Are We Unconsciously Submitting To Concealed Totalitarianism?

Prisoners Of Ourselves is a compilation of lectures given by by Gunduz Vassaf, a Turkish man educated in America. His main thesis is that we accept invisible totalitarianism into our lives without realizing it. The standardization of culture, food, and consumer products all forces us into a mold, and what we may think of as creative expression is still within a model forced upon us under the guise of personal freedom. If you choose not to participate in this model, which is becoming increasingly impossible thanks to how it’s intertwined with consumerism, you’re ostracized and then exiled for not conforming.

…the variety in human behaviour with respect to all its aspects ranging from type of sexual activity to paradigms of thinking is becoming one-fold. People are to be judged against a world consumer’s standard totalitarian criterion of normalcy.

When you standardize life and culture, you also standardize thought, ensuring it stays within a sphere that doesn’t threaten those with power, who are actively encouraging the standardized model. Such standardization is an effective method of wealth extraction and human control.

Vassaf takes the concept “everything about modern life is totalitarian” and applies it to anything he can find, even the structure of our homes, stating that it is totalitarian to have living spaces that are already delineated with a room to cook, a room to sleep, and so on. As you can imagine, sometimes his idea works, but often it doesn’t, especially when he advocates for social justice ideas of gender fluidity and other labels that critique features of advanced civilizations as “oppressive.”

While Prisoners Of Ourselves had some good spots, a work like this could possibly be used as a justification for leftist ideologies by gangs of women with blue hair, especially since it pushes subjectivity by advocating for what doesn’t feel totalitarian and oppressive instead of having rigid moral and quality standards.

Daylight is totalitarian

Daylight is a decoy. Light blinds us. It is at night that our eyes are wide open. All our other sense are also more attentive, for the forces of order have shut down their machines. At night we listen to silence, see into darkness, give free reign to our bodies and imagination. One is no longer the consumer of countless messages that try to imprison our senses during the day. The constant humming of the oppressive megamachine has stopped. Now, the source of energy is within. The night is the background for man’s performance of the mind.


The “meaning of life” is felt and questioned at night. Nobody talks about it over lunch. Life is a subject of the night.

Judgement is totalitarian

An independent man will never get himself into a situation where he will allow himself to be judged.

If we substitute “independent man” with “500 pound man,” would he still make this assertion?

Language is totalitarian

From birth on, the more the child is trained in the use of spoken language, the more he wears a “straight-jacket” in terms of his relationship with life. The infinitely immense capability of the brain to differentiate, to see things both singly and in interchanging relations on the basis of their particular qualities and characteristics, becomes more limited when the child gradually confines himself to our words, to abstraction and to generalization.


Because of the spoken word, because of the exaggerated dominance of the spoken word, we consciously experience less. We see, hear, smell, touch, taste less. We bypass many experiences. We attend less to life and more to our simplification and particular abstraction.

Of the infinite variety that we could experience, the few that we actually do experience are immediately codified and standardized in words.


Speechlessness leads to an expansion of the senses, silence to a heightened form of communication. For in silence we share a bonding that encompasses and goes beyond verbal exchanges. Silence is the gestalt of all that is sensed. The spoken word is an intrusion into silence, an intrusion into wholeness. It disturbs, differentiates, categorizes and finally reorders a minute part of our total experience.


Speech is a futile act of “momentary immortality.” A cry of, “I exist.” Silence is a consciousness of our relation to both time and timelessness. It is the infinite and the speck of dust at the same time. Silence is many dimensional, multi-sensual. Speech, in its categorical, ordering fashion, can only convey some of the experiences of the five senses.


The moment we reduce a multi-dimension, multi-sensual experience to one spoken word, we destroy the infinite richness surrounding us. We castrate the imagination of man and impose a totalitarian order. We have imprisoned the world with words. In the process we have also become prisoners of our own words.

Words and language are being used by globalists to control the masses, so voluntarily relinquishing the use of words to fight back would then automatically lead to a self-imposed imprisonment of your own “free will.” Silence in the face of words is a pacifist strategy that will likely only increase the oppression he speaks of.

Psychology is totalitarian

The role of the psychiatrist is oppressive. His duty is to help people conform to the norms and standards set by the ruling elite. Whether he is successful in his work with the individual is of no great importance for society. If he is “successful,” the “patient” returns to society as a docile, co-operative citizen. If the psychiatrist is unsuccessful, the “patient” is ostracized, either locked up and put away in a hospital or drugged up and banished to the streets.


The role of the psychiatrist is oppressive because his primary interest is not in the health or so-called sanity of the individual. His main obligation is to uphold the accepted standards of behaviour established by the ruling elite, class, part or culture. In upholding such standards, the psychiatrist reinforces those very institutions that limit man’s growth and freedom.


“Understanding, predicting and controlling behavior” is the unwritten logo of our social sciences—especially psychology as a behavioural science. That is the purpose of psychology. Whose interests does it serve? The collected information with respect to our behaviours is the basis of power for the post-industrial (post-modern) establishment(s). Information about our behaviour enables them to control society, to control their “citizens,” to control and exploit us. Information is power.

Standardization of man is oppressive

The standardization of man, madness, and freedom in the twentieth century has removed any sense of intensity in the life itself. Nothing is intensely felt. There is no time for depth. All experiences must be fleeting. Experiences are like chattel—to be bought or gotten ride of, to be experienced at will. We choose experience as if buying something from a department store.


In spite of the permeation of standardization and totalitarianism, those who can still be made are indeed very strong and unique individuals. One should not use the word “mad” lightly, for there are very few who can be accorded that privilege. It is a privilege accompanied by great suffering. It is a suffering that is rarely alleviated. The path of the mad is so lonely that although he may have empathy with the world and the cosmos, he is also beyond praise and punishment.

Modern apartments are oppressive

The space-efficient apartments of recent origin, reflects the utmost in the totalitarianism of living space. When looked in from the outside, one often sees that all TV sets are in the same place in one apartment building after another. The couch where one sits to watch television is also in the same place. We eat, defecate, and have sex exactly in the same surroundings. It is very simple for a complete stranger to walk into a flat and find everything as if he had been living there for years. The living spaces of today no longer reflect the individual nor the cultural differences of their occupants.


A bird’s nest, which is the result of instinctive behaviour, shows more variation and use of natural surroundings than the block apartments we are building throughout the world today.

Hero-worship is totalitarian

Not daring to live in freedom, we delegate it to heroes whom we worship. Heroes are characteristic of the totalitarianism in us. They are also an absolute must for totalitarian regimes.


Heroes are as clearly defined and as standardized as a McDonald’s hamburger. The hero in all his details must meet with all the prejudices and value judgments of society.


All the attributes of a hero must meet the ideals, values, doctrines of the establishment of the ruling class(es). There must be nothing ambivalent or ambiguous about him. All images of those who are presented to us as heroes are totalitarian.


Without heroes we are individuals. With heroes we are a group. Individuals have consciences and principles. Groups adjust and have laws. Individually we live, collectively we survive.


Communists write stories about brave children fighting the enemies of the people, capitalists have their “rags to riches” heroes, Jesuits tell tales about the lives of the saints, nation-states worship their liberators.

Public relations agents representing sports figures, actors and singers pimp their clients to children and the young.

It is critically important for totalitarian rule to “capture” or “kidnap” the child’s mind with a hero. The child unquestioningly assumes a system of values and a particular ideology through heroes. As adults we often continue the allegiances we had as children.


A free man can have no heroes, for a hero implies the status quo. It implies a model to be emulated.

Information is totalitarian

Our so-called information society has a shorter memory span and knows less history than perhaps any society of previous centuries. This is not because of censorship or a major calamity like the ancient library in Alexandria burning down. Rather, we are faced with an information overflow that makes us unselective in what we hear, see or read. There is so much news that it has become a background noise in our daily lives. Just like fast food, fast sex and fast culture, fast news is also totalitarian in that it leads to a people who are desensitized and who can no longer discriminate.


Before printing presses news passed by word of mouth. In a way, there were as many newspapers, as many journalists, as there were people. The eyewitness accounts and reactions became the collective information of the people. News was indeed by the people for the people of the people. Media specialists and technology have facilitated the establishment’s control over news and information.


The refined totalitarian societies have discovered that what works for children is also valid for adults. What is new and fast will always arouse our attention and in emphasizing the present, eradicate the past. A society with little or no sense of history is easy to govern. Such a society is uncritical and easily led by the establishment.


The greatest fear of those who rule is not the opposition but not to be taken seriously.

Most of the author’s essays were published in 1986, well before the age of the internet, which has only amplified the problems he spoke of.

Sexual identity is oppressive

Vassaf takes a hard left turn on sexual identity by adopting a 100% blank slate position (i.e. gender is a social construct). I doubt he could have imagined the tranny horror show that would happen 30 years later, because he seems to sincerely believe that allowing men to become women would free them from totalitarianism.

He fails to understand that our biological destiny would make this change lead to psychological suffering, mental disorders, drug addiction, and promiscuity. He also did not consider that the ruling elite can foster sexual confusion in order to create weak individuals that won’t pose a threat to their power.

The enforcement of sexual identity is one of the most oppressive uses of power.

The elite he so hates is now using his ideas to keep their elite position. He missed when failing to consider that nuclear families with rigid sex roles is a far greater threat to the elite than sexually confused individuals who pick identities that they “feel” are correct before becoming a slave to their sexual wants.

He also sympathizes with feminism but at least saw how it could lead to a new form of totalitarianism. The “seeds” he spoke of has indeed become all grown up.

“Look at me as a person not as a sexual object,” is a statement of revolt against the existing order. It however denies the existence of sex and carries seeds of yet a great totalitarianism. Our technological innovations along with notions of sexual egalitarianism are taking us towards the denial of evolution based on male and female potentialities.

If we deny male identity and masculinity, would that help the elite maintain power?

Consumer choice is totalitarian

Like consumer preferences, all types of allegiances are also the result of one-sided relationships. They are simply chosen. The one-sided choice is the most complete power relationship. Is it the ultimate in domination. But it is also a fantasy. For although our choices and support is wooed by political parties, sellers of consumer goods, entertainers and religious sects, it is actually they who control us by offering, limiting and defining our choices. In decided to choose we assign rulers. It is they who amass fortune and power through our support.

