intervention by socialists to fuse advanced Marxist theory with widely popular culture.
“All such Marxists fail to see that potential exists to channel such expressions in a progressive direction.”

Point scored, I think.

Why multiculturalism, you ask? Why is that a social policy weapon? It’s a polite term for multi-racialism. It oppresses the working class (in revenge for not rising up before, the reason the school was founded) by driving down wages, living standards and outnumbers them for State assistance a la Cloward-Piven Strategy. Divide and conquer. 

Historically, they thought this would keep the host culture from turning on them, too busy with the others.

Implicit within this clear violation of the freedom of association is the forced miscegenation intended to outbreed regular white people from existence in those countries, their native homelands (again, only Europe), with adverts everywhere you look in promotion of mixed races as superior to all others (rooted in the dangerous myth of Hybrid Vigour).
Ask yourself: Isn’t this explicitly anti-white stuff all… a bit racist? Specifically all the anti-white part?

Even when the Guardian encourages whiteface? Nothing twinges? Nothing seems a tad wrong?

Don’t look up the UN definition of genocide and its implications (wiping out any race in their homeland):

Public incitement of such genocide is also a crime.

Could this be Exhibit A at your trial for treason?

Moving on, Standpoint theory is a post-modern theory also used in feminism (this is a lot of coincidence) to lend credence to the opinion that minorities have the most or only valid perspectives, their word is always true (as their experience is never false) and a literal majority of people are probably wrong, because the density of their sheer numbers blind them with power or some vague excuse like ‘privilege’. It’s as silly as Magic Dirt and completely undemocratic, as a point of fact, it’s anti-democracy. Whenever you see these people trying something like the Progressive Stack and banging on like their opinions are important and can never be questioned because of what they were born, you see Standpoint Theory in action. It’s their pass to everything. They can do no wrong. The theory is also complete tosh. Applying it to Africa aka the most densely populated continent, white Africans would have more legitimate opinions on the structure of Government. They aren’t willing to apply this theory against anyone other than white, straight normal people who just want to be left alone by this PC stuff. Ironically, white people are a global minority, making them the most important people if we apply it …fairly. It gives rise to infographics like this.

[they took it down, fuck’s sake…] But whites are a minority!

White people are literally a minority, get over it SJWs:

It’s alright to exist, yes. To continue to live. In peace.


When name-calling is all you’ve got, you’ve lost the argument.

Critical theory (also used in feminism) is a similarly flawless means of derailing and dissembling a possibly productive conversation. It is defined in practice by never listening to evidence and never offering a solution to the social problems, and they’re always social problems (never quantifiable). ALL IT DOES IS COMPLAIN. It’s a license to nag you under the guise of the credentialism’s overeducated moral authority.
The only solution to social problems on the Left? Government spending! Despite national debt.

Austerity is a joke.

Let’s go with the Frankfurt School theory for a second. HYPOTHETICALLY.
How would you hide it?

Cultural as this consolidation of ideological power is, it requires cultural defense of itself. As it is undemocratic (so the idea goes) it must hide this institutionalized power structure from the populace by cultural denial. Deny or die. In the same way it suppresses other ideas. Ideally, it should blame its enemies for everything evil in the world. It must find a scapegoat for the hegemony, something easily recognizable as cultural shorthand for evil, especially when those people are dead and can’t argue or sue. If they fail to deny any truth to the matter, the whole house of cards will collapse. Elsewhere, there must be a dumbing down of culture, to the lowest common denominator.
Hm, what does the media see as shorthand for evil? We know from lab experiments that uniform carries a number of social role implications, which uniform could possibly become the trope for unquestionable evil baddie?

Naturally, if you repeat these cultural memes enough, you will run out of novelty. After a few decades. It will seem as if the main peddlers of this media are running out of original ideas. Hey, you could even make a meme out of it. Parodies and gags. Trope inversions. Make it self-aware. That’ll work for a while. However, you couldn’t possibly do anything about it, because that would be off-message. You must stick to the Party Line. The official Narrative. The Politically Correct version of the truth in this subjective postmodern reality, where all perspectives are theoretically true simultaneously. Don’t let them take that to the logical conclusion and side with your diametric enemies, better to outgroup them for the crime of… rejecting the outgroup? …What does the PC line do, exactly? Why follow it? Why must we? What does it accomplish for us? Who decided and told us to? Where does it even come from? We must never ask this question, Comrade. Sign this petition. Go to this demo. Buy this t-shirt. What question? There is no question, I thought we all agreed?

After all, it’s called Public Relations, not Public Information.

Gee, that Guardian article is looking like a real shoot in the foot, ain’t it?

this is awkward

It might as well have been titled;

Cultural Marxism: a uniting theory to explain why left-wingers love to play victim

honestly subtitled;

Deny this because it’s stupid and lies but also dangerous enough to us somehow to cover in the first place and we need rhetorical excuses, enclosed.

You know the easiest way you can tell you’re being brainwashed? [aside from blatant over-reliance on logical fallacies]

When the person talking to you tells you to never look up the other side. You must never go there, Simba. Never read their materials. Never listen to their arguments. Close your ears, Sweet Summer Child, because you have no mind of your own and your uncritical thinking abilities will be overwhelmed by their Satanic silvertongue! We’d never hide anything from you! We love you! We’re all about the love! Gee, this is beginning to sound like a church sermon.

I may appear smug, in fact that's just the sound of maths rushing through my mind

Frankfurt School Denialists, continue. The Streisand Effect means all your work are belong to us.


