Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Interview With A Reddit Mod About Free Speech And Censorship

Conducted with a student doing graduate research, this interview with a mod of internet echo chamber Reddit sub /r/sjwhate on the topics of free speech and censorship reveals quite a bit about the new defenders of free speech:

How would you describe the Reddit ‘community’?

I do not think there is one. There are people using an internet site, and other than that, they have very little in common.

How would you describe a ‘Redditor’?

The average person drawn here is nerdly enough to not trust mainstream social media like Facebook, probably a bit under-confident, usually inexperienced in life and working a low-paying job.

How do you picture a typical ‘Redditor’ in real life?

The guy who makes your sandwiches or maintains the Facebook page for a local non-profit: doughy, nerdy, avoids eye contact, probably ineffective in real life.

Do you actively contribute to any of these subreddits? Do you feel like a ‘member’ of any?

How can one feel like a 'member' of any 'community' where there is no necessity of contribution? Reddit is like day-time television: the people here are looking for an easy way to participate, and to get internet points, not a way to contribute. I feel like a 'member' in the subs where I am a moderator and trying to provide content for a specific audience, but for Reddit as a whole? haha no.

Do you feel that your subreddit has an oppositional subreddit/enemy subreddit/do you ever feel threatened or attacked (directly or indirectly) by certain subreddits, users, etc?

The admins here have given a Get Out of Jail Free card to liberal brigade subs like /r/AgainstHateSubreddits and /r/ShitRedditSays. I view them as vandals, scared kids who are panicked by anything which does not affirm their personal agenda, more than enemies, but they behave like enemies.

Do you ‘hate-follow’ any subreddits?

No. I view participation in such subs as endorsement.

Do you follow any subreddits that you would never comment on?

There are some I cannot comment in because the comments are immediately mass-downvoted, which means that I am subject to the sub's anti-spam filter. Like in /r/antiwork, most people are hostile to anyone who is not a liberal/leftist.

If you’re a moderator of a subreddit, could you explain a bit about what you do in your role, especially things that people new to Reddit/ who aren’t moderators wouldn’t know about?

Moderator is a cross between discussion leader and janitor. I remove spam, abuse, stupidity and worthless non-contribution "contributions." What most people do not see is the behind-the-scenes interaction with users, many of whom come to us for advice on how to improve their participation.

In your opinion, what are the worst subreddits? Why are they the worst?

Worst by quality are the ideological subs and the vote brigades. There, it is truly a hugbox or echo chamber dedicated to groupthink and witch hunting. The best subs are the ones which are dedicated to normal life activities, like funny memes, pictures, etc.

Which groups of people are most attacked on Reddit? Do you think this is fair/warranted?

Conservatives and no, of course it is not; it is biased. They are attacked for not conforming to what the hive-mind wants to hear. Because its appeal is ideological, and not realistic, its members are threatened by any differing opinions.

What do you think about the recent algorithm changes to r/all?

They were designed to keep conservative content from the front page in response to the Donald Trump campaign.

How truthful do you think people are on Reddit?

Not very. In fact, over time, I have learned that I am rarely wrong when I expect people to be lying. Some of this is harmless: they are obfuscating their identities. But a lot of it is quite malicious. Users who actively contribute tend to be less likely to do this, in my opinion.

Do you think people say things on Reddit they wouldn’t say in real life?

People say things on the internet that they would not say in real life, and because Reddit is both anonymous and based on throw-away accounts (i.e. user history is not important) they are even more inclined to lie or say outrageous stuff. If you imagine Reddit as a hate mob of drunk teenage NEETs with chips on their shoulders and a history of personal failure, that is probably close to accurate.

Do you think some people use Reddit as an outlet for aspects of their personality they feel they can’t express in their ‘real’ lives?

Absolutely. Just visit the fetish subs. Also, I think younger people use it as a chance to "try on" different identities and subcultures without actually risking themselves. Then there's /r/gonewild...

