NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGEGER

As-salamu alaykum, Muslim brothers and sisters. I come to you today to atone before Allah for my misdeeds against his people. I perpetrated grievous verbal abuse against the defenseless and entirely innocent people of Islam by very sincerely threatening nuclear genocide on the serious platform that is a Discord server. Little known fact: I was given permission by the United States government to do it. Not only that I have the codes, but the launch keys were in and the missiles were seconds away from being launched. All of a sudden, though, I received a flood of Twitter mentions telling me that the actions I described were morally wrong, a fact which I was completely oblivious to. In their sage wisdom, they proved irrefutably that my hatred was unjustified, assuring me that there is no meaningful correlation between Islam and the proliferation of rape gangs in Europe. Long story short, peer pressure succeeded and completely changed my mind and the peacemaking spirit of John McCain inspired me to stop the nukes just in time. Since then, I've become a devout follower of the prophet Muhammad, sufficed to say: I've been having a fuckton of fun. Of course I get raped by my forty year old husband every so often, and I have to worship a black cube to indirectly please an ancient Canaanite god, but at least I get to go to San Fran and stone the shit out of some gays and the cops can't do anything about it cuz California to crypto caliphate. The only part of Islam I absolutely cannot get into is the anti-Jew stuff. Personally, I just can't support any sort of animosity towards Jews. I wouldn't want to be a Nazi now would I?

I assume most of you have noticed the policies surrounding "hateful conduct" on social media platforms, virtually tightening a muzzle on the head of anyone whose speech alludes the narrative. They're purging their userbase using pseudo-offenses as an excuse to squeeze out ideological dissent and enforcing conformity into every internet community they can get their hands on. While the de-platforming can be partially chalked up to out of touch big tech CEOs who are just taking the path of least resistance, there certainly seems to be a coordinated effort coming from strident professional complainers who share an objective of removing reactionaries from all means of communication. Their job entails closely monitoring the posts of whatever online personalities they come across until one of them says something that's deemed unacceptable. When this happens these fucking Reddit homos speed to the scene, fueled by their lust for character assassination. If you pay attention to the identity these people put on when they do this, you'll notice it's not their conscious selves, it's a sub-personality. In a sense they're essentially possessed, they tend to expose things about themselves without even noticing. Because of that, it's very obvious that their behavior has been shaped by years of being humiliated and socially rejected by women. I know that reading will illicit people to accuse me of armchair psychology, but ask yourself this: why do they always speak like insufferable women? You see, I've had enough run-ins with these amoebas that I understand how they operate, and they never confront you directly. Instead, they default to saying things like "this is not a good look." I know that sort of language immediately gets the blood boiling, but think about it. They're saying you look bad rather than saying you're wrong. The reason for that is that their objective is not to challenge your ideas, but to give you the feeling that a Stacy stare does, because in their little peabrains, being a social outcast is the worst thing you can be. To put it bluntly, their whole MO is a post hoc projection. They imagine themselves to be the Stacy that rejected them years ago and their intention is to make you feel how they felt: inadequate. For example, when they say something is "not a good look," ask yourself. Who does it look bad to? The purpose of that little phrase is to make you imagine that there's a group whose opinions you should care about, but don't fall for it. They're powerless little prions who spend all day on the computer scouring the internet for people to harass. And there's a reason they always defer to groups, which fits neatly into my theory. Men in general tend more towards antisocial behaviors than women, which is why they're not afraid of confrontation or expressing themselves in an unpopular fashion. These spiritual manlets however, are feminine, so they defer to groupthink for everything and their method of attacking you is saying "you're not popular in our group, therefore you should feel bad." However this two-folds since, unlike the Stacies, they don't actually have a group they belong to. And on top of that, it'd still be meaningless since the truth is anti-Democratic. Popularity is utterly irrelevant to what's true and what isn't, so no matter how much cool guy webslang they conjure up and lob at you, they're still evolutionary dead-ends who can't think their way out of a paper bag. The worst thing you can do when met with these miserable creatures is compromise. These people are vampires of fear and hysteria, so if you maintain your position and refuse to comply with their demands, they'll become increasingly upset as time goes on. Don't ever allow yourself to be silenced. These nobodies will never amount to anything more than sock accounts on Twitter with numbers in their handle whose most powerful weapon is "cancelling" you. They can't potentially harm you. Now, I can think of various motivations that would drive someone to become such a lost man whose only earthly aim is to enhance suffering. I mean, in a lot of cases it's just an effort to virtue signal. But I think it's far too optimistic of a [reasoning?] to think of all these guys as clueless SJWs. It seems to me that there exists people whose sole interest is to sow the seeds of discord and possess an infatuation with increasing suffering, stress, and division wherever it may be found for no particular reason. Think of it this way: if there are people who set out to do good just for the sake of good, there have to be people fixated on doing the exact opposite. The only other motivation I can imagine is reserved for the more aware parties who foresee the outcome of heavy censorship and encourage it as a way to control the dialogue from entering certain undesirable areas. The most easily identifiable characters that fall into this category are the technological elite, aka the sociopathic 30-somethings that reside in the entrails of silicon valley.