The increase in choice that we have is an illusion, since that choice is centered around trivial matters of pre-packaged experiences and entertainment junk that does not threaten the power holders. We have what Vassaf calls “material and psychological obesity.”

Seeking immortality is totalitarian

The American psychiatrist Robert Lifton holds that the motivating force behind all our actions is to seek immortality. He cites four types: religious (the eternal soul), genetic (our seed living on through our offspring), creative (our names will live on through our works), and historical (with each action, each one of us is creating and becoming part of history). Against, another typical contemporary view that man must somehow belong forever, leave his imprint in history and dominate the future. Nothing about love, joy, sharing or merely playing.

Hey guys, stop trying to change the world and play with each other instead.

Setting goals is totalitarian

Once one has a fixed goal—a goal to be reached at all costs with dedication, determination and sacrifice—it seems that one has become subordinate to one’s goal, that life itself has become subordinate to the goal.

Even if he is right, he offers no alternative besides going on to state that goal-setting interferes with “love.” Then wouldn’t love be the goal, and wouldn’t you be subordinating yourself to that? A lot of his ideas were not completely thought through.

Pre-recorded music is totalitarian

Musical instruments for example left our houses to be replaced by records and discs. The family no longer makes music together. We still dance, but it is no longer an expression of our lives. Our dances come and go out of fashion in accordance with the dictates of the music industry.

Photography is totalitarian

Our relationship with the camera manifests how the push button image is substituted for the real. With each relentless snapshot, all that is photographed is consumed, exhausted from its natural setting to become part of a series of unconnected images.


We in our century have become image consumers.


With the first recorded images of man in cave painting some 35,000 years ago, image and magic were intertwined. The image had an all encompassing life giving presence, before which man was humble. In our century it is the image that is endlessly manipulated by man. The image is no longer lasting, being constantly created and destroyed. By ruling over images one rules over people. The image makers and the image destroyers are one and the same. They are the rulers.


There are enough leftist ideas in the book that I suspect Vassaf would give lukewarm support to today’s social justice world order that is being used by the elite to destroy the family unit and traditional society while depopulating certain races, but it came in bursts and wasn’t entirely distracting from his more reasonable points. We shouldn’t be surprised of this since Vassaf has spent too much time in toxic academic atmospheres.

While Vassaf does have a handful of good ideas, he tries to apply one model for everything, forcing square pegs into holes that don’t quite fit. I’m not sure if he’s trying to be an agent of destruction to the traditional and godly order or if he’s just an idealistic academic who wants peace, love, and sharing for all mankind. Either way, his work is not especially useful for masculine men who are finding themselves in the minority.

Read More: “Prisoners Of Ourselves” on Amazon

114 thoughts on “Are We Unconsciously Submitting To Concealed Totalitarianism?”

  1. Very, very few people are independent and self-sovereign, (pre-requisites to being free from external manipulation and control); the rest all are (unknowingly to themselves) eventual victims of some form of totalitarianism.
    Technology homogenizes society. Liberalism and Marxism are only as successful in today’s day and age mostly due to the advent of technology. Without technology, they would be much less successful. Marxists are in the process of destroying so many unique cultures all over the world with the help of their favourite tool: television media. They have been quite successful in Europe and other Western countries. Eastern countries and conservative countries are hanging in there, for now.
    Television media (the most powerful and destructive of all propaganda tools to shape society and culture, completely in the hands of the elites) accelerated the implementation of their ideology and today increasingly manifests itself in the form of social media. Television media has become an entire generation’s source of guidance and wisdom, replacing well-established religious institutions and their morals/ethics.
    These tools of the elites have brainwashed people and children with Marxist ideology since childhood and only children raised in an insulated environment with strong parents have a chance of independent rational thought free from Marxist dogmas.
    First, kill the tube from your house and instead replace it with books of religion, politics, history, philosophy, etc. all throughout your house. Next step is slowly reject consumerism and adopt self-sufficiency, just like our ancestors. These two are the important major steps to self-improvement and raising children in a healthy environment. This will result in their free mind and independent thinking, which will greatly help in fighting back against the elites in the long run.
    The other end of the spectrum from self-sufficiency, is centralized-dependency (i.e., Marxism), which eventually leads to totalitarianism, a bottomless abyss that will only lead to doom and destruction of all self and civilization.

    1. Let’s keep the ball rolling. Next step – rescind all contracts with the state including citizenship, insurance policies, birth certificates, etc. Then, home schooling the children. Teach them your values and any necessary knowledge.
      Takes big balls to do this who wants to volunteer? Any hands?

      1. I’m completely on board with you my friend. Sovereignty from State is the next step after achieving Sovereignty of Mind. As we both know, unfortunately, most men will never achieve stage 1, a very BIG step.
        My wife and I (along with my parents) will be moving to a semi-rural area soon on a small, 5-acre plot farmhouse (can’t stand living in a suburb and too much influence from neighboring kids at Marxist “schools”) and we plan to have 4-6 children, all home-schooled with our values. We’re both really looking forward to it.
        As I’m the main income earner going out to work (for now), wife will be running our home-based web development business (currently setting it up) part-time for supplementary income and to keep herself busy and educating our children, with help from my parents (parents were teachers back home in India, wife was for a couple of years briefly until we got married last year).
        I’ll be doing my part of education and character development as well, mostly “after-school” hours and weekends and whenever else time is available. With some hard work and luck, family business will pick up over time and I’ll be able to contribute full-time, or start another home-based business.
        We need more like-minded people to start thinking along these lines. Basically, we need to re-create the whole pre-industrial, rural/semi-rural, tribal setup.
        Going forward, I believe this is the most optimal setup for us like-minded individuals.

        1. If only it were so simple. The hounds will not let go of their slaves so easily. Do you plan on paying income tax and working by employment through your SSN? If so I fear they may try to claim any children you might have as their own as even if you don’t get birth certificates for them just through association.

        2. At the moment, I don’t think it’s practical or even possible to completely sever ourselves and our children from the system, very well knowing the system is tilted and basically a scam. The only real way I can think of to do that would be to expatriate, which isn’t feasible.
          Right now, we simply don’t have the critical mass to make any significant impact on the system. We would need numerous men and women from all different walks of life (doctors, engineers, builders, etc.) to isolate themselves into a community simultaneously to have any real chance for success. We simply can’t “lone-wolf” ourselves out of the system.
          I think a better long-term strategy is to 1. spread the word to as many people as possible about how the system is corrupt to the core (we are slowly making inroads on the internet as men are finally starting to wake up) and promote self-sufficiency+reject consumerism and 2. have many children and raise them with our religious values in a controlled environment (as described in previous post) and make them religious community leaders along with their normal working profession.
          When the global financial economy finally melts and law and order breaks down (this will be the inflection point, the US and many other Western countries are on a fiscally unsustainable path) in a few decades or so (if not sooner, we came very close in 2008), they are well positioned to take over as leaders with our values after rebellion. Religion is what will bind people together as they look for hope and a sense of direction after the meltdown.
          Basically, we need to wait until the hound’s teeth are so rotten from excess that they break off and they are powerless. That will be our golden opportunity to “reset” our society back to tribal patriarchy. We simply can’t take on them head-on given the current climate.
          In the mean time, we need to stockpile gold bullion and weapons for self-defense and educate as many people as possible to do the same.

        3. I don’t see why we can’t “lone-wolf” ourselves out of the system, as you say it. It’s been done in the US and since that’s still a British Colony, it can be done here as well. The only problem is who are these people in Canada who have done it and are doing it successfully? There are little to no examples one can follow. Because when Big Brother comes knocking and drags you into court for something that doesn’t apply to you anymore, if you don’t know the correct “spells” to cast, you’re toast. And nobody wants to be that guy.
          There’s no need for taking anybody on or stockpiling weapons. The wrong thing to do would be to attack. Even if the fiat system as we know it implodes, there will be another waiting in its wings to be put in its place. Trying to create your own system to fight it will only lead to becoming that same monster you seek to destroy.
          Going back to our roots is where the answer is. That’s religions, agriculture, bartering, nature.

        4. I just want to make it clear I’m not advocating an armed uprising of any kind. At the same time, there’s nothing wrong with stockpiling weapons for self-defense of your family and children.
          “Even if the fiat system as we know it implodes, there will be another waiting in its wings to be put in its place.”
          Not a question of if, my friend, just a matter of when. There never has been a fiat system that hasn’t imploded and when it does, neither police, government, nor military will protect you. What system comes next depends on who’s in charge, which is why we need our children, instead of the children of the current parasites in charge, to become leaders that understand the evils of the fiat system and get rid of it for once and for all.
          “Trying to create your own system to fight it will only lead to becoming that same monster you seek to destroy.”
          I’m not trying to create my own system, going back to the gold standard is why I said to stockpile gold bullion, which you’ll need for trade when the system melts along with bartering. Fiat currency, Central Banking and Fractional Reserve Banking must go if you want true freedom.
          Gold, just like back in ancient times and up to recently only less than 100 years ago in the USA, is what we need to replace fiat currency with if we are ever to get our society back in order. As long as we have a fiat system, we will never be free.
          “Going back to our roots is where the answer is. That’s religions, agriculture, bartering, nature.”
          This I agree 100% with you.

        5. Are you planning on rescinding all forms of ID and contracts with the government and associated corporations?

  2. Roosh is right. A shit ton of people don’t even vote or care about politics because they’ve been brainwashed into thinking it doesn’t matter. The concept of normalcy is a mental prison we build for ourselves. This is why we are underpaid and angry. We don’t control our destiny we resign it to fit in.

    1. “A shit ton of people don’t even vote or care about politics because they’ve been brainwashed into thinking it doesn’t matter.”
      I disagree. They haven’t been brainwashed. They just sense that it REALLY doesn’t matter: the real decision-maker aren’t in Washington. They are people like George Soros, Bill Gates, etc. You have no leverage on these people. so why bother electing their puppets?

      1. That’s why you elect someone who’s not. I.e. sanders and wait for him to give a foothold to the 99% and then new non establishment figures can move in. The establishment banks on controlling votes by funding both sides of the election and owning the media. They bank on keeping the majority arrogant and close minded to control the flow of elections. If everyone votes differently they lose control of the facade if they try to cheat it.