Do you think that pretending to be someone else or acting differently than you normally would in real life on Reddit can be beneficial?

In that I would not trust these people as far as I could throw the Reddit server farm, yes, it is advantageous.

I can also see therapeutic/maturation reasons for doing this. For example, if you have questions about your sexual identity, try being gay online for a few days.

How would you define free speech?

I use the originalist interpretation of the First Amendment: political, philosophical and social commentary -- genuine information and not emotional gestures -- should be welcome regardless of its conclusions. This means that I believe it needs to be expressed in a certain form, more like that required for formal academic papers or formal letters, than that its content should determine whether or not it is accepted.

What do you think Reddit’s relationship with free speech is like?

Extremely complicated. In general, the site does a good job of supporting it on day-to-day comments. Some subs are obviously entirely abusive and the admins refuse to step in there, which is a decision I agree with. Its protection of anonymity is usually good, although admins have stopped removing comments where people are outed, which is a bad move I think.

How would define offensive speech?

That is a nonsense term. There is speech in an offensive form, like someone writing FUCK YOU on his jacket and then going into a church or courtroom. But no content that is well-expressed and plausibly true should be offensive. The offensive speech meme was created to suppress certain realist speech and for no other reason.

What do you think Reddit’s relationship with offensive speech is like?

A mob of panicked monkeys downvoting anything that threatens their worldview.

Look at admin support of brigade subs.

How would you define hate speech?

Another nonsense term. Speech that is tolerated should take a certain form, so writing a letter about how African-Americans commit a lot of crime is different than screaming racial epithets at someone. But hate speech does not exist. This is another term designed to filter out dissenting opinion, which paradoxically drives people into anger, from which comes the really nasty stuff.

What do you think Reddit’s relationship with hate speech is like?

Reddit uses "hate speech" as a pretext to remove certain subs.

Do you agree with banning subreddits?

No, because ultimately it creates a worse counter-reaction. I was not a fan of /r/niggers and did not really think much either way about /r/fatepeoplehate, but banning them only radicalized the audience.

Do you think that some remaining subreddits should be banned?

No, and I think Reddit should stop pretending it does anything about brigades, which would remove the legitimacy of those subs which are a blight on Reddit.

What would make a subreddit or comment worthy of being banned or deleted? What limits/ parameters would you set?

I guess I can see deleting /r/GetYourFreeChildPornHere or something like that, simply because the name encourages a specific crime.

Do you think that things that people write on Reddit could cause harm to others?

Outing people, especially those with controversial opinions, is a definite form of harm. I try to talk about ideas and not people; while I think it is the responsibility of the person to regulate their response to what is said about them, bullying and cruelty can cause a lot of damage to younger users who are not yet familiar with how vile and evil the world can be.

Who do you think is most likely to be harmed by content on Reddit?

Summary: people who are outed, and younger people. I might add that the worst blight I have seen on the internet is revenge porn, where people post nudes sent to them by their exes. While it is really stupid to send digital nudes to anyone, it is also really horrible to then use that to destroy someone's life or reputation.

Do you think some people enjoy harming others on the Internet?

Let me dial that back: do I think that some people enjoy harming others? Yes, especially when they can get away with it by using social rules, like "this person is a witch or kulak, so torturing them to death is the right thing to do."

On the internet, it is just easier to do and anonymity protects the person doing it.

Do you think they would act the same in real life?

I think they would find another method, like gossip.

Would you happily show your grandparents (or other similar figure) what you write on Reddit?

Yes, I think what I write here represents me very well. Then again, I hide my political leanings from most of them because they are liberals or neoconservatives.

Anything else I should know if I’m trying to get an understanding of free speech, offensive speech or hate speech on Reddit?

There are two ways to regulate speech, by form and by content.

Form means the way it is expressed. Do you write a short editorial on why white people are bad for America, or do you shout FUCK CRACKERS and encourage others to throw rocks?