This requires a hegemony of culture to work – what would this look like? Liberal privilege in academia, an overwhelming bias in the humanities and social research, upon which government policy is based? Media suppression of conservative ideas, even in comedy, as hateful? How many right-wing comedians are there to left, as a ratio? The Government supporting public sector workers in their partisan causes e.g. SWP?

Naturally, we’d never see this type of propaganda launched at children, in media aimed at children, say, in comics. That would really screw them when it comes to the people saying they’re undemocratic, by targeting future voters and influencing them before critical thinking kicks in.communismcomicWe’d never see the Modern Left target comics. Never at all:
Actual quote: “Europe without Britain is incomplete. Like a pizza without tomato sauce.” – Captain Euro, source How am I supposed to parody that? 
In light of recent events, this one is my fave:
In the Long March Through the Institutions, there was an emphasis on New = Good, which is very convenient when you’re the new kid on the scene. When the right wing were dominant in these fields (and we got many classics out of it) they said to them ‘be open’ as the appeal to get their ideas in, and once they were out of power they seemed to dance with joy about how ‘out’ those notions were and remain. It’s disturbing how they fully believe they have an exclusive claim to moral authority imparted by this power and taxpayer cash. The rise of obstructive fascism (a left-wing invention uniting Stalin up to the National Socialists) currently uses suppression techniques at Universities that are beginning to be used for in-fighting (such as TERFs vs. other feminists) as the Left eats itself. They’re also taking steps of questionable legality by ‘no-platform’-ing a public space, a Government-funded public institution. Rules for Radicals would condone these type of acts. There are extremist factions wishing for trouble, like the UAF, hoping their Communist utopia will rise from the ashes. I haven’t seen them comment on Holodomor.

 uafaresearch “How problematical that goal…”
The linguistic use of domination-suppression techniques can be expert by CMs, and they use the excuse of teaching how to avoid it to simply… teach it: As reliable as crying wolf and crocodile tears when you doubt their sob story.
There’s the Diamond technique for swaying opinion at public gatherings without public consensus, because what democracy?
The ‘spiral of silence’ and ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression (look them up yourself) exert effects too.
What’s all this mean combined? Self-censorship is the goal, if they can get you to lie to yourself, it’s over and they can gain control over personal, private relationships with it. We see this already with various judgements of personal relationships beginning with sexuality and now moving into preference. Sexual tastes are immutable by their doctrines (LGB+) yet men are being shamed for rejecting fat women (fat acceptance) and white men for finding non-white women less desirable: Slowly it creeps and intrudes further and further into the most intimate parts of our life. Who do these people think they are? No wonder there’s a pushback forming to the Little Hitlers. Stay out of our bedrooms, you nutjobs.
Subverting democracy (by direct action and monstering mobs) like this are within the range of tactics admissable in a culture war.
Recall, Marx himself said “the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism.” The technological censorship comprises partisan community guidelines, surveillance, monitoring and includes Twitter block lists – and suddenly the user base of normal people (non-SJWs) is leaving in droves.
The very phrase “Political Correctness” is no longer PC, Kosher or ‘polite’ – because people are asking too many questions about it. The historical revisionism into an identity politics lens is blatantly dishonest i.e. (group) in (time period) rather than studying (time period). In context, demographic division is an IRL distraction from these moderated influences over decades, drip-fed through the media machine every day like soap operas and we usually pay them to do it. They say “___ is a myth” in reply as if their mere pronouncements ended all debate, as insanity only need occur once (based on cognitive dissonance) before it becomes permanent. If you ignore the reality of a situation once, that’s it. If you take up the doublethink or crimestop or Narrative, they’ve won. You aren’t questioning them because you gave them the authority of acceptable thoughts they presumed to have. And people wonder why print is dying and Alternative Media is picking up….
There is the feminist link to Communism and overlap naturally:
Social Justice (a recent branch of feminism) also takes its origins from Communism and its torrid history:
The post-war economy needed more workers, including women, to carry on growth patterns (and suppress average wages by sudden booms in supply) and telling women it was more fun to work than stay home contributed to the novelty of low happiness scores ever since:

Click to access Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf

The active propaganda of polls (see: groupthink, minority influence, Asch’s Lines etc) is leading to a sharp disconnect between what we see predicted pre-GE and the real result (see the past two General Elections in the UK). The democratic mandate for the unions and other Reds or their lackeys to call themselves the instrument of the People has dissipated with it. Given their hegemony, we see them neutrally deride this as a Rise of the Right.
Who came up with ‘culture war’? KulturkampfIt’s as German as the Frankfurt School academics. Then why is it false to discuss the notion, according to CM denialists? It predates the place by some decades. If it isn’t real, why is their fear of the topic very real?
In this century, most Marxists are middle class Champagne socialists waiting for Mumsy and Daddy to snuff it so they can collect the inheritance they believe is evil when right-wingers claim it (in all forms, including cultural inheritance) and the common suspects pushing a CM Narrative are rarely exceptions to this rule. As quoted above, they are idealists – what they expect is unrealistic. As for family money, their Boomers parents have probably spent it all regardless, going by the trends I covered for excessive debt and cruising.
It’s funny they push a Hollywood image of battle, good vs. evil despite rejecting religion, as Horseshoe theory in the face of moral relativism has produced the philosophically novel outcome: nobody is evil. They’ll blame anyone but the human being who did the thing. It was society! It was his background! He was forced! The agent? Barely a whisper. Where were the feminists after Rotherham came out? Councils and other governmental bodies are shredding abuse documentation to prevent this embarrassment again, the feminists don’t give a shit about children or girls. Sacrifices for the Narrative. Ignore the MAO genes’ link to aggression and other behavioral genetics coming out.
As leaps into subjects like a unified crime theory have posited, r/K selection explains much of this partisan behaviour; evolutionary theories make liars uneasy because it’s hard to argue with Darwin or testable hypotheses without seeming like an anti-science bigot. There is also suppression of social studies that make Conservatives look good or skewing of results (what hegemony?) in favour of the Left wing when covered by MSM e.g.:

