Post: #26

(12-23-2015 09:11 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I'll just put this here.

Quintus, you shouldn't dox Little Dark like that.

Post: #27

I find his love of Nietzsche to be weird.

For one, I notice that the people who like Nietzsche's argument that Christianity has made us docile rather than competitive (typically people who whine that Christianity is dehumanizing because of original sin) are invariably the least personally qualified people to say such a thing. And JO is no exception.

Nietzsche would see him as using his philosophy to justify his hedonism and would be disgusted. After all, Nietzsche is the guy who said there are people who construct moralities and philosophies to make themselves look good.

Just sayin'.

Also, I noticed this last night but now can sadly no longer place it: I do notice he is saying things that Aurini has said now.

Post: #28

(12-24-2015 11:49 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  I find his love of Nietzsche to be weird.

For one, I notice that the people who like Nietzsche's argument that Christianity has made us docile rather than competitive (typically people who whine that Christianity is dehumanizing because of original sin) are invariably the least personally qualified people to say such a thing. And JO is no exception.

Nietzsche would see him as using his philosophy to justify his hedonism and would be disgusted. After all, Nietzsche is the guy who said there are people who construct moralities and philosophies to make themselves look good.

Just sayin'.

Also, I noticed this last night but now can sadly no longer place it: I do notice he is saying things that Aurini has said now.

Welp, as Whiskey used to say, women HATE HATE HATE betas. That punchable face is one of the few times I'll empathize with the female Id.

Post: #29

How did Aurini end up getting involved with this loser?

Did he overlook doing some research on him before embarking in such a big project like a documentary?

Post: #30

(12-25-2015 12:33 AM)Killer Joe Wrote:  How did Aurini end up getting involved with this loser?

Did he overlook doing some research on him before embarking in such a big project like a documentary?

I'd be interested to find out what actually happened with that whole project. Seems like it all just kind of quietly disappeared after all the melodrama blew over. Jordan's contention was that Aurini was weaseling out of work and trying to milk crowdfunding indefinitely, while Aurini's claim was that Owen was just sperging out over Roosh while making it impossible to get anything done on the project. There's a real story about what happened there somewhere but both firsthand accounts have a pretty strong interest in spinning it in their own favor so we'll likely never know.

Post: #31

(12-25-2015 01:01 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(12-25-2015 12:33 AM)Killer Joe Wrote:  How did Aurini end up getting involved with this loser?

Did he overlook doing some research on him before embarking in such a big project like a documentary?

I'd be interested to find out what actually happened with that whole project. Seems like it all just kind of quietly disappeared after all the melodrama blew over. Jordan's contention was that Aurini was weaseling out of work and trying to milk crowdfunding indefinitely, while Aurini's claim was that Owen was just sperging out over Roosh while making it impossible to get anything done on the project. There's a real story about what happened there somewhere but both firsthand accounts have a pretty strong interest in spinning it in their own favor so we'll likely never know.

I'm afraid I can no longer address any of the questions about what transpired.

Owen already released his film, he's selling it on Vimeo, I believe. I will be making a separate film, working title Immersed in Subversion; I'm presently focussed on finalizing the Bachelor Pad Economics audiobook for Clarey, and then finishing Pushing Rubber Downhill for Adam Piggott. Following that, I'll have the time and money needed to finish my film, which I plan to release on YouTube.

It will be an entertaining half hour - hopefully a good introduction to why "harmless cultural critics" are anything but harmless - but I'm sad to say that it won't have the originally intended impact. A year ago, the film had a great deal of cachet, and it had the SJWs running scared. Getting it onto Netflix would have forced an alternative message into the mainstream. At this point, it's been overshadowed by the drama, and I'm quite certain Netflix wouldn't be interested (getting it on there would have made it an 'real' movie in the public perception, not just an internet documentary).

I am dedicated to making it the best 87 minutes I possibly can, but honestly, I'm looking forward to putting all of this behind me. I have several projects that I'm looking forward to in the new year that I think will wind up doing a lot of good. Finishing Immersed is more about fulfilling my promises, and silencing my detractors.

Post: #32

So you're making an 87 minute documentary that will be entertaining for 30 minutes?

Post: #33

(12-25-2015 01:34 PM)Malone Wrote:  So you're making an 87 minute documentary that will be entertaining for 30 minutes?

Excuse me? I must have misread that. Because it reads like you're a cunt.

Post: #34

You know what, instead of just calling you names (richly deserved though they might be) let's take this as an opportunity for a teaching moment.

What is the purpose of Anita Sarkeesian's videos?