Content means what is being communicated. I find censorship of this in any form to be evil, counter-productive, unrealistic and ultimately suicidal. Society depends on the free expression of relevant ideas, provided that they are in a useful form and not epithets, spam, etc.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, August 15, 2016

New Book Challenges Conventional Vision Of Nihilism

Controversional author Brett Stevens, who was interviewed here some time ago, has released his first book, Nihilism: A Philosophy Based in Nothingness and Eternity on Manticore Press. This book attempts to understand nihilism in a way our culture has up to now been afraid to.

The summary of the book states:

Most people see the world in binary categories. They believe that there is either an inherent moral good that we must all obey, or there are no rules and life is pointless anarchy. Nihilism argues for a middle path: we lack inherent order, but are defined by our choices, which means that we must start making smarter choices by understanding the reality in which we live more than the human social reality which we have used to replace it in our minds.

A work of philosophy in the continental tradition, Nihilism examines the human relationship with philosophical doubt through a series of essays designed to stimulate the ancient knowledge within us of what is right and what is real. Searching for a level of thought underneath the brain-destroying methods of politics and economics, the philosophy of nihilism approaches thought at its most basic level and highest degree of abstraction. It escapes the bias of human perspective and instructs our ability to perceive itself, unleashing a new level of critical thinking that side-steps the mental ghetto of modernity and the attendant problems of civilization decline and personal lassitude.

While many rail against nihilism as the death of culture and religion, the philosophy itself encourages a consequentialist, reality-based outlook that forms the basis for moral choice. Unlike the control-oriented systems of thought that form the basis of contemporary society, nihilism reverts the crux of moral thinking to the relationship between the individual and the effects of that individual's actions in reality. From this, a new range of choice expands, including the decision to affirm religious and moral truth as superior methods of Darwinistic adaptation to the question of human survival, which necessarily includes civilization.

Inspired by transcendentalist thinkers and the ancient traditions of both the West and the Far East, the philosophy of nihilism negates the false intermediate steps imposed on us by degenerated values systems. In the footsteps of philosopher Friedrich W. Nietzsche, who called for a "re-evaluation of all values," nihilism subverts linguistic and social categorical thinking in order to achieve self-discipline of the mind. As part of this pursuit, Nihilism investigates thought from writers as diverse as William S. Burroughs, Aldous Huxley, Arthur Schopenhauer and Immanuel Kant. For those who seek the truth beyond the socially-convenient explanations that humans tell one another, nihilism is a philosophy both for a new age and for all time.

Where this differs from most is that it does not view nihilism as a type of moral relativism, but a style of extreme realism that rejects the idea of human-centric visualizations of reality. Instead, it posits that all is choice. We can choose to know more of reality, and to push our minds through self-discipline to see more of the abstract truths and structures behind matter, or we can choose another path. But our choices define us.

This escapes the normal trap of thinking that we can define an objective reality that everyone can understand, which is nonsense given that language is interpreted by the individual with varying degrees of accuracy because individuals are not equal. Instead of relying on tools like language, law, and morality to guide us as interpreted by human individuals, Nihilism argues that should measure all humans by cause-to-effect results of their actions and derive intent from those.

Most people fear nihilism because it kicks out the supports that they rely on. Those are usually social illusions, or those comprised of what a group of humans can compromise on in order to keep the group together. Stevens' conception of nihilism is antisocial and operates on the level of history and mythology, rejecting the narcissistic individualism that represents the true evil, or error, inherent to humanity.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, July 01, 2016

Reddit Explodes In Censorship Debate Again As Users, Mods Censor Islam Stories

Alternative social media site Reddit -- in a musical analogy, it is nothing more than 4AD to Facebook's big media -- has again detonated in controversy after mods, users and possibly admins (but who knows, because only they can see the data) conspired to hide references to Islam after the most recent terrorist attack in Turkey.