Terrified of true opposition as they are (even in the form of Trump) they are already falling back on Godwin’s Law and crying Nazi simply for being the opposition to the dominant Narrative. Without real opposition, what is the point of elections again? Which means they lose the argument (the lesser known meaning of Godwin’s Law).

If we assume this were true, it begs questions. Doesn’t brainwashing work? How many musicians were Communist again? What about the Holodomor, worse statistically than any fanciful evaluation of the Holocaust? Why don’t these cultural outlets ever turn on the Left? Why don’t we use other figures like Stalin too? No enemies to the Left? They gloat about Overton Window shifts like gay marriage (the we’ve won/we’re winning articles like they’re trying to convince themselves laws can’t be repealed) but it’s never enough (‘there is more work to be done’ robots). It’s bizarre to watch from outside the media bubble. I guess from that Far Left, everyone else does look like a Nazi by comparison?

As Carlin said, we’re ‘circling the drain’ of their BS, the pendulum is swinging rightward overdue. They understand and acknowledge the Slippery Slope, it isn’t a political fallacy, especially when applied to moral trends (‘gay marriage’ polls taken in urban areas, anyone?) or any of the ‘changing attitudes’ that always seem to work in the Prog’s direction. We must be imagining it.

They forsake quality to chase equality. They’ll never get it, it would be as futile as stumping tall people and giving short people stilts. The result is ridiculous and forced.

Irony is a hip response to PC. We might follow it in public, because we don’t believe it. The act of submission becomes one of rebellion. An object of mockery ceases to be an object of fear. Trust nothing from the machine and it loses power. This is building.


You can deny some of this, but you can’t deny all of it.

What does this all mean?


I don’t know. You don’t either. I guess we’re equal.

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

Why else would the internet be talking about it, dipshit?
Since when do we agree on anything?

p.s. Guardian, cite me IRL. Come at me ho.

Advertising stole feminism & they’re STILL complaining + Women on Board lies

When this ad trend goes down, usually we see a buoy from the opposite e.g. Old Spice vs. Pyjama Boy.

Feminists know when something smells fishy.

….Welcome to the world of femvertising: where the hard sell has been ‘pinkwashed’ and replaced by something resembling a social conscience, and where advertisers are falling over each other to climb on board the feminist bandwagon.

…On the face of it, this might seem like a giant step forward for the industry. But is it as heartwarming as it seems? Aren’t we still just being sold to? Surely half the world’s population can’t be ‘having a moment’….

Meanwhile, Protein World is showing them how it’s done.
Who makes you more money long-term – a loud minority niche group ready to trigger on you eventually or a silent majority tired of their BS? They’re looking for proof, and something to calm down the stockholders at the meetings, who pay too much attention to Twitter because they’re too ancient to realise it’s a microcosm echo chamber without corporate relevance.

…It’s what women want. Last year, lifestyle website SheKnows surveyed more than 600 women about femvertising. A staggering 91 per cent believed that how women are portrayed in ads has a direct impact on girls’ self-esteem, and 94 per cent said that depicting women as sex symbols is harmful.

These women aren’t the sharpest tools in the box.
Note how they didn’t report how many, of those, actually purchased? Like the Dove campaign, it actually made sales plummet, because they got all their goodfeels from the Product (TM) advert – why would they need to spend more money on the product itself? (Original purpose for goodfeels marketing).

It also showed that femvertising can pay – half (52 per cent) had purchased a product because they liked how the ads potrayed women.

Did they say that unprompted?
How fickle is this 50% of your share?

Blackett suggests the move towards honesty in advertising is, in part, down to the recession. But I think the answer is much simpler: social media.

This girl is dumb.

Women have long held the spending power. Now, through social media, we’ve found a place to communicate that. We can hold advertisers – and anyone else perceived not to be meeting our needs – directly accountable (think Protein World’s ‘beach body ready’ billboards).

We can expose the realities of female life (#EverydaySexism) and rally behind causes via hashtag activism (think #bringbackourgirls #iammalala #yesallwomen). We can go into battle to see Jane Austen out on the tenner or to defend the victims of Gamergate.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double
Blogs own your job, bitch. It’s over. MSM/Print is dead.
Bloggers do your shit for free and better.

Here is a place where the soft power – read influence – of women has never been more apparent.

False equivalence, most women are not feminists.
View at

Our online presence is dominant (we use social media more, and we do 62 per cent of all online sharing).

Pictures of a druggie and stories about how much you hate yourselves don’t count.

We also have increasing power in the workplace – British boards now have 23.5 per cent women according to the latest Lord Davies report….

Actually in the FTSE250 in this report, as I said here;

FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.