If you answered "critiqueing what she views as sexist tropes in video games" you missed the point. Her videos don't exist to be watched, nor do they exist to teach anyone anything. If either of those were the case, they'd actually be academically cited (as she claims that they are) and they arguments wouldn't be transparently false (anybody here could do a better series on sexism in video games if they were so inclined).

No, her videos exist for two primary reasons:

1) To merely exist. They aren't there so that you watch them; they're just there to be pointed at by journalists: "See? Hours of academic analysis of sexism in video games! That's why Anita's on our news program; we know that you're too busy to examine these videos for yourself, so just take our word for it, it's all true! You can trust this talking head, she's a Social Scientist!"

2) To provoke "attacks". The flawed nature of her critiques is also her strength; they provoke the Internet Autist - I mean, Atheist crowd - to relentlessly critique her videos. Her arguments are so bad that it actually takes longer to refute them, than it takes her to make them in the first place. She lectures for 10 minutes, and 100 minutes are required to debunk her.

Your average person sees all this noise on the 'tubes and is left with the impression that A) Anita's a professional, and B) Internet Trolls are bullying her because they can't get laid.

So: the film wasn't an attempt to refute her juvenile arguments; it was an attempt to create something that would exist in a professional space which suggests that there is another side to the story.

That's it. Just a seed of doubt. Something to suggest that - you know what, bucko? That 22 year old in HR who lectures you about sexual harassment? She doesn't know what she's doing. That there is some sort of organization behind this. That all of those suspicions that you've been secretly nursing - you're not the only one who thinks this.

Because, hey - here's a REAL, NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY that says the same thing. It's not one of those idiotic YouTube videos that your degenerate son or crazy brother in law link you to - it's a REAL DOCUMENTARY.

In another world, that's what would have been. But we aren't in that world. While I have some great footage, some excellent analysis from intelligent people, and I know how to put together a narrative - at the end of the day, all I've got is a YouTube Documentary that will do nothing but preach to the choir.

Now I don't know about you, but I have a reputation to maintain. The left-leaning members of GamerGate used the drama between Owen and myself as an excuse to attack me, misquote me, and defame me; if you're one of those guys who thinks Liberty is the government paying for your AIDS medication, then I suppose you'll agree with them, and I don't much care what you say about me.

For everybody else - I promised a film and I will deliver them a film. If a man doesn't have his word, his doesn't have anything.

Post: #35

The social justice in video games stuff seems to have died on its own. A year ago it really did seem like video games were going to end up all being turned into the equivalent of the latest Star Wars (i.e. Social Justice Wars), but the free market kind of took the gas out of their sails, as the mixed metaphor goes.

At least, I haven't noticed much in the way of Euro Lesbian Quicktime Event Simulator 2016 on Steam.

Post: #36

I am stealing the "liberty is paying for your AIDS medication" line.

Post: #37

(12-25-2015 01:24 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(12-25-2015 01:01 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

(12-25-2015 12:33 AM)Killer Joe Wrote:  How did Aurini end up getting involved with this loser?

Did he overlook doing some research on him before embarking in such a big project like a documentary?

I'd be interested to find out what actually happened with that whole project. Seems like it all just kind of quietly disappeared after all the melodrama blew over. Jordan's contention was that Aurini was weaseling out of work and trying to milk crowdfunding indefinitely, while Aurini's claim was that Owen was just sperging out over Roosh while making it impossible to get anything done on the project. There's a real story about what happened there somewhere but both firsthand accounts have a pretty strong interest in spinning it in their own favor so we'll likely never know.

I'm afraid I can no longer address any of the questions about what transpired.

Owen already released his film, he's selling it on Vimeo, I believe. I will be making a separate film, working title Immersed in Subversion; I'm presently focussed on finalizing the Bachelor Pad Economics audiobook for Clarey, and then finishing Pushing Rubber Downhill for Adam Piggott. Following that, I'll have the time and money needed to finish my film, which I plan to release on YouTube.

It will be an entertaining half hour - hopefully a good introduction to why "harmless cultural critics" are anything but harmless - but I'm sad to say that it won't have the originally intended impact. A year ago, the film had a great deal of cachet, and it had the SJWs running scared. Getting it onto Netflix would have forced an alternative message into the mainstream. At this point, it's been overshadowed by the drama, and I'm quite certain Netflix wouldn't be interested (getting it on there would have made it an 'real' movie in the public perception, not just an internet documentary).