Conservative media, who are always the targets of Reddit censorship, have been keeping track of the unfolding Reddit disaster:

Following an AMA in /r/The_Donald by Breitbart Tech editor Allum Bokhari, users began messaging Breitbart reporters with evidence of ongoing censorship across Reddit. We’ve previously reported on the suppression of anti Islamic speech on Reddit’s /r/News subreddit following the Orlando massacre, committed by Omar Mateen in the name of the Islamic State. Similarly, multiple comments relating to the Islamic religion were deleted from the /r/News thread relating to the Istanbul bombings.

The two incidents -- the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando and the Istanbul bombings -- are related in that Reddit's new censorship shows the response to what happened after the Orlando incident. As stories trickled in, Reddit's /r/news channel began deleting any references to Islam, at which point user demand for information bumped stories from the Trump channels to the front page. Citing "diversity," Reddit admins made it clear that this would not happen again:

Huffman went on to outline changes that would turn the previously user-driven algorithm on /r/all into something that will likely make it much harder for Trump’s army of Reddittors to use their size and popularity on the site to dominate the frontpage.

We are working on a change to the r/all algorithm to promote more diversity in the feed, which will help provide more variety of viewpoints and prevent vote manipulation.

...Earlier today, Huffman clarified in an announcement that the algorithm change was not intended to target Trump supporters, instead saying that the changes were being introduced to prevent “any one community” from dominating the listings. But given that the change was announced as a direct response to the Orlando Shootings, during which /r/The_Donald dominated the listings, many Redditors aren’t buying it — including the founder of /r/The_Donald, who claims he was told by an admin that the change was specifically intended to curtail them.

Reddit admins can publicly advertise their censorship and face zero consequences because on the main, the average Reddit user goes to Reddit to escape from reality and to find confirmation of his desires in the conversation of others. The goal of Redditors is to deny reality together and by creating an echo chamber, pretend that only the Reddit vision of reality is correct and that everyone else is a stupid jerk who may have gotten more sex than they did in high school, but cannot set up his own web server.

The typical Reddit user is white, middle-class, and thinks Donald Trump is the new Adolf Hitler. He is passionately liberal and involved with technology in lieu of having a social life. He will eventually find some job where he makes good money but then find his salary has peaked and, like all people put out to pasture by our society, will wait in docile catatonia until he can retire and go somewhere to pursue his "hobbies" and then die.

In order to pacify this audience, Reddit tries to be a "safe space" that shields them from reality. This means censoring any news stories that are upsetting to liberals, usually those which do not conform to the narrative that says that conservative white people are the cause of all the world's evils. If users notice an attack was done in the name of Islam, by a Muslim, who was from a non-white or non-conservative background, then their safe space may be shattered and the echo chamber will fail.

This audience replaced Reddit's original group, who were power users and early adopters of new web technologies who distrusted the "social media mindset" that came with other services. They were too few to make Reddit into anything but a small media presence, so in an effort to attract an alternative social media audience, the admins expanded the franchise to people who were not necessarily early adopters but just wanted a social media outlet for non-mainstream opinions.

This has backfired on Reddit, however, because being "alternative social media" also entails being social media, and now people are leaving Facebook and Twitter for Reddit -- and bringing with them the same behavior that made those sites and Reddit equally irritating. Old people, Christians, even some Conservatives have appeared, and this threatens the Reddit "safe space" echo chamber, prompting these recent outbursts.

With that in mind, it is time to start the Reddit Death Clock. The site drove away the audience that made it a repository of unique content, is driven mostly by reposts which come from accounts that often look suspiciously like alts of Reddit employees -- a practice Reddit admits has been policy since the early days, and now is seeing the crowd consisting of Grandma and Phil from Marketing surge onto its channels.