In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.

head desk blackadder give up
Strangely, this report has gone missing (cough sabotage cough). Thankfully we have a cache to the page:

And it does link to a very recent briefing paper:
Which edits out the FTSE250 data and gives the 100 ONLY. That isn’t dodgy at all
This paper, yes, EU>our Government, snidely implies all-male boards will be banned in the top FTSE (I’m pretty sure this flouts corporate law and the rights of the stockholders with veto power), and since they’re publicly traded this can be regulated to an extent. On the economic losses, they have hidden their coverup of a lie in footnote 20 in this document, man I love the footnotes, protip always read those first: which reads;

It should be stressed that we reject any suggestion that improved diversity would be to the detriment of company performance, as was argued in some submissions we received.44 As the Employment Lawyers’ Association (ELA) stated, “it is difficult to see what disadvantages companies could suffer by reason of a higher representation of women on boards”.45 However, as the Minister said, “causality is probably impossible to prove one way or the other … ”.46 If this express link to financial performance cannot be proven more robustly, then it should be discarded from the argument. To do otherwise would put a case that cannot be proven at the centre of an argument for policy change. We urge the Government to argue forthrightly the case for improved gender diversity based on the “whole range of different advantages” that balance can bring,47 rather than on the direct financial impact of increased female board representation.

It cannot be proven if you suppress the evidence.
Notice they never outright lie? I love that about EU shills.
I’d sue or demand insurance that if the law forces them to take on bad hires, either they get the right to sack them and take on whomever they want or they get a massive payout greater than the loss. I did a little digging, for those who want to contact the people telling the truth on this.
The evidence to support this hatefact was submitted by Ray Russell, Michael Klein, and as ‘Campaign for Merit in Business’ and you can see the links here: who added “We’ve been in touch with most of these groups, and none has offered a shred of evidence of a positive causal relationship between more women on boards and enhanced corporate performance.

It doesn’t exist, dawg. Technically, the law was brought through on a known lie, making it invalid and a breach of NGO power (you know they’re the ones pushing this). These companies could hustle together and file a class-action lawsuit. I mean, if they read silly little blogs like mine…
In Europe, recent legal changes allowed this if it’s in civilian benefit (they can be stockholders of the PLC structure) – just a thought….

Back to the dumb girl…

…. It’s a powerful message and one that’s also had plenty of ad-world back slapping (along with #LikeAGirl it won a coveted glass lion at the Cannes Lion ad awards earlier this month).

The starting point for the campaign was research: through talking to women came the realisation that they weren’t doing sport out of fear of being judged, even though 75 per cent wanted to…..

All the prestige and $$$$.
They must be hitting up against the original idea wall soon, like Hollywood. Scraping out the last of their credibility could be funny. We should mock them mercilessly when that day arrives.

…It smacked of a company adopting feminism because it seemed trendy; out of self interest. That’s where brands like Sport England and Always have got it right – they’re turning the mirror back on us. The moment those women in the first #LikeAGirl ad understood they’d been fed a cliche about their own gender was powerful, regardless of the motive. …

These people will never be happy.

…Indeed, femvertising is hugely popular with millennials who, recent studies show, value ethics over money. …

They have no money.

But this younger generation of women will see through such advertising strategies if they become too shallow. The more brands strive to appeal to them via ‘social movements’ or experiments, the more they risk becoming formulaic.


…So where next for femvertising? Personally, I think we desperately need more diversity on our screens. …

Companies – They’re gonna destroy you. They only care about pushing their beliefs, they’re like the New Church Ladies.
Women don’t aspire to ugly. You will lose.

Go ahead, with my full blessing.
Do everything they say and when they drop you, the rest of us will let you go under.

…Plus, if femvertising is truly going to be real isn’t it about time we saw red, not blue, liquid used in ads for sanitary towels and tampons? (It’s a myth that ASA rules prohibit this). ..

See what I mean?

…”We need to normalise the experience of being a woman in advertising. If companies have any sense at all they will embrace it and future proof their business.” …

You made your bed, motherfuckers.

Orwellian “Extremism Disruption Orders” on UK table

In Britain, if you have extreme views on anything from Western democracy to women’s role in public life, you might soon require a licence from the government before you can speak in public. Seriously.

It’s the brainchild of Theresa May, the Home Secretary in David Cameron’s government. May wants to introduce “extremism disruption orders”, which, yes, are as terrifyingly authoritarian as they sound.

Last month, May unveiled her ambition to “eliminate extremism in all its forms.” Whether you’re a neo-Nazi or an Islamist, or just someone who says things which betray, in May’s words, a lack of “respect for the rule of law” and “respect for minorities”, then you could be served with an extremism disruption order (EDO).

Strikingly, EDOs will target even individuals who do not espouse or promote violence, which is already a crime in the U.K. As May says, “The problem that we have had is this distinction of saying we will only go after you if you are an extremist that directly supports violence. [This] has left the field open for extremists who know how not to step over the line.” How telling that a leading British politician should be snotty about “this distinction” between speech and violence, between words and actions, which isn’t actually some glitch in the legal system, as she seems to think, but rather is the foundation stone on which every free, democratic society ought to be built.

Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a “requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print.” That is, you will effectively need a licence from the state to speak, to publish, even to tweet, just as writers and poets did in the 1600s before the licensing of the press was swept away and modern, enlightened Britain was born (or so we thought).

What sort of people might find themselves branded “extremists” and thus forbidden from speaking in public? Anyone, really. The definition of extremist being bandied about by May and her colleagues is so sweeping that pretty much all individuals with outré or edgy views could potentially find themselves served with an EDO and no longer allowed to make any public utterance without government approval.