        1. My father used to say: “If democracy was possible, it would be banned.”
          Don’t fool yourself. The puppetmasters will never let anybody who doesn’t kowtow to their need get in power. That’s just how human nature has always worked.

        2. Nonsense you make it sound like a minority of people who are fortunate, but not necessarily intelligent have omnipotent powers. That’s some North Korea level bullshit they love for you to believe. Unless you are a complete drone slave the majority wins.

        3. “Nonsense you make it sound like a minority of people who are fortunate, but not necessarily intelligent have omnipotent powers.”
          That’s just you not getting my point. I think George Soros is a very intelligent man, probably near-genius level. Actually, he’s smart enough to get his pupeets elected in most countries without getting involved.

        4. Agreed, but he’s not the majority of the 1%. He’s one person. The 1% is compromised mostly by trust fund babies and hedge fund managers. Meaning the power to change the world is mostly in the hands of a bunch of pre madonnas. The top of the pyramid is supposed to consist of people who know what to do with their resources. Not a bunch of idiots. There are exceptions, but society as a whole is horribly inefficient the way it is. The amount of mental illness that stems from greed is horrible. If people just went to work and provided for a roll we’d already be a type 1 society. Instead we waste our most valuable resources ourselves to pursue a lie.

  3. The majority of people like being told what to do. They like their thinking and choices to be made for them by big corporations and the government. How could we live without the nightly news brought to us by ABC or XYZ or malls with Starbucks or Bigbucks coffee and all the rest. We like this degree of superficial choice in our lives and nothing more.

    1. You know, the more I wake up, the more I become open to the fact that most people I see on the street … they just do not have that spark of intelligence that I bet most men here share. You just see it on them that they are somehow simpler. That is not a bad thing, I believe. But it also means that they will likely never value the amount of intellectual autonomy we want for ourselves. They just want to … be social. Be simple. Relax. Be cool. Shit.

      1. I’ve noticed that too. The first thought that I had when I discovered RoK was about the difference of the intelligence of the people here and people on the street.

        1. I always had that intuition, but I never thought it meant anything. I was ashamed of it, actually. Very strongly. I did not allow myself to think that others are dumber. I thought: Who am I to think such an arrogant thing?
          But in hindsight, some people are really just dumb as bread, for example my old boss. I never allowed myself to think others are stupid, so I always tried to force them into understanding my viewpoint. As I did not allow myself to think they are stupid, I was convinced they deliberately refused to see my point. But no, they just did not get it. Not their fault.
          A bit sad.

        2. Not their fault, but I still flame them hard when they collectively screw me over with their stupidity. Democracy is one of the biggest faulires in human history.

        3. Yeah. My old boss sued me for his stupidity. I wrote him some 10 fucking angry emails, calling him every bad word I could think of. He never answered, but I got told he forwarded them all to the police. So then I wrote another 10 equally angry emails and put the police guy into CC. No fucking with Mr. Arrow.

        4. There is a fine line between arrogance and confidence. But why is it arrogance to be able to see more clearly than your fellow man and to truly understand that most people do not have the capacity for abstract thought or deep insight. This is nothing new. The Gnostics and the Buddhists understood/understand this. Most people not only want, but desperately NEED blinders to shield them from the terrifying realization that the yawning grave awaits them at the end of a meaningless life. A life truly absent of God and all good things.

        5. Yet who are others to choose those blinders for them? It is easy to condition people into dependence on blinders and then have them say, with their own words: I want blinders.
          But that is not an indicator of what they really want. No. Raise a man in freedom and ask him: Do you want blinders?

        6. “from the terrifying realization that the yawning grave awaits them at the end of a meaningless life” Well, I don’t think anyone can make these judgments upon others. Often we confuse outward habits we see in our fellow man with inner conformity. This can be a mistake. Likewise, we often see people who dress up to look cool and more interesting than everyone else and yet after conversing with them we discover for all their outer “rebellion” they’re completely mediocre and conformist on the inside.
          Yawning grave. Well, I think there’s a lot of folks much more religious than I here who won’t agree with this. I’m not overtly religious, but, I believe that death is an event that we’ll all see from a very detached point in the larger scheme of our own consciousness.

      2. The interesting point is that ordinary people are passively part of the totalitarianism themselves. For example, the use of smart phones that take videos of people doing various things, is a way of using ordinary people to shame and control other peoples’ behavior and freedom on behalf of the status quo. Facebook and twitter shaming is a variation on the same theme.
        Most people if they had a choice between a totalitarian State that provided them with all the “Bread and Circuses” (to use a phrase from Marx!) but with restrictions in their liberties combined with a compulsory belief in the correct ideologies (feminism and multiculturalism) and a society that was free from brain-washing and mass consumerism, they’d still vote for our left wing friends in big boots. That’s what the people want. That’s democracy or at least that’s what the politicians always say when questioned about greater State intervention in our lives.

        1. Yes, good health physically is a real blessing, but, in a mental sense, I actually agree strange to say with the left wing philosopher, Erich Fromm in his book “The Sane Society” that you’d need to be estranged from a society that’s deeply unhealthy, sick and dysfunctional in order to be healthy and authentic human being in such societies. He wrote this book, I think from vague memory in the 1950s and while I don’t subscribe to any of his left-wing views, the general scheme of the docile, unhealthy masses wanting nothing more then consumer goodies, struck a chord with me when I read it years ago.
          I also liked his idea that modern mass conformism societies tend to desexualise the erotic energies in individuals’ lives through mass consumer behaviors. For example in the UK in the 1990s couples had sex 8 times a month, now that’s reduced to 2.3 time a month. Apparently the reduction has been blamed on the box-set and red wine culture winning out rather than the bedroom with couples each weekend. It’s all a bit sad.

        2. Good point. Maybe mental health may have actually estranged me much earlier and much stronger from society than I have become estranged anyway.
          Now, trauma is not exactly something to be proud of and to see as ‘individualist’. Emotions that throw you around in a whirlwind truly are not that … intellectual. But yeah, those pains make you think a lot.

        3. Emotions in men are always the most problematic issue to deal with. In fact, all the issues I had in my earlier life related to this shadowy realm. Emotions that have not been mastered or broken in like a horse will perennially cause havoc in the other areas of a man’s life. A good intellect is a powerful way of negotiating your way out of this forest ,however, notwithstanding this I believe as a man you must be fully emotionally alive. I don’t subscribe in repressing, ignoring or masking them under supplements like alcohol or meaningless sex as an answer like so many guys do.
          Why is it only in Sport or through Opera that men are allowed to feel great passions in an acceptable manner? I think some cultures and races are better at this. Greek and Italian men can quite easily incorporate their sensuous and emotional aspects in their daily public world without been perceived as being weak, while north European men can’t do this, even though we’re meant to be more sophisticated.

        4. “Why is it only in Sport or through Opera that men are allowed to feel great passions in an acceptable manner?” ~ I prefer German opera but I have never appreciated team sports. In the book The Technological Society pg. 382 sport is explained as:
          “Sport is tied to industry because it represent a reaction against industrial life. In fact, the best athletes come from the working-class environments. Peasants, woodsmen and the like, may be more vigorous than the proletariat, but they are not as good athletes. in part, the reason for this is that machine work develops the musculature necessary for sport, which is very different from peasant musculature. Machine work also develops the speed and precision of actions and reflexes. Moreover, sport is linked with the technical world because sport itself is a technique. The enormous contrast between the athelets of Greece and those of Rome is well known. For the Greeks, physical exercise was an ethic for developing the form and strength of the body. For the Romans it was a technique for increasing the Legionnaire’s efficiency. The Roman conception prevails today. Everyone know the difference between a fisherman, a sailor, a swimmer, a cyclist, and people who fish, sail, swim and cycle for sport. The last are technicians: as Junger says, they “tend to carry to perfection the mechanical side of their activity.” This mechanization of actions is accompanied by the mechanization of sporting goods – stop watches, starting machines and so on. In this exact measurement of time, in this precision training of muscular actions, and in the principle of “the record” we find repeated in sport one of the essential elements of industrial life.
          Here too the human becomes a kind of machine, and his machine-controlled activity becomes a technique. This technical civilization profits by this mechanization: the individual, by means of the discipline imposed on him by sport not only plays and finds relaxation from the various compulsions to which which he is subjected, but without knowing it trains himself for new compulsions. A familiar process is repeated: real play and enjoyment , contact with air and water, improvisation and spontaneity all disappear. These values are lost to the pursuit of efficiency, records and strict rules. Training in sports makes of the individual an efficient piece of apparatus which is henceforth unacquainted with anything but the harsh joy of exploiting his body and winning.”

        5. I think you must be slightly estranged from the narrative of mainstream society, as it’s the only way to maintain a critical and detached appreciation of reality. An independent and fully awake mental life, mente from Latin meaning men, is the hallmark of masculinity.

        6. Thanks for your post. It was excellent and thought provoking.
          I’ve been thinking a lot recently about this modern preoccupation of equating the human body to the status of a machine. I’m very much opposed to this tendency for some of the reasons you’ve mentioned, and it ties in well with the idea of “functional beauty” that we see especially in relation to ideas that make a women “successful” in the market-place of the working environment. Both concepts, that of the successful “Jock jawed sportsman” training with absolute competitive determination to succeed and that of the young ambitious women executive who works out religiously to obtain that conformist “functional beauty” that will make her successful in the work-place are essentially relationships of the same kind. Both relationships are based on a machine/human body relationship of pure technicity (a phrase from Heidegger) that measures everything gained in mechanical terms that are transformed in the minds of both, into economic and social successes that are equally totted up like statistical returns on the outputs of some mechanical component in a factory.
          The ridiculously analogy of the human body as “machine” when it’s used in this wholly abstract way has diminished and not enhanced our understanding and appreciation of our own bodies as singular portals that relate us to the great visceral living world of nature and human experience. The relationship as body/machine is a dead and inert relationship that ties people into a neurotic closed relationship with an imagery thing created in their own minds as the perfect machine. Sadly, this perfect machine exists only in their own minds and they are the creators of this machine.

        7. So you would take a society in which you would be free but starving over a totalitarian state that would feed and protect you?

        8. The choice is rarely as stark as depicted by you. Totalitarian States like Stalin’s Russia or Moa’s China are generally the ones that starve people. There’s of course no freedom in starving to death, equally, there’s little point in living in a society where you’re feed like a battery farm chick that’s being “fated up” to be slaughtered by Mr Jones next month?