I am dedicated to making it the best 87 minutes I possibly can, but honestly, I'm looking forward to putting all of this behind me. I have several projects that I'm looking forward to in the new year that I think will wind up doing a lot of good. Finishing Immersed is more about fulfilling my promises, and silencing my detractors.

I remember who he is now. I hate to pick at an old scab bro, but did you know that he looked like that when you tried to work with him? If you did, you definitely made a deal with the devil at that time and paid dearly for it. His appearance alone is a red flag larger than his tractor sized skid marked underwear. He would be a neckbeard except he may not have enough testosterone to produce facial hair. He looks ridiculous!

Post: #38

I really enjoy Aurini's podcasts. He's stepped up his YouTube video game as well with a much better intro and higher quality overall.

That said, I hope he gets the stink of this loser off of him. It's holding him back.

The less time he spends dealing with this past, explaining himself, the better. It's difficult with his existing project that he collaborated with Owen on. That needs to be completed, out of the way, and totally in the past so he can move the fuck on.

It's like those times that, against all warnings, we stuck our dicks in crazy. By the time reality sunk in, it was too late. Take the loss, memorize the lesson, but keep the eyes towards the future.

All the best.

Post: #39

Can we get a link to some of aurini's work? I'm not familiar with it but I liked what he wrote above.

Post: #40

Quote:I am stealing the "liberty is paying for your AIDS medication" line.

Please do.

Quote:I hate to pick at an old scab bro, but did you know that he looked like that when you tried to work with him?

No comment.

Quote:Can we get a link to some of aurini's work? I'm not familiar with it but I liked what he wrote above.

http://www.staresattheworld.com/ I'm on YouTube as well (link on the website). I try not to be *too* much of a link-whore on here. I mostly just appreciate the high levels of sanity.

Post: #41

(12-25-2015 01:24 PM)Aurini Wrote:  I'm afraid I can no longer address any of the questions about what transpired.

Owen already released his film, he's selling it on Vimeo, I believe. I will be making a separate film, working title Immersed in Subversion; I'm presently focussed on finalizing the Bachelor Pad Economics audiobook for Clarey, and then finishing Pushing Rubber Downhill for Adam Piggott. Following that, I'll have the time and money needed to finish my film, which I plan to release on YouTube.

It will be an entertaining half hour - hopefully a good introduction to why "harmless cultural critics" are anything but harmless - but I'm sad to say that it won't have the originally intended impact. A year ago, the film had a great deal of cachet, and it had the SJWs running scared. Getting it onto Netflix would have forced an alternative message into the mainstream. At this point, it's been overshadowed by the drama, and I'm quite certain Netflix wouldn't be interested (getting it on there would have made it an 'real' movie in the public perception, not just an internet documentary).

I am dedicated to making it the best 87 minutes I possibly can, but honestly, I'm looking forward to putting all of this behind me. I have several projects that I'm looking forward to in the new year that I think will wind up doing a lot of good. Finishing Immersed is more about fulfilling my promises, and silencing my detractors.

(12-25-2015 01:50 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(12-25-2015 01:34 PM)Malone Wrote:  So you're making an 87 minute documentary that will be entertaining for 30 minutes?

Excuse me? I must have misread that. Because it reads like you're a cunt.

I was confused at first as well, but he probably meant hour and a half, not half hour.

Post: #42

(12-26-2015 01:59 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  Excuse me? I must have misread that. Because it reads like you're a cunt.

I was confused at first as well, but he probably meant hour and a half, not half hour.
[/quote]

Damnit. Did I misunderstand that? This film has/does mean a lot to me, and I don't take well to having my honour slighted.

If that comment was made in good faith, you have my sincerest apologies, sir. As frustrated as I am with the ultimately still-born results of any and all efforts, I will nonetheless produce the best film that I possibly can in the coming month or so.

Post: #43

(12-26-2015 02:40 AM)Aurini Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 01:59 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  I was confused at first as well, but he probably meant hour and a half, not half hour.

Damnit. Did I misunderstand that? This film has/does mean a lot to me, and I don't take well to having my honour slighted.

If that comment was made in good faith, you have my sincerest apologies, sir. As frustrated as I am with the ultimately still-born results of any and all efforts, I will nonetheless produce the best film that I possibly can in the coming month or so.

No worries man - I imagine you're feeling pretty attacked. I wasn't trying to do that, I was confused (and am a jerk). It was an honest question - I still don't know if you're talking about 2 films, or a film that is 30 minutes or is 87 minutes or what.

That said, I'm interested to see it.

Post: #44

(12-25-2015 02:15 PM)Aurini Wrote:  What is the purpose of Anita Sarkeesian's videos?