…What the government is proposing is the punishment of thoughtcrimes, plain and simple. Its insistence that officialdom must now move beyond policing violence and incitements to violence and start clamping down on hotheaded, “harmful” speech that simply distresses people is about colonising the world of thought, of speech, of mere intellectual interaction between individuals—spheres officialdom has no business in policing….

These people aren’t liberal. They’re Communist fascists.
This is one step to lining up dissenters and putting a bullet in the back of their heads.

I happen to know for a fact Anonymous won’t stand for this.

Expect us.

Article, strategy: How #Gamergate can actually win

This is going to be a bit of a hard and sober piece for most supporters of GamerGate to swallow. Bitter medicine is how I would describe it.

GamerGate in its current form will likely not exist a year from now. Chan movements don’t have the energy to sustain themselves for longer than a year without a significant drop in firepower, especially if the other side begins to take steps to starve them of oxygen: apathetic responses, instead of white hot rage, from the SJWers, as well as lack of concrete success.

…So the historical lesson is this: the fire will die, and gamers will move on. GamerGate may last for a year of crusades, until gamers are thrown a few token sacrifices for appeasement. Either way, without lasting infrastructure and plans for the long-term, GamerGate will wither away.


So, what’s to be done? How do gamers get back to their games without worrying about the SJW menace?

“We want SJWers out of our video games!”

That’s vague and imprecise. No good operation is run that way. That’s an overarching objective, but the victory condition isn’t laid out. Moreover, the logistical how is often as important as the what itself. Assuming this is the goal, how exactly does it defeat the problem of movement entropy? Logistical questions become easier when we hammer out exactly what we want.

First question: What is your victory condition, GamerGaters?

It’s somewhat of a war, and gamers are wont to frame their fight in terms of military language. If Gawker goes, will that be all? If Sam Biddle goes, will that be all? Jumping aimlessly from target to target without an end state (or just a vague end state) speeds up movement entropy.

The objective I laid out above is no good. Let’s try and tighten it up:

“We want to capture or secure commitments from 3/4ths (or whatever number deemed feasible) of gaming journalist sites that they’ll be apolitical in their coverage and reviews of video games. We want them to sign a statement on ethics in game journalism and to immediately remove journalists who demonstrably violate these terms. Owing to violations of journalism ethics, we want retroactive removal of violators X, Y, Z, etc. from your gaming sites.”

A classic Magna Charta strategy. This formulation is much better than the previous, since it allows the gaming media to capitulate to concrete demands instead of playing on the defensive because of uncertainty. If the media doesn’t know the victory condition the gamer hordes are searching for, it makes sense to shore up defenses when the hordes rush the gates.

Who can blame them?

An ethics statement is important because it establishes thorough commitment. As a sort of contract, it makes vigilance a lot easier. Lots of gamers read gaming sites already, and so it’ll be easy to spot violations. For the rest, GamerGate has shown itself to be incredibly thorough at poring through evidence and linking together disparate pieces to illuminate dark scandal. GamerGate is good at muckraking. All it takes is a little investigation and a little time.

Having a set number of people who volunteer on a centralized site to patrol the gaming journalism network is not a half-bad strategy to organize vigilance. For those who want to get back to playing games, the proposal works well. And for those who are interested in whatever it takes to push back the wider cultural forces of SJW, there’s no shortage of work to be done or other forces to join, which focus not just on games, but on every area SJWers have infiltrated in, say, the last thirty years.

With a victory condition, entropy is staved off longer: gamers are less uncertain about when they can return to games in peace, and so will keep up the fight until the achievable objective is achieved. Do you really play a game with no victory condition programmed into it? One or two counterexamples isn’t enough.

What else is needed? Maintenance of cultural norms. In order to hold journalists accountable, gamers need cohesive norms about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. For gamers, the common leftist slogan that the personal is the political is anathema. Game reviews are supposed to be about games, not sexism in games from writers who disparage and despise gamers and admit to never playing games, anyway.

The personal is the political? Anathema. Yet, on a philosophical point, ‘GamerGate is apolitical’ is an important slogan in that we all understand what it communicates, even though it’s technically incorrect. Group culture must in some sense be political to keep the bad politics out. Free speech is a political value. Individualism is a political value. Meritocracy is a political value.

By apolitical, gamers mean that there should only be a very small, base set of values, rather than an expansive set of anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, anti-this, anti-that values. GamerGate supports thin political values, not thick ones.

Even if you reject the potential solution that I’ve offered here, rejection alone doesn’t negate the problem of movement entropy. GamerGaters will have to recognize that decay is a real phenomenon, and that something, rather than nothing, has to be done.

Good points all.

Article: Inside the contradictory world of Thought Catalog, one of the Internet’s most reviled sites

In full;

Transphobia Is Perfectly Natural,” and “Ferguson, Missouri Looks Like A Rap Video”: So declared headlines on two consecutive days this past August from early adulthood-angst purveyor Thought Catalog, a Web site for and by millennials.

Both pieces racked up thousands of social media shares while being dissected and denounced by dozens of blogs and news outlets. But Thought Catalog, a powerhouse publisher that ranks among the 50 most visited Web sites in the United States, has disavowed any accountability for the pieces by claiming to be not quite a platform, not quite a publisher, but instead a “platisher” — an online publishing trend that blurs the lines between editorial product and free-for-all blogging site.