        9. “Totalitarian States like Stalin’s Russia or Moa’s China are generally the ones that starve people.”
          I’m not sure about this. When you speak to people who experienced communism first hand, they don’t always depict Stalin and Mao as totalitarian.
          Personally, I see myself as a non-leftist anarchist. I see all human societies are necessarily authoritarian. However, that’s a necessary eveil if ordr to have security and food.

        10. Not all. We missed the one that currently rules her subjects subversively here in America. Guess who she might be?

      3. Incorrect, in my opinion. Many people have sparks of intelligence in abundance, but they’re directed at some of the pursuits you mention, as well as some other really complex stuff. In fact, an ROK reader can be quite dumb in many aspects, but just be possessed with common sense, and are directing their sparks towards trying to figure out the puzzle. It’s primarily a gender phenomenon, where men will try to figure out the political landscape, perhaps motivated by fear of war or protectiveness of their family/lands/people. Women have absolutely zero interest in it. Zero. They’re like automatons as far as critical thinking is concerned, and only focus on thinking about what will benefit their immediate reality: shopping, friends, facebook selfie opportunities, being an established member of the pack, etc. (Of course they have many great attributes that are beneficial to society, but there’s a reason there weren’t any women in the Senates of Rome, and antiquity, etc)
        These bright sparks can be very malleable too, and can be led on a merry dance by the sinister media jackals. Or, they’re more interested in appeasing the women and thinking with their muh-diks, so they become shallow in terms of dissecting important issues.
        It’s interesting to compare two genres of music in R-selected and k-selected terms: rap music will always be about ‘me, I, mah homies’, etc, or if they’re trying to be deep and profound ‘mah people need to get up out the ghetto’, whereas if you listen to a lot of rock, it’s often telling stories of great civilisations, critical historical stories, songs sung from the point of view of this or that person. Just to give examples of these, Genesis, a pop group, have 2 songs on the We Can’t Dance album that fit the criteria: “Driving the last spike”, about the gruelling travails of Northern Englishmen who had to do the bidding of the royals, and “Fading Lights”, about the transience of this human life on earth. Fantastic, melodic music. Then Iron Maiden have hundreds of such tracks, but the ones that fascinate me most are “Starblind” and “Isle of Avalon”. What are those songs even about? They’re the most cryptic appeals to our immortal souls I’ve encountered in pop music.
        ROK readers (the ones who aren’t all about hittin that ayuss) may well be reincarnated monks, soothsayers, monarchy scholars, etc, which is why they like to dissect the lies that are flung at us on a daily basis.

        1. So what you are saying that all are intelligent, but not all are interested in the matters that interest us? But then, what does intelligence mean? Questions over questions.

          ROK readers (the ones who aren’t all about hittin that ayuss) may well be reincarnated monks, soothsayers, monarchy scholars, etc, which is why they like to dissect the lies that are flung at us on a daily basis.

          The thought makes sense to me.

        2. Iron Maiden. God I loved them in my youth. In an interview, I remember Bruce Dickinson saying that he’d never played his metal in his home as it scared his cat! I thought that was so funny. Instead he said he liked to listen to Mozart.
          Yes, some of their tunes are really cryptic and esoteric. I like your idea of being a reincarnated monk or perhaps philosopher. Maybe that’s why death never bothers me.

        3. (skip the first minute intro)
          this guy is as real and red pill as it gets.
          i understand if rap isnt one of your favorite types of music to listen to. but to paint it all with the same brush is just ignorant.

          btw, fantastic name. i havent had gizzards in a while.

        4. I miss the 70’s/80’s. Muscle cars and heavy metal. What I REALLY miss every time I fill up is the smell of leaded gasoline! It smells like… Victory!

        5. I loved the smell of leaded petrol alright. I was in Buenos Aires a few years ago and it’s strange to get that smell in a city again!
          70/80s it’s seems so weird and relaxed now. People smoking in airplanes, leaded petrol, black and white minstrel shows on TV, Oliver Reed pissed on chat shows, slow sets in discos! Different era, eh!

        6. Well not all are intelligent with that ‘spark’, but many who have a real spark of intelligence don’t direct it towards the kind of philosophical topics we wrestle with. And, crucially, I think many ROK readers are bound by an obligation to fairness and truthfulness (due to a respect of tradition, and the tales that sprung from it). Many extremely intelligent people aren’t
          fettered by an obligation to such concepts as truth or fairness, and are free to direct their intelligence towards their own personal advancement.
          Just take feminism as an example, if someone could objectively argue that it is a true and scientific doctrine that advances humanity, and that males are indeed the cause of all mankind’s ills, I’d be bound by my obligation to the truth and accept it, and have no further interest in the manosphere. But because some of this (often very-well presented) doctrine jars with men here who use common sense, fairness, etc to assess a doctrine, we say ‘hang on a minute..’.
          I would say that any of the feminists and sjws are very intelligent, even possessing that special ‘spark’, but they direct it towards pulling the wool over society’s eyes, for their own personal advancement. And people with an abundance of intelligence who are busy pursuing their careers, and don’t take the time to analyse the messages being broadcast by the sneaky ones, just accept it as it’s very well presented, and seems scientific and fair.
          It’s only when the mask slips, and they accidentally get a peek at the lies contained that they might begin to question some of the generally accepted ‘truths’ spouted by the media, and after further questioning, and that feeling of something not being quite right, they might end up on a manosphere site. And if they can stomach the initial dissonance between what they used to hold true, and the often polar opposite extreme that’s put forward by the manosphere, they get into it in a major way, and their spark of intelligence is now being put to work alongside concepts of fairness and common sense.
          What constitutes ‘intelligence’? Well I was mainly talking about academic/literate/cerebral intelligence, but recognise that there are other expressions of intelligence (kinaesthetic, spacial awareness, social). That is quite a big topic. One of the leaders of IQ assessments recognises that IQ isn’t the be-all of intelligence, but at the same time, he does declare that it’s a very good predictor of intelligence.

        7. Just take feminism as an example, if someone could objectively argue that it is a true and scientific doctrine that advances humanity, and that males are indeed the cause of all mankind’s ills, I’d be bound by my obligation to the truth and accept it, and have no further interest in the manosphere.

          I have no such obligation. Not in the slightest. I am in it purely for selfish reasons and I pretty much do not give a damn about society in general.
          If you have to find a rational reason to justify your wish for freedom, you are always only one argument away from slavery.

        8. Hmm, interesting point. Not sure if I wish for freedom anymore, maybe just accepted that I’m a slave to the power of death. Too much of this ‘all is vanity’ thinking may not be healthy, and may have to be jettisoned.

      4. But its odd, when you go to say the really social latin countries, friends are a deep thing. I have friends from Argentina that I haven’t seen in 7 years that I still talk with. In the US when I’m not in the same city, my friends don’t think about me. So here we earn money, but not to be financially secure, and we are social, but not to develop bonds.

        1. Good point. Hey, I had this guy from India chat me up on Facebook. It amazed me how open he was about wanting to be my friend. He actually kept insisting despite me saying I am not interested. Admire the confidence. To know you need friendship and go after it shamelessly. Very cool.

  4. Every routine is totalitarian and oppressive. Most people wake up the same way every morning, work the same work every day, talk the same things to their coleauges (usually complaints), watch the same TV shows, have the same thoughts and the same unattainable daydreams and fantasies every single day. Today, and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow. Again and again, and again until they die. That turns people into sheep.
    Try something new every day. Learn to switch between different routines.
    Language defines how you perceive the world in a subtle and inexplicable way. Learning a new language from a different language family teaches you to perceive the world in a new way.

  5. While Prisoners Of Ourselves had some good spots, a work like this could possibly be used as a justification for leftist ideologies by gangs of women with blue hair, especially since it pushes subjectivity by advocating for what doesn’t feeltotalitarian and oppressive instead of having rigid moral and quality standards.

    What it could be used for is not what it means. The SJW’s ‘individualism’ is anything but the opposite of totalitarian. If a person freely chooses to have blue hair, fine by me. But the key to freedom is to do it neither out of a wish to conform, nor out of a wish to explicitly rebel. Because both variations ultimately make you a slave.
    That sex role thing I actually agree with. The thing that annoys me with feminism is not freedom for women, but oppression of men. If men are not coerced into providing for miserable female lifestyles or even to hire them, I am sure everything falls into place.

    He fails to understand that our biological destiny would make this change lead to psychological suffering, mental disorders, drug addiction, and promiscuity.

    I doubt this. Here is why: Those who have mental issues will not be cured by forcing themselves to not act on them. It is a silly idea of ‘it is a choice’ that makes a healthy man force his health on others through obedience to behavioral patterns.

    While Prisoners Of Ourselves had some good spots, a work like this could possibly be used as a justification for leftist ideologies by gangs of women with blue hair, especially since it pushes subjectivity by advocating for what doesn’t feeltotalitarian and oppressive instead of having rigid moral and quality standards.

    You are not a dumb man, Roosh, but I read in your essays a very strong wish for definite opinions and that keeps you from being as open-minded and intelligent as you could be. Rigid moral and quality standards are oppressive and the best example are guilds and unions. Fucking mafia with the sole goal to exploit customers and eliminate competition under the guise of quality.
    And besides: If feelings and intuition are not valued, how did those who wrote down your rigid rules arrive at them exactly? Yeah, sure, god wrote those rules. You can believe that or you can try to think whether it makes any sense.
    Good article that I have not read entirely. I think I would like the book.

  6. “What is new and fast will always arouse our attention and in emphasizing the present, eradicate the past.”
    This is an excellent point, and all readers should take heed. I understand that mass shootings, Ebola, downed airliners, etc. are troubling and receive major media attention on ALL MSM news outlets and even “alternate” outlets.
    But while the media is able to focus the masses on the issues of their choosing, the people lose sight of destructive bills such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that await approval (they already gave Obama the “fast track” authority on it awhile back) and also lose sight of the bullshit the US and Israel are trying to pull in Syria.