[Google execs footage]

As a preface, we have to establish that when something happens like Chris Rock getting attacked for making fun of Jussie Smollett, it's all just inconsequential melodrama. Most cases of famous people getting exposed just end up getting memoryholed by the common man because, despite what bourgeoisie bugmen will tell you, the common man recognizes that words are just words. You make of them what you want, and if you get offended you chose to. People who live outside of faggoty microcosms reserve their concern for when unprovoked violence starts happening in the streets. Outside of that, they recognize that all of these controversies are merely glazed with an illusion of importance and you can't take them seriously, ever. This is precisely why you need a higher standard of morality than what you've been socialized into tolerating. What is socially acceptable is radically inconsistent and ever shifting. It's no coincidence that sectarianism is so prevalent among leftists. The only skill they've obtained mastery of is infighting and creating conflict over dumb irrelevant shit. And in the cases when somebody says something that sounds bad that wasn't just a joke, it's because it wasn't meant for you. Words are tools, and one of their many uses is the articulation of inner turmoil, regardless of how unpleasant that may be. But some people like pretending that that's not the case, and that every word a person utters is an official statement. Years ago, when the politicization of the internet had just begun, the people dedicated to patrolling the internet were noticeably fringe and disorganized. Now they're a defined enclave, uniformly striving towards scaring others into considering free speech is a conditional concept. How did they achieve this? Fear. By employing the artificial boogeyman of virtual social rejection, they successfully synthesized fear. The more that people become sensitive to the dopamine of retweets and likes, the more they're sensitive to getting ratioed. So when they hit the brick wall of getting called a Nazi or a sexist they feel as if their lives have ended. Of course, the actual terms mean nothing. But they're effective. Not because the person genuinely feels bad for thinking the way they do, but because they think it makes them unpopular. Essentially, these microbes place all their bets on you being a slave to your PR so that accusations like that will subdue you into compliance no matter how asinine their demands are. For, in online context, what do your opponents have but fear? It is crucial that they stick to playing social power minigames on the internet because in real life they don't stand a chance. When your main targets are known for valuing manliness and self defense, your best bet is to stick to your keyboard and social media account. The claims don't have to be cohesive and they don't have to actually defeat you in any way. They just have to convince you not to fight. Their main weapon is de-motivation so it doesn't matter if they use words incorrectly or say things that don't make sense. Their only mission statement is to manufacture the thought in your head that you're on the wrong side of history and you have to start agreeing with them if you want to maintain your fanbase and public image. People are so scared of this bullshit that they become the peacocks of diversity, showcasing their perverted postmodern version of morality before they even get attacked. After Christchurch the PM wore a fucking hijab, the signifier of a woman's second class citizenship, because of how much she wanted to display to everyone how horrible she felt for what happened.

[Norm MacDonald clip]