The “transphobia” piece, written by Vice co-founder and media provocateur Gavin McInnes, received enough backlash to cost McInnes his job at ad agency Rooster, which he co-founded. The day after that piece ran, the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., was becoming a national story, and Thought Catalog ran a take on the story by occasional contributor Anthony Rogers. When Gawker reported on the post, it used the headline: “Thought Catalog Is Now a White Supremacist Publication.”

The stories, Thought Catalog’s publisher and staff told The Washington Post, are the end products of an “anything goes” publishing policy, in which articles from outside contributors – like the authors of the two posts in question – are supposedly published without editorial oversight or judgment.

It’s a convenient argument to skirt responsibility, but not one that aligns with the site’s realities: Every story that Thought Catalog publishes from an outside contributor must go through an in-house producer who crafts and posts the stories online. Producers are trained only to screen for “illegal content and visual pornography.” In conversations with The Post, three employees at Thought Catalog said that many employees do pull blindly from the submissions inbox — which can number in the thousands per month — and hit publish. But others, the employees said, select stories that relate to a personal “aesthetic.” Some, one producer said, “seek out only very specific content within their interest group.” Yet there is no way to distinguish between what is endorsed and what isn’t, and Thought Catalog’s publisher denies that the publishing choices made by his producers even constitute editorial discretion.

That self-proclaimed void of oversight is how the site has published articles as harmless as “25 Things I’ve Learned In My 20s” — one of its many ultra-personal, first-person stories that have become major traffic cash cows for online publishers everywhere. But it has also resulted in a story blithely comparing Lance Armstrong’s steroid scandal to the fatal 2012 shooting at the Empire State Building; a story asking, “Is It OK To Make Fun Of Asians?”; and a story posing the question: “Which Black Teen Murderer Are You?” Each of those was either written by a Thought Catalog employee or selected to be published by a Thought Catalog employee, blindly or not. The site’s growth plan is one that attempts to remove the accountability of publishing while still reaping the traffic such stories bring in.

Thought Catalog’s publisher, Chris Lavergne, knows the stories are harmful to his site. And yet, his growth goal would bring even more of it.

“One bad egg has the tendency to ruin everyone else’s work,” he wrote in an e-mail to his staff days after those two stories were published.


Lavergne founded Thought Catalog in early 2010. A 26-year-old who speaks measuredly and with confidence, Lavergne was named to this year’s “30 under 30” list in Forbes, a publication in which he was profiled in 2012. He is publicly reserved and doesn’t frequently speak to media; he prefaced our conversation by calling Thought Catalog a “press-shy company.”

He conceived of the site as a 21-year-old Hampshire College dropout who was struggling to break into writing. After working a handful of jobs around New York in Web design and building sites for musicians and companies, he merged his interests and Thought Catalog was born. After he secured the site’s first advertising deal in early 2011, he quit his full-time job and hired two employees, Ryan O’Connell and Brandon Gorrell.

The site that emerged from Thought Catalog’s early days eventually became the self-described “value-neutral” home to a generation’s worth of anguish. What once was a cheeky-cool publisher of authors like prototypical alt-writer Tao Lin is now a behemoth of online publishing, pulling in nearly 27 million monthly unique visitors in the United States – more than, for comparison — according to traffic analytics tool Quantcast. It posts dozens of stories daily; one might be by an unknown teenager writing for the first time, one might be by “Prozac Nation” scribe Elizabeth Wurtzel.

Based in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood, the site has become the go-to destination for a certain type of writer and reader: post-collegiate or almost there, mostly un- or underemployed, with a healthy dose of ennui.

Its tagline — almost a built-in disclaimer — reads: “All thinking is relevant.”

“The interest in the beginning was that we didn’t have any of the conventional norms traditional publications had. If you just wanted to write an essay about whatever, you could publish with us,” Lavergne said. “Ryan [O’Connell] couldn’t get published anywhere, and he came on and became one of the biggest contributors on the site, and now he’s an incredibly powerful writer with a book deal. What we really saw was: we’re gonna be the place where anyone can go and publish, and we’re not gonna judge you.”

(O’Connell declined to comment for this story, saying only that “TC has always been intended to be a platform for different voices and opinions.”)

It’s a formula that seems to have worked. But a wider reach meant that the same clumsy, hyper-intimate essays from unedited college students could no longer skate by unnoticed. Likewise, the site’s occasional dips into current events were now subjected to the same scrutiny as any other major online publisher, resulting in brutal headlines across the Web attacking the site and its authors for a perceived – and very often, realnaiveté.

Compounding Thought Catalog’s growing pains was a unique take on the site’s role as a publisher, or rather, its role not as a publisher, a philosophy that persists today and has become a central strategy of the site’s growth.

Instead of being an editorial outlet with a bureaucratic editing and decision-making system, Lavergne hopes to turn the site into an all-publishing “platisher,” a silly portmanteau of the words “platform” and “publisher” and a recent trend for some media outlets, including Gawker and BuzzFeed. (Lavergne frequently compares Thought Catalog to blogging site Medium, which is built on the idea of being a “platisher.”) Not quite a one-way publishing megaphone, a “platisher” serves as both an editorial product with a paid staff and a platform where anyone with an Internet connection can self-publish. In Thought Catalog’s case, you could simply e-mail in an article and a producer would post it on the site as soon as a few hours later, without any editing. It could run next to, say, a thoughtfully reported story from a full-time staffer. It’s Thought Catalog’s hallmark feature, and the one that leads to the site’s biggest catastrophes.