If you answered "critiqueing what she views as sexist tropes in video games" you missed the point. Her videos don't exist to be watched, nor do they exist to teach anyone anything. If either of those were the case, they'd actually be academically cited (as she claims that they are) and they arguments wouldn't be transparently false (anybody here could do a better series on sexism in video games if they were so inclined).

No, her videos exist for two primary reasons:

1) To merely exist. They aren't there so that you watch them; they're just there to be pointed at by journalists: "See? Hours of academic analysis of sexism in video games! That's why Anita's on our news program; we know that you're too busy to examine these videos for yourself, so just take our word for it, it's all true! You can trust this talking head, she's a Social Scientist!"

2) To provoke "attacks". The flawed nature of her critiques is also her strength; they provoke the Internet Autist - I mean, Atheist crowd - to relentlessly critique her videos. Her arguments are so bad that it actually takes longer to refute them, than it takes her to make them in the first place. She lectures for 10 minutes, and 100 minutes are required to debunk her.

Your average person sees all this noise on the 'tubes and is left with the impression that A) Anita's a professional, and B) Internet Trolls are bullying her because they can't get laid.

So: the film wasn't an attempt to refute her juvenile arguments; it was an attempt to create something that would exist in a professional space which suggests that there is another side to the story.

That's it. Just a seed of doubt. Something to suggest that - you know what, bucko? That 22 year old in HR who lectures you about sexual harassment? She doesn't know what she's doing. That there is some sort of organization behind this. That all of those suspicions that you've been secretly nursing - you're not the only one who thinks this.

Because, hey - here's a REAL, NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY that says the same thing. It's not one of those idiotic YouTube videos that your degenerate son or crazy brother in law link you to - it's a REAL DOCUMENTARY.

In another world, that's what would have been. But we aren't in that world. While I have some great footage, some excellent analysis from intelligent people, and I know how to put together a narrative - at the end of the day, all I've got is a YouTube Documentary that will do nothing but preach to the choir.

Now I don't know about you, but I have a reputation to maintain. The left-leaning members of GamerGate used the drama between Owen and myself as an excuse to attack me, misquote me, and defame me; if you're one of those guys who thinks Liberty is the government paying for your AIDS medication, then I suppose you'll agree with them, and I don't much care what you say about me.

For everybody else - I promised a film and I will deliver them a film. If a man doesn't have his word, his doesn't have anything.

(12-26-2015 02:40 AM)Aurini Wrote:  Damnit. Did I misunderstand that? This film has/does mean a lot to me, and I don't take well to having my honour slighted.

If that comment was made in good faith, you have my sincerest apologies, sir. As frustrated as I am with the ultimately still-born results of any and all efforts, I will nonetheless produce the best film that I possibly can in the coming month or so.

If not for your confusion, we wouldn't have gotten this great breakdown of how it works.

Post: #45

(12-25-2015 02:15 PM)Aurini Wrote:  No, her videos exist for two primary reasons:

1) To merely exist. They aren't there so that you watch them; they're just there to be pointed at by journalists: "See? Hours of academic analysis of sexism in video games! That's why Anita's on our news program; we know that you're too busy to examine these videos for yourself, so just take our word for it, it's all true! You can trust this talking head, she's a Social Scientist!"

2) To provoke "attacks". The flawed nature of her critiques is also her strength; they provoke the Internet Autist - I mean, Atheist crowd - to relentlessly critique her videos. Her arguments are so bad that it actually takes longer to refute them, than it takes her to make them in the first place. She lectures for 10 minutes, and 100 minutes are required to debunk her.

Your average person sees all this noise on the 'tubes and is left with the impression that A) Anita's a professional, and B) Internet Trolls are bullying her because they can't get laid.

I suspect the reality is far more complicated than that. I owe you this, Aurini, so here’s my take on what Feminist Frequency was hoping to achieve, though I might need to break this up into parts for ease of reading. It's probably only of interest to Aurini though, so everyone else, feel free to skip by. I'm also kinda drunk, so fuck knows if this will make much sense.

PART ONE

I watched Jordan’s take on the movie, and, although some of the guest had valid points, his ridiculous summation over a picture of the universe made me facepalm.

Most people’s basic assumption of Gamergate is that Sarkeesian is drawing attention to sexism in gaming, something that is so offensive it would alienate female customers, and, therefore, lose the industry money. Her argument would be the industry needs to be concerned with Adding Diversity: to both Characters and Game Creators, and by doing this, the already multi-billion dollar gaming industry will prosper to even greater heights with all these new female consumers.