At this point, Reddit is competing with Facebook, and with these extreme levels of censorship, it now has nothing to offer that other social media does not. This will cause Reddit to enter its death spiral as it tries to retain a unique audience by doing the same thing that every other social media site does, in turn driving away that audience and replacing them with feckless users who will happily run along to whatever other trend comes next.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 20, 2016

New Site Genocide Report Targets Genocide By Diversity

A new salvo against the forces of civilization destruction has been fired. A new blog named Genocide Report offers us an unusual thesis: diversity/multiculturalism causes genocide of all the ethnic groups involved.

Using citations to political definitions and scientific studies, this new perspective points out that the flaw in diversity is not within the other groups that one sees, but the notion of diversity itself, which creates a bias against all ethnic groups and destroys them.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Interview With Brett Stevens

by Pavol Horvath

First of all tell us somthing about yourself. You are a mystery man when it comes to your personality, family, hobbies and so on.

And a mystery man I shall remain. Let me explain: in every job interview, they ask you these kind of questions. Why do they do that, do you think? The answer is to try to reduce you to a symbolic understanding with care and feeding instructions: "Likes long walks and kipper snacks, dislikes romantic comedies and spinach." I know that is not your intent here, but it is one-half of the reason why I have always been a bit quiet about myself. The other half is the same reason that J.D. Salinger, Elena Ferrante and Thomas Pynchon were recluses, which is that too much focus on the person obscures the focus on the work.

Before we kick off please let us know your top ten heavy metal albums.

Distilling this genre to ten is really difficult, so let me instead just list ten favorites that are perhaps more frequently listened to than any others around here:

  1. Sepultura - Morbid Visions/Bestial Devastation
  2. Bolt Thrower - The IVth Crusade
  3. Ildjarn - Forest Poetry
  4. Deicide - Legion
  5. Incantation - Onward to Golgotha
  6. Beherit - Drawing Down the Moon
  7. Iron Maiden - Killers
  8. Demilich - Nespithe
  9. Slayer - South of Heaven
  10. Burzum - Filosofem

Each of these recommends itself to repeated listening for enjoyment, and so I frequently throw them on. I imagine there are 50-70 releases from the genre that are of the can't miss category, and the rest at this point are probably adequate if you are determined to listen to heavy metal, but you will not suffer if they evaporate from your consciousness.

Why did you decide to write a book?

Originally I wanted to publish on the net alone. It became clear to me early on, like 1984 or so, that at some point every person on the planet would have a computer and use it to read things. This, to me, suggested a way to reduce paper waste and update manuscripts to correct errors and so on, eliminating two of the most vexing problems of books. What I did not know at that time was how powerfully destructive democratization is: when you invite everyone in the world onto the internet, they immediately cover it with spam, emotional responses, angry compensatory insults and the like. Having watched the internet go from barely usable in 1992 to highly useful in 1998 to barely usable in 2014, I feel it is time to put my words in print and leave the internet to be what it has become, which is daytime television for those with a lack of purpose in their lives. Poor souls.

Is this a collection of articles or a complete text?

Nihilism came about because of a suggestion by Manticore Press editor Gwendolyn Taunton that I should compile older works. I had a book in progress at the time which eventually became Parallelism, but realized the backstory was all missing, and that I had written it in the late 1990s but never relied on it because it was online and not in print, and because there were a number of editorial emendations I would need to make before I thought it was ready for a reader accustomed to my current texts. I went back through the materials I had written over the past twenty-five years, chose a selection of pieces that expressed the depth and nuance of these concepts, and then edited them thoroughly adding references and quotations and clarifying murky bits. On top of that, I added an extensive introduction which creates a mise en scène in which those earlier pieces each take an important role. This then serves as a good entry point to my second work, Parallelism, as will a third manuscript which also compiles earlier writings.

For all the uninitiated please explain what "nihilism" is according to Brett Stevens.

Nihilism is extreme realism and anti-humanism. This is a form of consequentialism, or recognizing that results in reality, and not our feelings or judgments about them, are what matter. Things established in reality change the principles and ideas by which we live, and those guide us more than anything else, so receding into the mind and ignoring reality is the most destructive and most typical of human behaviors.