  7. “the variety in human behaviour with respect to all its aspects ranging
    from type of sexual activity to paradigms of thinking is becoming
    one-fold. People are to be judged against a world consumer’s standard
    totalitarian criterion of normalcy.”
    Still working through this article as it’s quite long but the main thrust of the argument rings true. There’s obviously something totalising and conformational about globalism and the kind of capitalism that both terraforms previously untouched places while at the same time seeking – increasingly through identity politics – to create markets around new group identities. The new identity groups of 21st century are all based around apparently ‘true’ orientations or preferences that are supposed to be about who we really are. Except all they appear to be in the ultimate analysis are expressions of rapidly multiplying – one might say mestastitising – and arguably manufactured human desires that never existed before, and which find fulfilment in the kind of choice made available to us through consumerism. We are being shaped by markets at a most fundamental level, not least because the corporate world now builds its products around, not utility or functionality but around man’s desire for recognition (hegel / kojeve)
    Modern ideologiies, particularly PC thinking all work towards this end, and the reason we don’t necessarily realise this is that it is as the article suggests ‘concealed’, a soft rather than a hard tyranny. Old school hammer over the head ideological indoctrination in the school room etc has not entirely gone but its generally disfavoured not because its evil (which obviously it is) but because for the most part it does a relatively poor job at producing conformity and crushing the human spirit. New technologies of control and ensuring conformity are silent and work in the background. Foucault called them ‘technologies of the self’, and in later years he referred to the various ways in which the psy-industries, media etc could help promote a softer kind of governmentality that ultimately relies upon self-government: we are required to aborb the correct, new or updated values and then self-police ourselves and others. One particular description of that is PC.
    So we are created or at least shaped into these supra-individual, and ultimately collectivist identity groups for the purposes making money and consolidating power / establishing domain, but there’s probably more to it than even that. Many of the most enthusiastic of these marxists and totalitarianis are not only radical utopians but also futurists. It isn’t in other words just about maintaining control, or making money by creating new identity groups and new markets, but about collectively shepherding humanity forward. That’s what ‘progress’ is all about. You might well notice that nobody ever refers to ‘progress’ as something plural and genuinely ‘diverse’ (to use the greatest misnomer of the age): progress is singular, its about a single set of ideas that we – all of us – get to follow. The blueprint gets provided by the elites – who seem so strangely agreed upon things so much of the time – and we get to upgrade sooner or later, but ultimately that upgrade – which currently is only software, but will probably down the line be hardware and firmware as well – has to happen. We don’t get a choice about it. I subscribe to a twitter feed called ‘collective evolution’ which title probably best evokes what is being done, without anyone being consulted about it: we are being upgraded and ultimately that can only be done for everyone as a whole: humanity 2.0.
    Our lords and masters want to make new kinds of babies, and we are the laboratory in which they intend for that to happen. You can’t after all overcome sexism, homophobia, racism, fatism or whatever unless you do it across the board. That’s why the left or whatever you care to call it has always been so dangerous because it wants to change everybody and everything according to its will and there can be no exceptions, and ultimately no individuality or diversity of opinion.
    Problem for them though is that consent is perhaps the dominant idea of our time and they are violating it everytime they try to force people to conform to their way of thinking.

    1. They create events and resultant fears that make the populace accept their ideologies. The media, especially TV more than the Internet or Newspapers, with their soft features and documentaries about trans-gendered people and about seeing pedophiles as greater victims than those they abused along with the hard features demanding greater State control over our civil liberties because of terrorism is the way they do it. TV is a one way and also highly visual medium unlike Radio, Newspapers and the Internet, so it’s the prime tool that’s used to manipulate the masses so as to give their consent to the new world agenda.

      1. When you switch from the Kardashians to ISIS beheadings then on to strictly come dancing or whatever as modern media encourages us do there’s a perhaps deliberately created sense of all news as mere entertainment and somehow unreal. One doesn’t have to believe that terrorist events are false flags or media creations etc to accept that the media appears to be complicit in weaving everything that comes their way into a distortive narrative. Even real events can be presented in a transfigured way – most people are going to lap it up uncritically. For those who aren’t they may even be led into thinking real events are actually false flags or something – in the full knowledge that any close inspection will probably bear out the official story: in other words they want critics and sceptics to be seen as conspiracy theorists. The new world order is perhaps a case in point. There is loads of evidence for there being a new world order – namely politicians saying things like ‘lets have a new’ world order, and have a single currency, convergent laws / trade laws / surveillance etc etc. Yet the fact that this is happening is obscured by the fact that people arguing against the NWO argue from what evidence is available to conclusions that can’t be fully evidenced and which are often absurd. I do believe though that there is a concerted effort by many elites to push humanity forwards towards a convergent and in many ways collectivist future. There is lots of evidence for this.

        1. The French social critic, Jean Baudrillard called this state “Hyper-reality” in relation to the media. It’s precisely as you say- to deliberately confuse the boundaries between reality and its opposite by presenting all events in a disjointed sequence without a proper frame of reference for each event- as a result the mind tends to perceive all these different events as a continuum in the same overarching frame- namely as entertainment.
          It’s extremely clever and devious as it stifles debate by incorrectly framing important events under the subliminal category of “entertainment” in the minds of the viewing public.

        2. I’m glad you’ve reminded me about Baudrillard. His work does seem very relevant right now. I’ve not read his works directly – French theory isn’t exactly fun for most people – but I do recall buying a book by Christopher Norris a little after the first gulf war broke out which was called Uncritical Theory and was a response to Baudrillard’s essay ‘The Gulf War Did Not Take Place’. This addressed the controversy about that book in relation to what you correctly identify as his concept of “hyper-reality” as for many people it seemed to imply that he was saying the war wasn’t really happening (i.e. people weren’t really dying). As I understand it he was not claiming that there is ‘nothing behind the sign’ but commenting on the impossibility of getting beyond language, signs, narratives etc.
          Clearly that idea is more relevant than ever before, particularly at a time when so many people doubt the war on terror is what it says it is, and it is clear that at least in part it is a narrative performed for our benefit so to speak . While I doubt many people genuinely question that there are real souls dying in these wars the sense of hyper-reality seems to be getting more and more acute for any who doubt the official story: false flags, crisis actors, reports that beheadings are staged in studios – it’s almost as though either the powers that be or their critics have decided to run with Baudrillard’s idea. It would indeed be quite possible for everything we see today to be faked insofar at least as we are limited to ‘consuming’ the news through the media and internet.

        3. His earlier writing were extremely concise and prescient. A book like “The Consumer Society” reads uncannily more accurately today than when it was written in the late 1960s. His later writings become more aphoristic and ironical which he stated was his only way to respond to the western media machine of the 1990s and into our times.
          One of his late key insights that distinguishes him from the lunge into conspiracy theories, the elites, the Jews etc is his insistent that the hyper-reality matrix that’s created by the media is impossible to analyse in a traditional manner. The reason why it eludes systematic analysis is due to the fact that its modus operandi is not based upon the traditional critique of values that measure statements or events in terms of their factual truthfulness. This is a pivotal insight that he makes and it has a lot of validity when you actually appreciate what this means. What he posits instead is a type of public discourse that’s predicated through the prism of “pure events”, some are real, some are not, some are false , while others are true. However to the media this is irrelevant- what’s important is the event itself and not its truth value- its effect rather than the factual basis for the actual event. These events constantly bubble up and down and in and out of the different strata in the media (internet, tv etc) and their purpose is to affect people, and public discourse regardless of the veracity of the events in their own right.
          This is what he means about a symbolic order of events that are mere signs that cannot be analyzed in the traditional manner of right and wrong, true or false. It’s the realm of pure hyper-reality and simulacrum that posits events as non-events and non-events as events in a continuous 24/7 365 days a year cycle that defies any attempt for us to analyse these events in a traditional or rigorous manner. If you analyse the signs he speaks of, you fall for the conspiracy theories, which in this devilish scheme may or may not be true. It’s this last point, the total ambiguity and indifference to our normal yardstick of evaluation that I believe Bauldrillard was hinting about very strongly before he died.

        4. You seem to know your french theory. From my point of view that could be more or less complimentary. Shortly after reading the Norris book I read Bricard and Sokal’s Intellectual Impostures, which is an attack on fashionable postmodern theory – most of it French. I can’t remember much of what they said, and I think Baudrillard came out of it better than say someone like Lacan whose borrowings from mathematics etc I seem to recall caused great mirth on their part. It’s interesting (and no doubt not coincidental) that thinkers like Baudrillard should seek to shift the focus of the real (or hyper-real or whatever) from cause to effect because in many ways that reflects the performative side of their work, their intention to dazzle, mystify, strut around and peacock (think of Lacan’s odious rationale for the impenetrability of his writing as justified because it forced the reader to slow down and think ….or something like that). The question for me then becomes whether like for Sokal and co. theory like Baudrillard’s is corrupt, or at least potentially corrupting.
          I remain in two minds. Both Norris’s book and Sokal’s were probably influential in my turning away from stuff like this. Norris’ disillusion seems to have been against the grain for the most part, but Sokal’s critique is kind of serious: after all the implications of moving away from a reality that can be understood in terms of the kind of analysis you describe as no longer applicable within a hyper-real world of modern media are enormous. But it’s not just about analysis, it’s also about the possibility of any kind of justice for those who find themselves fodder for modern info-tainment. What is the raw material of such info-tainment?
          There is also the question here if you like of the thelemic aspect, what Nietzsche and Foucault refer to as the will to power. Baudrillard’s analysis which I am only just (re-)familiarizing myself with is clearly brilliant and very relevant but in a sense it seems to suggest all of this has just “kind of happened” i.e. as a passive consequence of technological change (correct me if this incorrect). But there’s an extent to which this kind of reality has been wilfully rather than accidentally authored. Whether it’s the result of thelemites flexing their will, Ron Burgundy realising that the news needs to be tailored to the audience rather than the audience to the news or of the posturing of fashionable french theorists like Baudrillard himself we live in a world that isn’t just simulated, it is simulated with a degree of ‘malice-a-aforethought’ perhaps.
          Actually I’ve just found a quote by Baudrillard that seems to recognise that: “those who live by the spectacle will die by the spectacle”. Who he has in mind of course is another matter. Rather than just corrupt and psychopathic elites it sounds like he is thinking of pretty much all of us, or at least the system we all partake of. With regard to 9/11 it seems he saw this not only as an effect of the system whereby “globalisation [battles] against itself” but that we all secretly wanted it to happen. We wanted to see the goliath destroyed or at least humbled.
          It seems to me that he quite right in this: we all partake in colluding with terrorists: the governments (the intelligence services who did/nt see it coming), the media that feeds off the thing it reports on and the end-consumer (us) who secretly delight in every event we outwardly condemn. The problem though is that however true all that might be, however true it might be that if there is a conspiracy we may all be part of it, it is still the case that all of this drowning in effects as the reality beyond which we cannot quite get beyond has been to some extent deliberately conjured. But are we all equally magicians in that sense? It’s not just that we’ve moved beyond the real in the old fashioned sense of events that can be traced back to causes, but that reality is in no small way being quite consciously moved away fromthat old order of things. If we see a woman being sawed in half and we are told it’s all a magic show and we enjoy it as such isn’t there still a part of us that is concerned to ask “did she really die” and if so is the magician not indeed a murderer?