Of course, she would be happy to work with creators as a paid consultant to give her seal of approval to a project. This is cynical opportunism to some eyes, and a valid monetary transaction for her academic expertise to others. Either way, it’s an easy narrative for both pro and anti crowds to grasp.

Now, note the focus on Adding Diversity: this is a beloved tactic of Marxist Agents Of Change. Diversity creates conflict, and the Agent of Change then steps in as a mediator to resolve the conflict by reaching an outcome they’d already predetermined before creating the conflict. Diversity is the means by which they achieve power. As such, most Authoritarian Marxists would recognise Sarkeesian as one of their own, and willingly support and champion her.

However, Fem Freq is entirely Jonathon McIntosh’s construct, as evidence has repeatedly shown, and he doesn’t strike me as an Authoritarian Marxist at all.

Just out of curiosity, did you delve into his background with Adbusters and other late 90’s anti-consumerist movements like the Billboard Liberation Front? They were one of those Leftist offshoots of the late 90’s ‘No Logo’ crap – ‘corporations are, like, evil and shit, so let’s fuck them up’ - which is probably the same strand Occupy Wall Street originated from.

I banged a lot of Uni girls in my thirties who were all raging against the corporations, and all owned a copy of Naomi Klein’s 1999 book ‘No Logo: Taking Aim At The Brand Bullies’. It’s a text dumbed down enough that it’s often found in the Young Adult section of a library, rather than the Sociology Section where it should be.

The Adbusters movement arose around the same time. They grew out of the Canadian Environmentalism Movement, originally trying to create anti-logging commercials that they couldn’t get aired. As such, they came to believe the individual can’t control the flow of information to a consumer the way corporations can. They used this belief to create ‘Mental Environmentalism’, a type of social activism focused on using the media itself to sell ideas, not products, to clean up what they consider toxic waste dumps ‘within the mind’. They created ideas like Buy Nothing Day, and TV Turnoff Week in the mid 90’s. The latter turned into ‘Digital Detox Week’ in 2008.

Mental Environmentalism is the current, trendy form of Marxism, and is currently-subverting many corporations and has a particular stranglehold on Silicon Valley. I’ll come back to this.

Adbusters championed in the concept of ‘Culture Jamming’. A quick summation via Wikipedia:

Quote:Culture jamming is heavily influenced by the Situationist International and the tactic of détournement. The goal is to interrupt the normal consumerist experience in order to reveal the underlying ideology of an advertisement, media message, or consumer artifact.

Remember Sarkeesians famous “I don’t play video games” video? It’s part of a introduction to a video she’s created as ‘Culture Jamming’. How does it work?

When you go to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks, and the Barista expects you to engage in a conversation about race, or homosexuality, the normal consumer process is being ‘jammed’. Obviously, this kind of subversion would strike most people as a bad business model under traditional capitalism, (though I think the Millennial Set is naïve enough to think they can put ideology before profit and be adored for it). They’re ignoring that it being bad for business is the original idea.

I was an 80’s punk – I linked before on how Punk culture went through the Gamergate Wars in the mid 80’s, with Agents of Change using the exact same arguments about Punk needing Diversity and Inclusivity in zines like ‘Maximum Rock N Roll’. Dada and Situationism were a huge part of the culture at the time. The Situationists were a 60’s strand of anti-authoritarian Marxism. I’ll let Wikipedia break it down again:

Quote:In their expanded interpretation of Marxist theory, the situationists asserted that the misery of social alienation and commodity fetishism were no longer limited to the fundamental components of capitalist society, but had now in advanced capitalism spread themselves to every aspect of life and culture. They rejected the idea that advanced capitalism's apparent successes—such as technological advancement, increased income, and increased leisure—could ever outweigh the social dysfunction and degradation of everyday life that it simultaneously inflicted.

Essential to situationist theory was the concept of the spectacle, a unified critique of advanced capitalism of which a primary concern was the progressively increasing tendency towards the expression and mediation of social relations through objects. The situationists believed that the shift from individual expression through directly lived experiences, or the first-hand fulfillment of authentic desires, to individual expression by proxy through the exchange or consumption of commodities, or passive second-hand alienation, inflicted significant and far-reaching damage to the quality of human life for both individuals and society. Another important concept of situationist theory was the primary means of counteracting the spectacle; the construction of situations, moments of life deliberately constructed for the purpose of reawakening and pursuing authentic desires, experiencing the feeling of life and adventure, and the liberation of everyday life.