About a week after Thought Catalog ran the transphobia and Ferguson pieces, Lavergne called me from a blocked number while on businesses in Oklahoma City, where the company has an office. He sounded tired. His voice was strained, and sighs accompanied his comments about the monsoon of acidic commentary lobbed at the site. He initially put this conversation off because of the “brutal week” he had endured.

I asked him how the site’s writers, editors and producers had been dealing with it.

“Our staff is a tight knit group of people, they’re very caring and empathetic people,” he said. “And they know what we stand for. So it’s part and parcel for what we do. But definitely, psychologically it affects you.”

Critical press attention is nothing new for the site. Its role as a repository for inexperienced writers and unedited writing attracts it, and Lavergne said the cycle of scorn is “part of our platform.”

But with the publication of these two posts, a sense was spreading among many that perhaps the site had pushed its luck too far.

Gaby Dunn, a former editor and vocal defender of Thought Catalog, said McInnes’s and Rogers’s posts embodied a gradual shift in the tone of the site, from youthful bewilderment at growing up to a harsher, more malignant conceit.

“I would always defend it, and now it just makes it harder and harder to defend,” said Dunn, who now works at Buzzfeed Motion Pictures and Nickelodeon Creative Labs. “It’s like that sort of person you’re dating and always telling your friends, ‘No, it’s not that bad,’ but then they do something really terrible and you’re like, aghhhh. I don’t know what to do now.”

Dunn left the site last year after clashing with Lavergne, particularly over the site’s publication of articles about the LGBT community.

“Stuff like that was just starting to happen when I left,” she said. “I started getting nervous that it was bad for me to be there, because my name was associated with it. People would e-mail me and say, ‘I’m disappointed in you.’”

S.E. Smith, former TC contributor and now the deputy opinion editor at the Daily Dot, wrote a column about his request to take down his writing and received dozens of e-mails from fellow writers who also wanted their work removed. By the next day, at least 53 contributors had made similar requests to Thought Catalog, according to Jezebel.

“I was infuriated and horrified by the content of those pieces, but at the same time, it was kind of par for the course with Thought Catalog,” Smith said.

When I asked Lavergne about the group’s requests, he sounded almost defensive, like a mentor scorned by his pupils.

“It was sort of strange to have people that we had personal connections with rebel against us because of what Gavin said,” Lavergne said. “That was particularly harmful. It hurt the staff. It was pretty crappy.”

But for Thought Catalog’s current staff, the scope of the two articles’ damage to the site’s reputation felt less landmark, more casual. When you work at a site that routinely invites the Internet’s scorn, you brace yourself and move on, explained Rachel Hodin, a producer there. She echoed Lavergne’s sentiment and language to describe the mood in the office in the wake of perhaps the site’s most public disasters.

“We’re a tight-knit group and know the difference between the perception of Thought Catalog and the reality of Thought Catalog,” Hodin said over e-mail. “Those articles didn’t even break 100,000 pageviews; so there was a lot of noise surrounding them, but in terms of audience and day-to-day business it was really just a blip on our radar.” (The Post and Quantcast were unable to verify this pageview count.)

Christopher Hudspeth, a staff writer and occasional producer there, said it’s normal to expect that stories such as these to be published when there is no editorial oversight.

“You’re liable to face a lot of backlash and consequences when you allow for anything to happen, and that sucks, but at the same time it allows for us to discover all sorts of amazing new talent,” he said over e-mail. Still, Hudspeth said that when he finds “something comical or relatable to a lot of people in the submission box I will publish it.” In a follow-up e-mail, Hudspeth said he doesn’t think this represents editorial discretion, and that “there is a team of people assigned to just publish everything that comes their way, robotically.”

And Wes Janisen, a 26-year-old freelance writer in San Francisco who has published an ebook and nearly 40 articles on Thought Catalog, said this is all to be expected from the site.

“Of course it’s something I would not like to see, but I didn’t feel like they did anything wrong by publishing” the two stories, Janisen said, adding that he would continue to work with Thought Catalog. “I am well aware of what their platform is, ‘all thinking is relevant.’ I may not necessarily agree with it, but when I send them an article I know it’s an open platform and it could be published next to something I disagree with. That’s a risk I’m willing to take, and maybe some people aren’t.”

More than a dozen other current employees contacted for this story either declined to comment or didn’t respond. The site’s co-publisher, Gorrell, also didn’t respond to requests for comment.


The writer of the Ferguson article is 28-year-old Anthony Rogers of St. Louis. He called the article “satire,” and he said he was prompted to write it because he thought Ferguson is a “trashcan” and the reaction to Brown’s death was “a joke.”

“I just wasn’t seeing how the world was taking it seriously,” said Rogers, who has more than 1 million followers on Facebook and 36,000 followers on Twitter. “I just wasn’t getting it. Like, Ferguson?” He later added that he didn’t understand the critical response to his article: “This generation just like has no brain or something.”

Lavergne described Rogers as “just some kid who was in the system and was published,” but Rogers disputes that characterization.

Rogers said he pitched his article to a Thought Catalog producer, who gave him the go-ahead to write it. Rogers submitted it to the same producer, he said, who then found a photo for it and published it.