Nihilism escapes this by re-orienting us toward external reality and the patterns within it as a means of figuring out how it works, and deprecates the human tendency to use hive mind emotions and social compulsion to enforce a false reality on others in order to keep the group together. It is a recognition that most human individuals, and most groups, use human-centered thinking which is why they end up with empty lives and doomed civilizations.

How long have you had the idea of writing this particular book?

Conceptually, since the far half of the middle 1980s. As far as putting these particular ideas into a book as a compilation, only about a year ago. I have been writing on very similar topics for the duration of this time mainly because it is not understood, and yet when people do understand it, they find their view of the world has entirely changed. A convenient all-in-one compilation seemed in order. Parallelism does the same for the philosophy that nihilism has enabled me to see, and the politics that result.

How long did it take you to write it?

Each of these pieces was written the same way: I would walk for hours in a semi-wilderness near where I lived and conceptualize a seed of an idea, then flesh it out into a mental outline which I could understand as one understands a shape in the dark by the touch of the hands alone, and then I went home and wrote based on that. In addition, behind each of these pieces are hours of thought on the ideas themselves as I explored what I knew, could verify, and could reasonably anticipate as true based on the patterns I had seen elsewhere in reality. Varg Vikernes refers to this as "syncretic eclecticism" but I know it simply as (part of) esotericism.

I know I do, but did you find the re-writings irritating?

I once saw an artisan who worked in laquer. He took out a brush, thought for a few moments, then made a basic shape with color. He then layered that with clearl laquer and paint in alternating layers, so that what was once a red-orange squiggle slowly became a quasi-three-dimensional goldfish. My writing fits the same form: a lot of thinking, a clear concept, and then layers of editing and re-writing to give it readability and nuance that supports the point rather than being chaotic like most writing.

Please tell us more about the other two titles.

The idea of nihilism hit me in full force when I was fifteen, but I had been mulling over the concept for many years already: the collision between what humans convinced themselves was true and then the plain reality in front of us. It took some time to get over the hurdles that this imposed, namely a somewhat tedious materialism followed by the eternal human tendency to streamline a complex series of situations into a single universal principle, like an ideology or mystical theology. The first book, Nihilism, compiles writings that I have been augmenting since the late 1980s, and the second, Parallelism, investigates -- with all-new text -- the consequences of nihilism and the thought system that results when one gets past those hurdles. The third, Solipsism, is another collection of essays previously published but with commentary and introduction describing the mental state in which most humans naturally fall that is nonetheless the opposite of what their intuition tells them.

Why did you select Manticore Press as your publisher?

Manticore Press editor Gwendolyn Taunton has worked with me in the past and demonstrated quality professional judgment as well as a focus on literature outside the mainstream which upholds the standards of great publishing houses of the past. It was a natural choice to write to her first and mention that I thought her idea a good one and had a compilation of texts ready.

What are your favorite books?

Most likely this question is best handled as the heavy metal one was, which is to look at not some abstract idea of "best" but books that are revisited frequently. For that, clearly Naked Lunch by William S. Burroughs, Brave New World and The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley, Elementary Particles and The Possibility of an Island by Michel Houellebecq, all of Jane Austen and William Faulkner, anything Fred Nietzsche or Julius Evola wrote, and some recent discoveries, like the intriguing Barbara Pym.

Do you have any more books planned for the future apart from the three you already did?

Several projects occupy me right now. They take the form of exploration of human psychology as it relates to patterns in nature. It is unclear at this time what form they will take and so it is unwise for me to promise much of anything as it may change. However, it is likely that I will keep writing, both for print and on Amerika.

Any more comments.

Thank you for this interview. It was fun to answer. Maybe throw on some classic death metal and read about nihilism?