Three things to note:

1) Advanced Capitalism stops us becoming our Authentic Selves – an important Marxist concept. (Authoritarian Marxism believes Authenticity is achieved by the understanding one’s true place in political history).

2) To an Anti-Authoritarian Marxist, Advanced Capitalism itself is the truest evil to be defeated. We can only reach Authenticity by abandoning the capitalist process entirely: working communally, and being self-sufficient so nothing needs to be purchased. You can see the obvious adoration of this by dirty hippie environmentalists.

3) ‘Counteracting the spectacle’ – this leads, filtered via Adbusters, to the mundane, keyboard warrior activism beloved of Culture Jammers.

Post: #46

PART TWO

Here’s a better explanation of Mental Environmentalism from the Adbusters site, emphasis mine:

Quote:If a key insight of environmentalism was that external reality, nature, could be polluted by industrial toxins, the key insight of mental environmentalism is that internal reality, our minds, can be polluted by infotoxins. Mental environmentalism draws a connection between the pollution of our minds by commercial messaging and the social, environmental, financial and ethical catastrophes that loom before humanity. Mental environmentalists argue that a whole range of phenomenon from the BP oil spill to the emergence of crony-democracy to the mass extinction of animals to the significant increase in mental illnesses are directly caused by the three thousand advertisements that assault our minds each day. And rather than treat the symptoms, by rushing to scrub the oil soaked beaches or passing watered down environmental protection legislation, mental environmentalists target the root cause: the advertising industry that fuels consumerism.

Our minds are polluted by an overwhelming propaganda assault that colors our beliefs, desires and perception of reality. Fighting back is thus far more difficult that protesting in the streets or clicking a few links. This brings us back to the concept of satori. Breaking out of the consumer mindscape takes a fundamental shift of perspective, an epiphany, after which everything is seen with new eyes.

Mental environmentalism is an emergent movement that in the coming years will be recognized as the fundamental social struggle of our era. It is both a unifying struggle – among mental environmentalists there are everything from conservative Mormons to far-left anarchists – and a struggle that finally, concretely explains the cause of the diversity of ills that threaten us.

To escape the mental chains, and finally pull off the glorious emancipatory revolution the left has so long hoped for, we must become meme warriors who, through the use of culture jamming, spark a wave of epiphanies that shatter the consumerist worldview.

… or, to become the Anti-Authoritarian Authentic Self.

The Millennial breed of Mental Environmentalist is too Upper Middle Class to get their nails dirty growing Soybeans in the mud, and they need the safety of a Corporate Career to fund the comforts they’re accustomed to – for nothing breeds a Marxist like a comfortable Upper Middle Class background. As such, ME’s transitioned beyond just jamming advertising and infected the corporations themselves with the notion of being concerned with Ethical Behaviour before profit.

The result is that Millennial ME’s engage in both Advanced Capitalism and Corporate Careers whilst telling themselves that they’re actually Agent of Change to stave of the Cognitive Dissonance that would otherwise damn them as corporate sellouts. As such, ME’s are the dreariest idiots alive, who cynically take money from their employers, whilst spending their time in the corporation trying to enact policies that are anti-business, and jam the expected corporation / consumer process. (You can see how they’re easily-mistaken for traditional Socialists).

Here’s a picture of the Adbusters American Corporate Flag, created in the late 90’s:



Many of these institutions have fallen:

- Playboy no longer offers the consumer the expected centrefolds, and is likely to lecture its readers on Feminist ideals;

- MTV now constantly indoctrinates ‘Social Justice’ concepts instead of playing music videos;

- Intel pledged $300 million to ‘Diversity’, which offers no obvious benefits to the consumer;

- ABC Family doesn’t show traditional families, and instead champions Gay and Transsexual ones, also exploring themes of unmarried pregnant teens and incest.

An example not on the flag would be EPSN focusing on Social Justice instead of Sport, or Tor Books trying to rebrand Sexual Deviancy as Science Fiction.

This is Mental Environmentalism at work: corporations have to behave Ethically, and it comes before the idea of Making Profit. You can see where the traditional Marxists get suckered in, believing this is leading to a strengthening of power through the championing of the marginalised, (now they’ve demonised the working class and thrown them under the bus for refusing to rise up in the glorious revolution). However, I suspect consumers grow irritated at having their desires blocked, or become annoyed by the constant bait-and-switch, and eventually seek out a company who doesn’t subvert the consumer transaction, financially-damaging these institutions. (Note Twitter’s growth stagnating, or ESPN’s huge loss of subscribers).