This contradicts what Lavergne had told Harvard’s journalism blog NiemanLab in August, when he told a reporter there that the Ferguson article “was not screened by a producer.” Operationally this would be impossible, as every story must, at minimum, be published by a producer, who adds photos and appropriate technical publishing details, as Rogers said a producer did for his Ferguson story. Lavergne also told me during our conversation that a producer had seen and published the story, and that that producer’s primary job is that “he just puts online whatever comes up.” When asked about the contradiction Lavergne insisted none existed, and that a producer accepting a submission and publishing it does not constitute “screening.”

Still, according to e-mails obtained by The Post that Lavergne sent to the author of the Nieman story, some producers were explicitly hired for their “editorial discretion.”

“The point is a variety of layers of editorial discretion and complete openness,” Lavergne wrote in an e-mail.

The Post reached out to the producer Rogers named as having posted the article, but the producer did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Lavergne contested in general terms Rogers’s account of how the story came to be, but did not specifically deny that it was pitched and approved.

McInnes, who declined to comment because he is “still figuring out my employment,” was brought on last year as a paid contributor to balance out the “incredibly, incredibly liberal” slant of the site, Lavergne said. His transphobia piece had gone through a Thought Catalog producer to be published, and wasn’t flagged because Lavergne said he doesn’t want to pass editorial judgment.

Still, McInnes will be “on leave for a little bit,” Lavergne said.


The contradiction between the site’s mission of openness and the facts of its selective publishing isn’t one that seems likely to be reconciled soon, and some alums aren’t convinced it was ever even a mission.

“It’s just not true,” said Dunn, referring to Thought Catalog’s claim to be an open platform. “There was an aesthetic they were trying to build when I was there.” Some stories are “not right for their audience, so that’s editorial judgment.”

Still, changes have come about because of August’s two debacles, some of which are aimed at truly removing any judgment – or, at least, perception thereof – from the site’s content.

In a memo to his staff forwarded to The Post, Lavergne outlined four new policies.

First, Thought Catalog introduced a new flagging system rushed into service that lets readers flag content they think is offensive. Enough flags, and Lavergne is notified and he can choose whether to block the article, the memo said. The feature will eventually be expanded so readers can “blockout” offensive articles with other content.

Next, comparing his site to Medium, Lavergne said the Thought Catalog will launch a “badge system” to differentiate writers the site “endorses” and everyone else. He also promised to “invest in top-notch talent.”

But most importantly, Lavergne said the site will build the technology to take producers out of its publishing equation, allowing anyone to publish directly to the site without having to go through staff, in the way anyone can publish content instantly on Medium.

Whether that experiment will ultimately succeed is impossible to tell. But as the site’s current iteration continues to grow into its role as a “platisher,” Thought Catalog’s original mission may continue to become more diluted, some said.

“I always thought Thought Catalog was traditionally one of the funniest kind of ‘bad reads’ Web sites on the Internet, just in terms of putting out hilariously bad sort of young person writing, which is something that a lot of us have written in our lives,” said Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan, the de facto chronicler of Thought Catalog’s most woeful stories since 2011, when he archly said it was “redefining the art of blog post writing for a new and vibrant generation.”

“It’s actually a little unfortunate, because I think it has sort of gotten away from being that funny, harmless, bad writing hate-read place, and now it’s expanded into a sort of actually malevolent hate-read place. […] It doesn’t really have a focus anymore.”

Nolan will concede, however, that the site’s brand of confessionals and saccharine, shareable content appeals to a wide audience.

“How deep is the public appetite for shallow, Internet garbage?” Nolan said. “So far in the history of the Internet, the public appetite for that is huge.”

Likewise, the draw of Thought Catalog for those inexperienced millennial writers can be simply overpowering: Dunn, despite her falling out with Lavergne and the site, encouraged her 22-year-old sister to write for it. She now has two posts to her name.

Trailer: Institutions of Higher Indoctrination

Self-flaggelation and village idiots.

In full;

13 minutes in: “Our common enemy is capitalism.”

Fascism definition;

(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

They don’t seem to like white people (racism) and you could relate the hatred of a nation to a different form of nationalism. The rest fits 100%.



Taking on the Cathedral

The innocuous looking guy to the left has just been recently voted one of Britain’s greatest ever foes.

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike…. I want to ride my bicycle, wherever the fuck I like…

Click the picture into a new window for amusing musical accompaniment.

The task facing him was not inconsiderable. How do you beat the worlds greatest superpower with nothing more than a few guns toted by eager youths, a lot of local good will and nothing much else? And yet that is what he did.

Michael Collins is arguably one of the greatest commanders in history. His greatness lays not in his ultimate achievement, rather, in the obstacles he had to overcome to attain it. Obstacles that would have overwhelmed nearly all other mortal men. It was the ultimate challenge; Man vs British Empire.

Collins won.


Michael Collins recognised that the way to take on the British Army was not to take it on directly (which would be suicidal) but to engage it on his terms. The way to fight it was unconventionally. Playing the traditional media’s game is to engage it conventionally. Thus, in my opinion, the manosphere should discount any advice about courting mainstream publicity and resist it as best as it can. The aim is to engage in cultural guerrilla warfare. The medium through which this warfare must be fought is the internet, a forum where the media has virtually no control on the subject matter.

All this discussion of Satan and demonic influences in media

I’m a hopeful agnostic on it.
If someone could show me tangible proof of those things, I might fear them.
Lots of “hand of”, no substance.
Ascribing everything you hate to “the Devil” only serves to make the label worthwhile in opposition, it cannot stand alone.

Or LOTR would prove angels exist.

Or LOTR would prove angels exist.