        5. Brilliant post. What can I add. I’d only say that Bauldrillard was to me the most original and relevant Frecnh thinker over the last 50 years and despite his initial endorsement of Marxism he ended up a conservative, somewhat pessimistic anti-idealistic “Spectator” of the pure spectacle, like the rest of us, that he implicates in the simulacrum of hyper-reality.
          Despite his French “cleverness” which is usually quite annoying and conceited when it comes to the majority of French writers, I reserve judgment on Bauldrillard. His thoughts are remarkably accurate despite his use of irony. I think for example he’s especially accurate on the enjoyment and entertainment value, despite our moral abhorrence, that we are made to collectively feel, at the latest shooting and terrorist events and the whole paraphernalia of the endless self-feeding of the hyper-reality discourse looping around itself on such events. (“Live” repetitious news reports updating every hour with a “new” detail and all the meta-analysis by the “experts” back in the studios etc).
          What he’s stating about this process as you’ve said earlier is that it’s not open to scrutiny or cogent understanding, not because things are being hidden, but rather the opposite- when everything is transparent- it’s actually more difficult to make sense of these events. That’s trick one of hyper-reality. The second trick is not to take away the moral value of such events, but, rather to insert an overriding “entertainment value” that allows you to enjoy these events through the conduit of the 24/7 news or Twitter, while still allowing you to maintain the traditional moral value that society, religion or family says is wrong etc while in private. By using these two mechanisms simultaneously it’s almost impossible to question the event as its akin to a “pure spectacle” which you the viewer or blogger are just as much implicated in too, as the people who sit in the news studios or comment on twitter/blog pages.
          You’re right, hyper-reality is a type of magic that nevertheless doesn’t hide the facts, but, rather obscures them through an over-abundance of information and commentary. It hides the truth in clear sight where nobody can see it anymore. Now that’s powerful magic!

        6. Thanks. You add a great deal though and have managed to get me rather interested in Baudrillard again. I do find it hard to read french theorists themselves, as opposed to the secondary literature, as in a sense they all seem to be engaged in their little power games and seductions. But I agree with you: from what I can tell, there is something about Baudrillard’s ideas that go beyond the tease and tassles you get with some french thinkers and which always leave you slightly unsatisfied. I still haven’t entirely made my mind up about him but much of what I’m hearing about him makes a great deal of sense.
          Interesting how you’ve phrased the sentence “he’s especially accurate on the enjoyment and entertainment value, despite our moral abhorrence _that we are made to collectively feel_ at the latest shooting and terrorist events…..” You’ve entered into the spirit of the conspiracy here a little I feel. I suppose the question is to what extent we are ‘made to” feel that way and to what extent we have some agency with respect to this. My feeling is that we are complicit but that we certainly do not have full agency. “They” can turn news into entertainment because we already have that barely concealed lust for the perverse and grotesque, but we’ve been corrupted nonetheless.
          So I guess we are at least partly complicit in our own seduction, but if there’s magic involved as well, as with your two neat tricks I’m less clear how complicit we can be in our own mesmerism. They do say though that you can only be hypnotised if at some level if you are open to suggestion. Maybe it is simply a question of stronger wills meeting somewhat weaker ones, or maybe our wills are being weakened.

  8. The bit on language struck me as particularly idiotic, given that English is the largest language that has *ever* existed. My vocabulary’s in the 99th percenticle, and I’m *still* learning new words once a week (I’m currently trying to introduce ‘alacrity’ into my vernacular). There are only a handful of words from other languages that don’t exist in ours (French “desole” come to mind, one of my favourites), so if you feel ‘oppressed’ by your linguistics, then that’s a person problem.
    Study Latin and start using words correctly; don’t bastardize them, using “gender” when you mean “sex”, or “mean” when you intention is “blunt” or “sadistic”.
    If I had a time machine, I’d go and get all of the great writers and professors of the humanities from the 19th century, and bring them here so that we could beat up all the poofs in the Ivy League schools.
    *Mic drop.*

    1. The problem is not so much a lack of suitable vocabulary as the reliance and obsession with validating all one’s perceptions and ideas against the existence of words that describe them. You stop ‘feeling’ life and instead start verbalizing it, be it in dialogue or internal monologue.

    2. What I like about the HBO Series Deadwood is the language! 1870’s. Here are a bunch of uneducated (in the modern sense of the term) men who’s command of the English language make me want to hide my face in shame! Thanks a whole hell of a lot NEA!!!

      1. As a collector of antique paper ephemera, I could not agree more with your post.

        1. There’s a cliff along side a river in Wyoming where the Oregon trail follows for several miles. It’s called “Signature Cliff” and the settlers signed their names in the sandstone cliff. The writing and letters looked like calligraphy it was so neat and perfect. These simple people ,even back then had better writing than today

        2. Who needs writing when you have opposable thumbs and a smartphone phone screen amirite!? Of course I am kidding. I am a child of the 90s and I can recall learning cursive even though I sucked at it. Even columnists such as Dear Abby and Miss Manners decry the evaporation of good habits such as sending thank you letters and yes, cursive writing.

      2. If you could take a stroll into Buckingham Palace and sit with the true elites of the world and if they didn’t speak as if reciting Law amongst one another then color me yellow.
        They live in a COMPLETELY different world than ours.

    3. “My vocabulary’s in the 99th percenticle”
      Eer It’s “percentile”, “not percenticle”

      1. I was waiting for the grammar Nazi’s to peek their heads through because it is ONLY in these moments when they are justified, ie. When one boasts about one’s own ability with language and writing.
        Have an upvote my friend.

    4. I despise the divorce rape ‘penal’ legal system. They dick men over terribly, and get this, they don’t even have real dicks.

    5. “If I had a time machine, I’d go and get all of the great writers and professors of the humanities from the 19th century, and bring them here so that we could beat up all the poofs in the Ivy League schools.”
      The modern morons in the Ivy League schools would have to crawl out of their safe spaces first.

  9. While he brings up good points, I see the familiar leftist enmity toward self improvement and meritocracy. Strange how he proclaims to hate totaliarianism and forcing everyone to do the same things, but condemns heroes, because then we would not be equal, and condemns goals, because we become slaves to them. And it is the height of irony for a writer to condem langauge, the very medium through which he does his work. I get the feeling that if his advice had been followed from the beginning, we’d still be sitting in caves wondering if rocks are edible.

    1. Give it time. The way society is decaying, in a few decades we might likely be living in caves again.

  10. And the “if you ask a question in the headline the answer is always yes” rule still holds.

  11. This guy’s book smacks of transvaluation and leftist redefining of terms.
    I don’t give s rats furry ass if this guy had good intentions or his ” heart is in the right place”. He is a shitlib plain and simple. His ideas deserve nothing but scorn and mockery.

  12. Gunduz Vassafs views and ideas seem to be best read while adhering to the “Stopped Clock” principle.
    Seems for the most part to be subjective, and contrary for the sake of being an iconoclast.

      1. No. And Varg wouldn’t post under a pseudonym.
        I have a Burzum hoodie with this image on the back and so I use it as an avatar.

  13. It is important the context. In the 80’s, I was a liberal because I found the right stifling. Today, the left is more stifling of free speech than the right was at the peak of the Falwell years.
    Sometimes I wonder if the conservative excesses of the 80’s were programmed in by olligarchs to make people fed up. So that we could have the ridiculous PC excesses of today.
    Or the Iraq War and anger at George Bush would make people ready to accept a Muslim commie.
    I remember being so fed up with Bush and his phony religion, I actually laughed and celebrated when Obama’s preacher was screaming F… America. Those were my last years as a liberal.
    It did not take long for me to see through Obama. By 2012, I was an enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter and now would like to see Trump elected.
    Grassroots self-reliance is the key. Guns for self defense, gold, silver to keep assets out of system, food stores. Support alternative press for freedom of thought. And churches for tradition and spirituality.
    (I do recognize the limits of organized religion. I attend Eastern Orthodox as they have a male priesthood that can marry and do not follow the pope.)
    However, I think there are people such as Rudolf Steiner who have ideas far in advance of Eastern Orthodox but most people will not be ready for anthroposophy for a long time.

    1. The 80’s ‘Regan’ conservatism resurgence differed greatly from the 50’s Truman/Ike conservatism. Coinage went from silver to pot metal, the baby boom had ended 15 yrs prior and the divorce rape racket had ratcheted up ten fold by the 80’s. Women and mothers in droves were working in numbers never before seen. Most of the 60’s fugly feminists were done burning their bras and their merkel faces were now seen plastered on campaign signs in every town running against men for offices like mayor, comptroller and judges. The white fugly women often ran republican.
      The useless eater bureaucrat seats and corporate cubicle positions for women had become a fixture that had never existed before in America, and this was all under the fanfare of the new Regan conservative revival. Back in the 80’s I can recall little vocal opposition to women working cubicles, whereas now we’re screaming ”enough is enough”. All females were prodded with ”go girl go” in regards to career. In the public schools, birth control advice was the closest thing to discussion of family related topics that were ever taught.
      I personally knew a Chinese girl from an advanced tech class in HS who would come to class crying. She said that her parents would tell her that she is worthless if she doesn’t get a PhD. ”She’s NOTHING” they’d tell her. This was high school mind you and Chinese?? parents telling their daughters to pursue stem like a man instead of telling them to shut up, marry and breed for their own posterity at least? Me, I was white (and still am) and at 17, I could sense a bleak road ahead but couldn’t quite grasp that feminism or women run amok was an issue. Don’t think there wasn’t a motherload of sexual confusion being dished out in the schools even in the 80’s.