This is where the Authoritarian Marxists get played as Useful Idiots: their apparent power base is doomed to fall when the Corporation loses it Societal Power, which is exactly what the Anti-Authoritarian Marxist wanted all along.

Post: #47

PART THREE

Leading things back to Feminist Frequency: I recognise that McIntosh is an Anti-Authoritarian Mental Environmentalist, as his dreary third-hand rhetoric ticks off one box after another, (including the Adbusters-dictated hatred of Israel). I suspect he used Sarkeesian –deadly dull, charisma-free puppet that she is - to pose as what would appear to everyone as your standard Socialist Agent of Change, thereby guaranteeing the fawning media support that was woefully lacking when he’d posted Anita’s current thoughts two years previously under his own name.

My initial point of view was McIntosh was most likely trying a deliberate staging of the Invisible Theatre strain of the Theatre Of the Oppressed – particularly as the Zoe Quinn scandal blossomed. Based upon the Marxist / Centre Left teachings of Augusto Boal, this is a way of subversive overthrowing traditional power structures (race, class, gender) in a way that it seems to naturally-originate from within.

Under this model, the Cultural Marxists and their Libertarian opponents - let's just label them under the catch all of Gamergate for the sake of simplicity - are both the Useful Idiots of the Anti-Authoritarian Marxists. The idea is to radicalise both forces into turning Silicon Valley into a battlefield to destabilise its power, (and, yes, both sides are radicalised, despite moralistic calls by low-wattage, would-be leaders to ‘not turn into the monsters you’re fighting’).

You could easily-encourage the disruption by playing on the collective guilt of the workers employed by Multinational Tech Giants.

The Theatre of the Oppressed often used a Joker character to sabotage the attempts by both sides at reaching resolution. This would be the Goons from Something Awful, harassing both Pro and Anti.

However, I don’t believe McIntosh is that intelligent: his writing is too devoid of original thought or subversive intelligence, so we’ll go the more mundane route:

By stirring up calls for diversity to create the conflict needed so she and McIntosh could shape events to a predetermined outcome – most likely being hired as a consultant to game companies worried about not being inclusive enough – Sarkeesian was positioned to be a major critical voice in video gaming.

Of course, she doesn’t like them, and doesn’t play them. Unusual, is it not? So, why video games? Simply because they’re a lucrative form of Advanced Capitalism than’s superseded most traditional forms of mass media.

Check out the description of the recent ‘Technology’ Issue of Adbusters.

Quote:We are currently living through an unprecedented shift in the very fabric of human existence. As we upload nearly every aspect of our lives to digital lands, our daily experiences are morphing drastically and irreversibly. The way we communicate, the way we court, the way we learn, the way we make love, shop and think is undergoing a total, fast-paced and likely unavoidable transformation.

And now even the most proudly digitized of us are recognizing that this culture of information, porn, social media and gadget overload is taking a toll on our physical, mental and spiritual well-beings. Are we all being swept away in a tidal wave of Technorati culture — the nouveau hipsterdom of the tech-savvy, gadget-addicted, ultra-hip youth?

Huh, look, here’s McIntosh drawing attention to the Issue:

https://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/...2681315328

People have said “Why don’t SJW’s make their own games?” That’s not the point. McIntosh (and Sarkeesian) don’t want to make games better. He’s not really interested in teaching them how to make a politically-correct Call Of Duty or Assassin’s Creed, (which is why Sarkeesian damned their attempts at adding female characters with faint praise indeed). He simply wants to destroy those companies, and their position in the marketplace entirely, which is why I find it hilarious these same companies are inviting Sarkeesian to talk.

This is why he celebrated GTAV being banned from sale in some shops in Australia. All the Socialist SJW’s cheering as, say, Dead or Alive is not being released in America don’t seem to realise they’ve just lost potential institutional power. Anything the pair of them suggest to make games ‘better’ will simply be about making them less interesting, less fun, and less engaging: anything to make the user disconnect from the gaming experience.

Pay attention to how often he tweets or writes an article hoping to subvert the consumerist process, particularly when a forthcoming product is being hyped:

- Him and Sarkeesian both tweeting about the horrific violence in the Doom 4 Trailer, wondering “What is wrong with everyone?”

- His recent criticism of sexist advertising for Fallout 4

- A recent article on how the Avengers Trailer promotes toxic masculinity of men always resorting to violence to resolve problems.