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Controversial New Book Claims Nihilism Is Solution To Modern Fatalism, Not Its Cause


Since the early days of Western decay, it has been popular to blame the downfall on "nihilism" or a lack of belief in innate truth, morality and language. After all, nihilism is usually introduced by scary definitions such as this:
Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.1
A new book, written by infrequent contributor to this blog Brett Stevens, takes the opposite perspective: the problem with modern society is individualism, or people looking at their own desires, judgments and feelings based in the pretense and arrogance of the ego. Nihilism, Stevens says, is an antidote to this problem and possibly the salvation of Western Civilization.
The official synopsis of the book, which will be released on Manticore Press in 2016, contains the following:
Most people see the world in binary categories. They believe that there is either an inherent moral good that we must all obey, or there are no rules and life is pointless anarchy. Nihilism argues for a middle path: we lack inherent order but are defined by our choices, which means that we must start making smarter choices by understanding the reality in which we live more than the human social reality which we have used to replace it in our minds.

A work of philosophy in the continental tradition, Nihilism examines the human relationship with philosophical doubt through a series of essays designed to stimulate the ancient knowledge within us of what is right and what is real. Searching for a level of thought underneath the brain-destroying methods of politics and economics, the philosophy of nihilism approaches thought at its most basic level and highest degree of abstraction. It escapes the bias of human perspective and instructs our ability to perceive itself, unleashing a new level of critical thinking that side-steps the mental ghetto of modernity and the attendant problems of civilization decline and personal lassitude.

While many rail against nihilism as the death of culture and religion, the philosophy itself encourages a consequentialist, reality-based outlook that forms the basis for moral choice. Unlike the control-oriented systems of thought that form the basis of contemporary society, nihilism reverts the crux of moral thinking to the relationship between the individual and the effects of that individual’s actions in reality. From this, a new range of choice expands, including the decision to affirm religious and moral truth as superior methods of Darwinistic adaptation to the question of human survival, which necessarily includes civilization.

Inspired by transcendentalist thinkers and the ancient traditions of both the West and the Far East, the philosophy of nihilism negates the false intermediate steps imposed on us by degenerated values systems. In the footsteps of philosopher Friedrich W. Nietzsche, who called for a “re-evaluation of all values,” nihilism subverts linguistic and social categorical thinking in order to achieve self-discipline of the mind. As part of this pursuit, Nihilism investigates thought from writers as diverse as William S. Burroughs, Aldous Huxley, Arthur Schopenhauer and Immanuel Kant. For those who seek the truth beyond the socially-convenient explanations that humans tell one another, nihilism is a philosophy both for a new age and for all time.

Stevens, who blogs at Amerika.org, is a contributor to Alternative Right, Right On, Return of Kings, Counter-Currents, American Renaissance and other alternative viewpoint websites, as well as a founder of the American Nihilist Underground Society, NIHIL, CORRUPT and the now-deceased End Democracy blog. This is his first print publication.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 13, 2016

Reddit Censors Discussion Of Orlando Shooting To Suppress Knowledge Of Shooter's Religion

In an article dubiously entitled "Internet Dumpster Fire Reddit Has Meltdown Over Orlando Shooting Censorship," Death Metal Underground explores the censorship of news of the Orlando shooting perpetrated not just by mods of /r/news but by those vested in the culture of the site itself, which defends free speech if it is the correct speech, but otherwise takes great delight in censorship, historical revisionism and other modes of thought control:

As it becomes clear that censorship is rampant on social media, Reddit is the latest company to stumble when its news channel censored all mention of the Orlando Pulse gay nightclub terrorist attack. According to users, the site removed all conversation about the event — including requests for a blood drive.

...Again social media makes it clear that it is an echo chamber for officially accepted opinion. If you have the right opinion, your words will be repeated by the hive, which will make you a celebrity. People on such channels attempt to out-do each other in their flattery of popular ideas, which coincide with official opinion because most people simply repeat what they see and hear. As a result, the echo chamber intensifies.

Labels: , , , , , ,