  14. On language, English language, and how a limited number of its recently redefined words captivated us, there is no better than Uwe Poerksen’s Plastic Language. Never will you think the same about words such as information, communication, service, system, energy, problem, solution, project, process, health, care, customer, center, and another 30 orsome. Pörksen points to Noam Chomsky as the main culprit for the ‘tyranny of a modular English language’, whereby it can infiltrate the rest of the globe for devious purposes. Poerksen was a scientist, a language professor, and no amateur.

  15. Cool article. Reminds me of a Frog by the name of Jacques Ellul and his book ~ The Technological Society.
    Most political theorists take ideology to be a central point from which “real world” consequences emanate. In other words, a Communist or libertarian ideology in practical use will produce a particular type of society and individual divorced from the actual technical workings of the society. Liberals and conservatives both speak of things in such a manner as if ideology is the prima facie cause of existence – but as Ellul shows in painstaking detail, this is wrong. What almost everyone fails to grasp is the pernicious effect of technique (and its offspring, technology) on modern man.
    Technique can loosely be defined as the entire mass of organization and technology that has maximum efficiency as its goal. Ellul shows that technique possesses an impetus all its own and exerts similar effects on human society no matter what the official ideology of the society in question is. Technique, with its never-ending quest for maximum efficiency, tends to slowly drown out human concerns as it progresses towards its ultimate goal. “…the further economic technique develops, the more it makes real the abstract concept of economic man.” (p. 219) Technique does not confine itself merely to the realm of technical production, but infiltrates every aspect of human existence, and has no time for “inefficiencies” caused by loyalties to family, religion, race, or culture; a society of dumbed-down consumers is absolutely essential to the technological society, which must contain predictable “demographics” in order to ensure the necessary financial returns. “The only thing that matters technically is yield, production. This is the law of technique; this yield can only be obtained by the total mobilization of human beings, body and soul, and this implies the exploitation of all human psychic forces.” (p. 324).
    Ellul thoroughly shows that much of the difference in ideology between libertarians and socialists becomes largely irrelevant in the technological society (this is not to say that ideology is unimportant, but rather that technique proceeds with the same goals and effects.) This will doubtlessly please no one; liberals want to believe that they can have privacy and freedom despite a high degree of central planning, and libertarians want to believe that a society free of most regulation and control is possible in an advanced technological society. Libertarian fantasies seem especially irrelevant given the exigencies of a technological society; as Ellul notes, as technique progresses it simply cannot function without a high degree of complexity and regulation. “The modern state could no more be a state without techniques than a businessman could be a businessman without the telephone or the automobile… not only does it need techniques, but techniques need it. It is not a matter of chance, nor a matter of conscious will; rather, it is an urgency…” (p. 253-254). Can anyone really doubt Ellul here, especially seeing as how twenty-plus years of conservative promises to downsize government still result in more regulation and bureaucracy with every passing year? Planning, socialism, regulation, and control are the natural consequences of technique; an increasingly incestuous relationship between industry and the State is inevitable. “The state and technique – increasingly interrelated – are becoming the most important forces in the modern world; they buttress and reinforce each other in their aim to produce an apparently indestructible, total civilization.” (p. 318).
    Given that the nature of technique is one of a universal leveling of human cultures, needs, and desires (replacing real needs with false ones and the neighborhood restaurant with McDonalds), Ellul is certainly pessimistic. He does not propose any remedies for the Skinnerist nightmares of technique somehow leading to a Golden Age of humanity, where people will enjoy maximal freedom coupled with minimal want: “…we are struck by the incredible naivete of these scientists… they claim they will be in a position to develop certain collective desires, to constitute certain homogeneous social units out of aggregates of individuals, to forbid men to raise their children, and even to persuade them to renounce having any… at the same time, they speak of assuring the triumph of freedom and of the necessity of avoiding dictatorship… they seem incapable of grasping the contradiction involved, or of understanding that what they are proposing.” (p. 434).
    Modern man lives under a framework of artificial operational objectives he wasn’t designed to cope with. Technique has turned men into mere resources thrown around wherever the technical system finds them most useful.
    The technical system is no longer within the reach of human control: it has taken on a life of its own and constitutes an independent force consuming more and more of the non-technical world around it. Men do not use technique: technique uses men.
    This book put me in mind of Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and The Last Man. Both document the ascendance of the person who is a rational and insecure seeker of comfort, afraid of passion and psychologically tiny: the individual with a small “i”. Ellul is pessimistic. Our plight is due to our complete immersion in technique, the end of which is “the one best way” and efficiency. Against this there is no appeal and human spirituality and individualism are left behind as the “mass man” is created. This is the person who seeks only pleasure and entertainment and doesn’t see his loss of uniqueness, beguiled by the products of technology and the promise of material progress. Technology is the answer to all things and the destroyer of all that is not technique. This is not due to a malign intent but simply the result of technique itself. There is no escape from technique, it permeates our world. An excellent example is the writer who, though wanting to express a different perspective is forced through the sieve of the techniques of the publishing business in order for the composition to see the light of day.
    If you ever heard of a ‘New World Order’ or you thought it was all a bunch of hooey, then you need to read this book. The ‘New World Order’ is not a noun or pronoun, but a philosophical term used by many (I’ll admit not directly by Jacques Ellul) to indicate a change in the world system, and a significant change in the world system or order and its effects is exactly what this book is about! Jacques Ellul (from his Christian perspective) pretty much calls the Technological Society Behemoth or, The Beast.
    This book sets forth the pernicious effect of technique (and its offspring, technology) on humanity. Considered by many to be Ellul’s most important work, the book sets forth seven characteristics of modern technology, each of which serves to make efficiency a necessity. The seven are rationality, artificiality, automatism of technical choice, self-augmentation, monism, universalism, and autonomy. These characteristics create a system that “eliminates or subordinates the natural world.” Instead of technology serving humanity, Ellul notes that human beings have to adapt to technology. The present focus in schools prepares young people to handle computers and information, but does not “develop in a balanced way all the faculties – physical, manual, psychic, and intellectual.” Our present system emphasizes “rote learning instead of personal observation and reasoning.” In addition, what is needed is that “the child develop a social conscience, understand that the meaning of life is the good of humanity.”
    Human Sacrifice
    Technique is autonomous from human control, a survival of the fittest takes place: the organizations that best utilize technique expand in power at the expense of organizations that under-utilize technique…. whether it be socialist or capitalist, democratic or fascist or some sort of worldwide Artificial Intelligence grid, social structures are determined by how efficiently they operate, which is to say… by their technical efficiency. Humanity once adapted itself to its environment, which was stable. But now…society attempts to change the human environment to suite society’s needs and the means with which it does this is technique. In doing so, individual man must himself be changed by technique to suite the new artificial environment created by technique, and the process continues over and over… until individual freedom is gone forever and the world is pure technique…pure efficiency…a perfectly ordered planet…with people made “happy” with technique… essentially what IBM wants to do when they say “building a smarter planet” … “smarter” being more technical.
    The Technological Society is a book of immense insight, clarity of thought and mesmerizing, profound passages on reality as it is shaped by technique. He presents a world inhabited by the “mass man,” in a massified societal complex, which of necessity dictates techniques devoid of humanity to manage it effectively. Technique constitutes a kind of perfect intelligence, whose only point of reference is itself and whose focus is on the efficient integration of the soft, warm, and weak creatures that are mankind. Too willful, chaotic and numerous are we that techniques of management; organization; regulation; health; information; etc, are inevitable to achieve a universal “best practice” for our own benefit. Or really for the interests of that thing known as society. This phenomenon even births techniques to soothe and placate the soul of man lacerated by the cold, efficient scalpel of the technical apparatus.
    It is both the poison and the antidote.
    These two quotes from the book will suggest something of Ellul’s thought here:
    Definition of technique-
    “In our technological society, technique is the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given state of development) in every field of human activity.”
    Machine and Technique-
    “All-embracing technique is in fact the consciousness of the mechanized world. Technique integrates everything. It avoids shock and sensational events. Man is not adapted to a world of steel, technique adapts him to it. It changes the arrangement of this blind world so that man can be a part of it without colliding with its rough edges, without the anguish of being delivered up to the inhuman. Technique thus provides a model, it specifies attitudes that are valid once and for all. The anxiety aroused in man is soothed by the consoling hum of a unified society.”
    The Characterology of Technique-
    “Technique worships nothing, respects nothing. It has a single role: to strip off externals, to bring everything to light, and by rational use to transform everything into means. More than science, which limits itself to explaining the ‘how,’ technique desacrilizes because it demonstrates (by evidence and not by reason, through use and not through books) that mystery does not exist. Science brings to the light of day everything that man had believed sacred. Technique takes possession of everything and enslaves it. The sacred cannot resist. Science penetrates to the great depths of the sea to photograph the unknown fish of the deep. Technique captures them, hauls them up to see if they are edible – but before they arrive on deck they burst. And why should technique not act thus? It is autonomous and recognizes as barriers only the temporary limits of its action. In its eyes, this terrain, which is for the moment unknown but not mysterious, must be attacked. Far from being restrained by any scruples of anything sacred, technique constantly assails it. Everything which is not yet technique becomes so. It is driven onward by itself, by its character of self-augmentation. Technique denies mystery a priori. The mysterious is merely that which has not yet been technicized.”
    “When the inhabitant of a democratic country compares himself individually with all those about him, he feels with pride that he is the equal of any one of them; but when he comes to survey the totality of his fellows and to place himself in contrast with so huge a body, he is instantly overwhelmed by the sense of his own insignificance and weakness. The same equality that renders him independent of each of his fellow citizens, taken severally, exposes him alone and unprotected to the influence of the greater number. The public, therefore, among a democratic people, has a singular power, which aristocratic nations cannot conceive; for it does not persuade others to it’s beliefs, but it imposes them and makes them permeate the thinking of everyone by a sort of enormous pressure of the mind of all upon the individual intelligence.” Alexis De Tocqueville

    1. Grandma’s cookies are still warm and full of unconditional love. So we have that going for us.

  16. Year 1340 – Gardens and farms are totalitarianism.
    Your surroundings are not totalitarian because they are accepted social conditions. If they were, all human conditions, forever and back, are totalitarian. It makes the very definition of the word totalitarian meaningless.
    While Prisoners Of Ourselves had some good spots, a work like this could possibly be used as a justification for leftist ideologies by gangs of women with blue hair, especially since it pushes subjectivity by advocating for what doesn’t feel totalitarian and oppressive instead of having rigid moral and quality standards.