Tweets recontextualised, in ME speak:

- Doom 4 is bad and for bad people, don’t buy it
- Fallout 4 is bad and for bad people, don’t buy it
- Avengers is bad and for bad people, don’t buy it

What he want from his audience when he tweets to interrupt the consumer / producer experience:

1) You should question your relationship to this product and how purchasing it reflects on you as a person

2) You should consider unplugging from the process entirely to become your Authentic Self

Post: #48

PART FOUR

I suspect this whole process might have been hugely successful but for Zoe Quinn setting Gamers against Games Journalists, which woke up people who might otherwise have been subverted without realising it.

That being said, I think ME’s like McIntosh gained from Gamergate. I no longer play games, as I have no interest in supporting companies that actively-demonise gamers, or refuse to stand up to defend for their audience. Many games designers and companies threw their fans under the bus, and made me look harder at who these people were, what they believed, and why I should financially-support them.

See how a consumer now distrusts a producer, and vice-versa, and how the traditional capitalist transaction has been jammed?

I’m sure McIntosh is well-aware of the loss of good-faith with consumers a company suffers by inviting Sarkeesian to talk there or by publicly-sucking up to her, particularly the Heavy Consumers, (‘Gamers’).

As for Sarkeesian herself, she’s a bit of a wild card. She’s uncharismatic; has soporific delivery; has zero fire or passion; and is uninterested in debating her ideas. I suspect that somewhere along the line she started to believe that she was some kind of intellectual giant and was convinced by her Socialist Fan-Lesbos that she was a true agent of change, (note the addition of hair dye and excess pounds), and turned into a narcissistic monster demanding policing the internet to stop all criticism of her. In this case, her resemblance to Authoritarian Marxism is most likely based on ego protection rather than a conversion.

Basically, she started believing her own hype.

Anyway, that’s just my take on things. It might be useful to you, or not. It sounds crazy, but both strands of Marxists are delusional about reality and are crazy, so I can truly believe McIntosh would think he could destroy video games as a cultural force in the name of authenticity through disconnection.

In that regard, McIntosh and Roosh might have different politics, but I suspect they would both agree on the necessity of Unplugging.

--------

Just a note: I noted Aurini is a fan of ‘Spec Ops: The Line’, one of the first instances where I noticed Mental Environmentalism starting to infect gaming.

The game purely exists to throw a series of psychological accusations at the player – based on the stereotypical presumptions of gamers possessed by a Midwit Writer who believes they’re intellectually far above their audience. In the movie world, this kind of intellectual arrogance coupled with inferior intelligence results in terrible movies like ‘The Condemned’ or ‘Gamer’, where the viewer is constantly-berated for wanting to see violence – usually with an evil character saying how they’ve just giving the audience ‘what they want to see’.

The difference is both audiences and critics can recognise shitty exploitation movies with laughable pretensions to social criticism, but video games are so desperate to be taken seriously that games journalists will venerate, well, something of the quality of ‘The Running Man’.

Spec Ops: The Line assumes:

- only a certain type of player choses to play war games;

- the interaction with the game can only be about compensatory power fantasies;

- the player has never read ‘Heart Of Darkness’, which offers on-the-nose , plot-breaking foreshadowing;

- every player choses to take the easy road when offered.

The game hinges on an early decision that the game railroads you into taking – as there are no other options to advance - then berates the hell out of you for making it, despite me having tried every other option first. (I suspect the Writer is a Goony Beard Man / Pretentious Hipster. He later said there was another option: to stop playing there. I doubt they’d refund players for the unplayed content though).

The Mental Environmentalist Messages it keeps pushing on you:

1) Engaging in video game violence suggests fantasises of engaging in real world violence;

2) Killing virtual characters is the same as killing real people;

3) Only a bad person needs these violent power fantasies;

4) You’re a bad person for playing this.

This type of programming is very effective. A while later, I was playing a Zombie Game, and, hacking a monster apart, I thought “Huh, does this really need to be this violent?” This is after years of being desensitised by horror movies and games. See how they got me, despite me being aware of the subversive process?

I expect there's another video game crash coming, and it's necessary to purge the Marxist baggage. I lived through the '83 one. Games were a huge, omnipresent cultural force... until they suddenly weren't, utterly vanishing from the public sphere seemingly-overnight. They just... stopped-existing.

Post: #49

I've talked with Owen in the past, offering some of my services towards the Sarkeesian Effect. I started getting friendly with him and made a joke about his obsession with cats, which flew right over his head. He responded by saying "You look like your mom drank when she was pregnant" and blocking me on all social media. He is not a sane individual by any stretch of the imagination.

Post: #50

AB is just killing it....lol.

His posts are as complex, layered, and symbolic as...a painting by Heironymous Bosch.