Even though all these folks are leftists, political denomination is insufficient to define their subpersonality because they have characteristics that set them apart from people like Tim Pool and Dave Chappelle, who are also left wing. In my attempt at trying to characterize the common thread between them, I remembered that recently a friend of mine was being taught in school that there is no such thing as a self and that your identity is defined by how you are perceived by the group. I think that postmodern idea perfectly explains their vicious obsession with appearance over essence. I venture to call them "sociological absolutists" because they don't believe in any objectively meaningful truth beyond the subjective. And on top of that, they don't believe in any meaningful truth within the subjective either, because whatever you understand yourself to be is irrelevant if the group disagrees. However morally corrupt these surfacists are, I gotta say they really stick true to democracy. Their claim seems to be that whatever the majority believes is somehow willed into reality like a tulpa, and that illogically leads people into doing and being what looks good instead of what actually is good. This is how you get anti capitalists praising mega corporations for making an ad that "deconstructs masculinity." This is how you get feminists who endlessly complain about female portrayal in the media instead of helping the insane numbers of African girls raped in war yearly. It's not about sticking true to not even their ethic. It's plain and simple: do whatever makes you look good. When this mindset is applied to speech, the conclusion is established that the intent of a speaker is unimportant. What matters is whether their words might negatively influence someone or not. Of course there's never any evidence of violent behavior being motivated by media. We've already been over this a thousand times with video games and music. But they don't care that media doesn't create violence. The only thing that matters is the cookie points they'll get for complaining. In that, the feelings, motivations, and intents of the speaker are all done away with. The meaning and permissibility of words to them is left up to the interpretations of demagogues, and they're very keen on smearing you to prop themselves up as moral arbiters. The phrases surfacists employ are like the hook to an EDM song: they're worded with the intent of pandering to as many people as possible. They'll avoid saying anything and everything that is even slightly inconvenient or controversial because, to them, not being popular is like being dead. That is why disagreeable people (those who haven't been demoralized and covered with a thick coating of apathetic de-personalization) are seen as Satan. If you say what you think whenever you feel like it, instead of enslaving yourself to your PR and spending hours meditating on whether or not to tweet out a gay joke, you must be forcefully assimilated into the collective of dishonest puppetmen. You must worship the image alongside them, or else you're an enemy. And when surfacists do use arguments beyond bland accusations, they shroud their criticisms and faux concern to pretend that what they're doing is a rescue mission to save you from the big bad ideological wolf rather than an effort to dehumanize and brainwash you. Since they don't have even one millionth of the balls that evil people of that past had, they sidestep any form of actual conflict and prefer instead to portray themselves as your worried mother. Whereas the evil of the past was Genghis Khan on a horse accompanied by a horde of Mongols invading your village, the evil of today exclaims "yikes" and "that's the tea" in order to evoke feelings of inadequacy in you. They're also the same dudes who regard traditional notions of masculinity as "toxic," so of course they're gonna prance around like little girls all day if they wanna fulfill their ideological duty. Because they're usually both physical and mental weaklings, they were never able to compete in the male hierarchy. This inevitably led them to behave as women do, and instead of direct aggression they engage in manipulation. This becomes even more pithy when you know how tyranny manifests differently between fathers and mothers. Whereas a tyrannical father forces you to do something you don't like and doesn't care how you feel about it, a tyrannical mother forces you to like it as well because if you express dissatisfaction she'll take it as a personal offense. They do the same, in that they feign some degree of empathy in order to get away with browbeating people into capitulating with their demands. Allegations like "you have a social responsibility to your young audience, you have to watch what you say" actually mean "you have to say what we want you to say, or else you'll be evil." One of my favorites is "you're going down a dark path and you can't even see it, kid" because they can barely contain their condescension as they put themselves on a pedestal above me and act as if they are my masters. These little lines are a facade they enlist to appear virtuous to their own audience as they terrify you into thinking you're evil because you think differently. Apparently, because there's 800,000 of you, I'm burdened with the duty of babysitting and indoctrinating you and I bear the "social responsibility" of treating you like cattle who are such blubbering retards that they can't think for themselves. Let me put it in blunt terms for you: there's no such thing as the social responsibility of entertainers you fuckwit. For decades now, kids have been getting taught leftist shit in public schools and none of you bat an eye, but someone puts some videos up on YouTube without any pretense and suddenly they're brainwashing people. You could beg me kicking and screaming to stop disseminating the ideas I believe in and it wouldn't make a fucking difference. Not only am I inoculated to that bullshit, most of Gen Z is too. Millenials grew up with MTV and nowadays they watch Colbert. We, on the other hand, grew up with the internet, so we have no sensualized source of information that controls what we think and we filter out the truth for ourselves. We're not lazy. No one is brainwashing the kids. Kids are simply learning from having free access to information and there's nothing you can do about it. Keep crying about how scared you are that we're being weaponized for the upcoming crusades. What are you gonna do? Tell me to watch Contrapoints? Kill yourself, faggot. In any case, I'm wondering why they're concerned with what I say instead of being concerned with the parents who let their kids watch me. But then again, these are the same brainlets that believe it would benefit society if every mother would ship in an undocumented Latino woman to take care of her children while she works as a secretary. Calling us brainwashed won't do a thing when we're kicking your ass in every metric. Regardless, I've clarified it before, and I'll clarify it again for all you retards who can't sufficiently wrangle your autism to read just one video description of mine. Just because I write with a friend of mine, vaporub boy, as most other comedians on the fucking planet do, doesn't mean I didn't come up with the ideas I've articulated. And I record and edit these videos by myself. My brother doesn't even live with me and even if he did, I would be the one "radicalizing" him. As for vaporub boy, it's pretty misogynist of you to assume that the only way I could have got my views is through a male friend of mine. And regarding my Discord messages about Muslims, I wouldn't care if a Muslim said that about Christians. But I would care if they did what their prophet did and raped a nine year old. If you're still pretending to be mad at me for saying that, suck a fat cock in hell. If you're a Gen Z-er, never censor yourself and speak freely until the day you die. Peace out