  17. The problem isn’t so much ‘words’ per se but groups of words that convey an idea. Learning redspeak or gamespeak when young, like household cliches or phrases to convey pro cultural or pro tribal sentiments or memes will precipitate into a linguistic cement for the tribe or culture. When red pill catch phrases are punished with a ruler on the hand by lefty primary teachers, those groups of words are cautiously wrestled with thereafter and are not readily available for speech without risk of offense. Liberal catch phrases fill the void and mount up galore in the mind of the indoctrinated cult marxist, and their thoughts are molded by the word subsets and phrases they’ve had hammered in. Every thought of the cult marxist begins with a scramble from the pool of automatic liberal catch phrases in the forefront of their mind. Then they combine their auto phrases, fallacy after fallacy, stacking them atop one another like legos and spew out an extended rambling mantra of cultural marxist circle talk.
    Keep your elementary word groups red pill. Grab a mouthful of red pill phrases and join them. You’ll always have a good line to spit whether it’s PUA or running for office. The blind and the beta when first awakening to red pill clearly have trouble fluently expressing what their mind is keenly aware of. They lack the rudimentary red pill word groups and phrases. They’ve never used them before in open flowing convo and were ordered to mentally file them as taboo. It takes time to detoxify the mind and cleanse it of the shameful and self hate ideas and their constitution of lefty phrases.

  18. Not related but found this floating around fb.
    Someone loves using big words to try and sound like they know wtf they’re talking about

  19. Two Colombian girls I know who got married and moved to Europe are heading home. Funny wealth isn’t all its cracked up to be. Colombia had been in kind of a time warp because outside businesses never wanted to come in because of the guerilla(which is now changing quickly). Its usually ranked in the top two for happiness worldwide.

  20. While there are many problems with the book, the underlying assumptions of “unconscious” and “invisible” are logical fallacies. After a county and the state of Maryland, in conjunction with the Feds (ATF, DEA, DHS, et al), illegally raided my home during 2012 without a warrant and violated my 4th Amendment Rights as ruled by the one honest judge in my county, I have talked about the issue of totalitarianism at length. The reason for the raid, the County Sheriff Sergeant responsible for the raid stated that I had a “ridiculous number of guns” when asked why the illegal search and seizure under oath. As a hunter of many different animals and an active competitive shooter in a number of categories with three children and a wife who participate in the same sports as I, I legally owned 44 guns. Furthermore, if it were not for gun registration in Maryland the pig in charge would not have known about the number of guns I owned. Let me be clear, there is nothing “invisible” about totalitarianism because it is clearly visible when pigs can freely stick a gun in your face while breaking the law and face no consequences as the law and Amerikan Injustice System protects pigs that behave illegally. In any case, the pig who initiated the illegal raid on my home was later promoted from Sergeant to Lieutenant for her “diligent efforts”. Finally, as I have discussed this issue with numerous Amerikans, it cannot be denied that everyone is aware of what goes on in a totalitarian state. I quickly discovered that the overwhelming majority of people’s response to my situation fell into three categories: 1) “I didn’t know it was that bad” (but yes the knew)! 2) “Because it makes me safer, I don’t see it as a problem” (yep, wait until it happens to you). 3) “What can you do but let it happen” (sounds like what the Jews said when they reported to train stations on time in NAZIS Germany). As an aside, thank you for bringing this book to my attention and writing a fine article.

    1. Have you spoken with a civil rights lawyer and began a lawsuit against the county?
      “Furthermore, if it were not for gun registration..”
      That was your fist mistake. Maryland pigs are known for targeting out-of-state vehicles and harrassing them about their CCWs, but the whole state is a democrat shit hole.

      1. There is a major problem with filing a civil lawsuit in Maryland. Years ago, Maryland passed a law limiting the amount of a civil lawsuit against any government in Maryland to no more than $200,000 (Two Hundred Thousand Dollars). The law was recently upheld in a case where a pig beat a hispanic male unconsciousness and then shot him to death while unconscious in front of his wife and son because he had an open beer while outside his apartment. Furthermore, this pig had a long history of committing violence against hispanics that went unpunished by his pig agency. In that case, a jury awarded around $15,000,000 (Fifteen Million Dollars) to the surviving spouse but the Maryland Supreme Court lowered the amount to $200,000 on appeal. As a result of this recent case, I could not find a Maryland lawyer to file a civil lawsuit on contingency as they all claim, “there is no money to be made” and “the case could very well cost me more than I can receive”. Absolutely no Maryland lawyer would take my case “pro bono”. In any case, I found a loophole which the law firm did not capitalize upon during its lawsuit involving the hispanic male. In civil lawsuits against a Maryland government agency, any economic damages incurred are exempt from the $200,000 award limit. However, a judge will have to decide the economic damage issue and not a jury. This means that a judge’s ruling in Maryland has an extremely high probability of never being overturned on appeal. So, if the judge is a staunch statist then I am screwed as he or she will flippantly rule in favor of Maryland claiming there was no economic damages. Although I feel it will be hard to rule that there was no economic damage as the legal fees to defend myself against the false charges cost me over $600,000 (Six Hundred Thousand Dollars), my entire retirement savings, and I am retired. Not to mention the fact they destroyed tens of thousands of dollars in personal property for no other reason than they were dicks and could get away with it, in addition to my loss of income for working part-time as a Financial Institute Regulatory Agency Arbitrator. In any case, I filed a civil lawsuit “pro se” last month and am seeking $2,700,000 (Two Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars) with a jury trial. Sadly enough, juries from my Maryland county rarely rule against “duh guvment” making it an uphill battle. Let me add, the NRA refused to help me with my defense in what was clearly a 2nd Amendment matter and could only advise me to get a good lawyer. The ACLU also refused to help claiming nonsense about “the ACLU is busy and only gets involved in ground breaking cases”. I guess my case wasn’t ground breaking enough even though it was the first case in county history where it was ruled that a person’s 4th Amendment Right was violated. Pretty amazing since the news reported last week that the ACLU was filing a lawsuit against the very same county pigs for violating the 4th Amendment Rights of motorists. It appears the ACLU has a problem with the county pigs stopping motorists and searching their cars without a warrant for the past two weeks, not to mention the county pigs said they would continue their illegal motorist stops despite what the ACLU believes. I can only guess that illegal motorist stops must be much worse in the collective demented minds of the ACLU than when the very same county pigs with the Feds raid your house without a warrant, throw you in prison, attempt to keep you in prison by using their personal relationship with a magistrate to assign you the highest bail in county history for non-violent crimes (which you never get back when you disprove the pig’s allegations), watching the pigs destroy your personal property, being assaulted several times, and then getting beaten up as you are processed into prison by a bunch of cowardly guvment pig goons, where they attempted to murder me. Of course, the part I really enjoyed was when I was released on bail after nearly a week, the pigs were so upset they claimed I stuck three handguns so far up my ass before my knowingly false arrest that they were unable to find them during my full-body cavity search when I was brought to prison. The pigs then went on to claim that since I did not turn the three handguns in at the time of my release from prison on bail, I was in violation of the sole condition of my bail which was not to possess firearms. How my 2nd Amendment Right could be restricted when I had never been proven of committing a crime is beyond me, then again, how my 4th Amendment Right could be so blatantly violated was a complete and total shock to me. In any case, when the warrant was released for my arrest for illegally possessing three handguns while on bail which really amounted to a license to kill me on sight as I was then considered “armed and dangerous”, my lawyers discovered that the three handguns I was supposed to have in my possession were listed on the property seizure sheet and were actually locked up by the county pigs as evidence. A phone call to the county pigs revealed that the county pigs knew that the three handguns were in their possession all along. After turning myself in, I was released from prison a second time on my own recognizance as the magistrate now even had a problem with the accusations being made against me at that point. The bail violation charges were later dismissed as “nolle prosecutori” and can still be found listed on my criminal and court records along with all the other charges knowingly falsely made against me.

        1. Maryland has a cap? How did the lawyers gild not stop that.
          You got raped by the thoroughly corrupt judicial system and no one wants to represent you as they cannot make a dime off of it. Typical. I cannot offer you anything, but I would make an appointment with your state and federal representatives and make it known what transpired with documentation you have gathered. Get the names and departments of the officers and all the public servants who neglibibly, if not criminally, decided to be the pigressive nazi-stormtroopers instead of law enforcement. Considering what a democrat held dump the state of Maryland is, my guess you will wasting your time as the public servants are usually insestous at sucking each others dicks as they steal from the public. Good luck.

        2. Thank you for the kind words! However, contacting the worthless rat-kike bought pols allegedly representing Marylanders was pointless as they all responded that they do not get involved in judicial matters and I should contact an attorney.

        3. Hey. You did mention Sheriffs department, so I would also make a meeting with the County commissioners— the local Sheriffs department is beholden to them (funding). I would also hint to those who are listening that you have been approached by media regarding this blatant issue. (Doesn’t have to be true, but they don’t know that.) Nothing will probbably become of it, but you do show that (1) you are not intimidated and (2) possibly could expose them to negative press. The will try to avoid you, but the threat of an article showing up in the press that an elected official ignoring a constitutent is a lethal thing around election time. This might get them to drop and leave you alone. Long shot though.

  21. I find he only points out what he perceives as wrong without showing any real, tenable solution. That makes his insights somewhat interesting, but useless in terms of pragmatism.
    Everyone tries to exert influence on the group because humans are tribal animals, not solitary predators. The idea of unlimited freedom would leave the human race extinct.

  22. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.
    George Orwell
    Now it’s a soft soled pair of Tom’s shoes. By one pair, we give another pair to stomp on the face of a child elsewhere.

  23. What a load of pseudo-intellectual twaddle. This was amazing: “The “meaning of life” is felt and questioned at night. Nobody talks about it over lunch. Life is a subject of the night.”

  24. There’s nothing concealed about a building totalitarianism. It’s been out in the open for more than a century for those who bother to look.

Comments are closed.