#about the cult of celebrity and the way we consume these people’s lives

[harrysdimples]

I hope you’re all well ❤️

[3rdeyeblaque]

On December 1st we venerate Elevated Ancestor & Voodoo Priest Frank Staten aka Prince Ke’eyama on the 25th anniversary of his passing 🕊 [for our Hoodoos of the Vodou Pantheon by way of New Orleans & Haiti]

Prince Ke’eyama was a Healer, Rootworker, & intuitive reader - recognized as the King of New Orleans Voodoo by many for his ;the locals knew him simply as, “The Chicken Man".

Born Frank Staten of Haitian descent, his family relocated from Haiti to New Orleans when he was an infant in the late '30s. Though raised Baptist under the ministry of his grandfather, it was his grandmother who initiated him into Rootwork & introduced him to Haitian Voodoo. Through his grandmother he learned to work the roots & the Lwa in order to help others.

At the age of 9, a revelation changed the course of his life forever. It was then that his grandfather revealed to him that he was blessed with magick & was a Healer. This was amplified by his grandmother's revelation that he was born of royal descent; to a lineage of powerful kings of the past whose legacy was his mantle to carry for the rest of his life. From this moment forward he was given a new name: Prince Ke’eyama.

Under the firm guidance of his grandparents, Ke’eyama developed into a powerful worker. Once his most peel animal spirit totem was revealed to him during meditation & prayer, he began following a strict diet of including chicken in his every meal. Doing so was said to enable him to swallow glass & consume fire unharmed. He'd go on to travel across the States to other Voodoo communities & frequent his roots in Haiti. He was an unmistakable figure in his appearance; locs decorated with feathers & ribbons, his signature straw hat, a long staff, & a big smile. Thus, his reputation & strength blossomed.

It wasn't until the early 70s that Prince Ke’eyama returned to New Orleans & witnessed the tumultuous nature & chaos of rampant drug abuse that swept the city. He was determined to make this is ground zero to answer his life calling of being a Healer. To attract the people, he fell back on an old nightclub act that he'd perform during his adventures on the road. He'd amaze his audiences with his mastery of Voodoo, revealing the power of God. Thus, "The Chicken Man" was born. His shows included: tribal dancing, simple magick, & fire-eating then was climaxed by eating a live chicken raw; he'd bite the head off & drink it’s blood, fixing it's neck into a makeshift straw. Though this reviled many, just as many others perceived this act less about entertainment & more of a sacrifice on the part of Prince Ke’eyama on behalf of everyone present. Those who did began to seek him out for counseling & aid in healing. By making a spectacle of himself, Prince Ke’eyama was able to fulfill his work as a Healer. His shows, counseling, conducting readings, & selling gris-gris etc was his ministry. The streets of New Orleans - particularly the French Quarter - were his congregation. Most people encountered him on the street as The Chicken Man by him intuitively reading them at a distance. By the time he zeroed in on someone, he had already had their prescription in mind. Unlike many priests or workers, he pursued his patients.

He developed a tremendous following in the 70s-80s. Many locals saught him out for his services. And was recognized as a powerful priest by those of the local Voodoo Community practicing what they proclaimed to be “true” Voodoo – most prominently Lady Bianca. Still, many popular vodusi dismissed him as sheer entertainment. This ostricization spurred The Cult of the Chicken Man; secret group of dedicated followers. This became one of the largest secret societies in the city since the time of Voodoo Queen Madame Marie Laveau.

Upon his death in 1998, Prince Ke’eyama's ashes were donated to the Voodoo Spiritual Temple in New Orleans where they remain enshrined by Sister Miriam Chamani.

We pour libations & give 💐 today as we celebrate him for his dedicated healing work, imparting the wisdom of his & the collective of ancestral elders through his teachings, & for being a symbolic lesson of what it means to be a product of self-determination in the wake of Maafa.

Offering suggestions: raw or cooked chicken, Baptist prayers/scripture, bourbon, snake charms

‼️Note: offering suggestions are just that & strictly for veneration purposes only. Never attempt to conjure up any spirit or entity without proper divination/Mediumship counsel.‼️

[llitchilitchi]

Yes I want to hear it. Don't hesitate to delete right after posting, I'll see your account update

okay so warnings for mentions of the drituation, the stuff happening with wil and q and all the terrible things that come with it including suicide mentions

mcyttwt has turned fandom into a cult and I am not even joking anymore. it requires people to be invested in it full time, spend a lot of time and energy on it to the point of exhaustion (which is an actual cult leader thing to do to make people easier to manipulate) and causes everyone high levels of stress while also making everyone be the cop so that everyone behaves according to a very puritan doctrine.

we have seen it time and time again and the worst of it that I was emotionally still present for was the drituation when I saw people mass deactivate and half of my dash was in a massive panic talking about killing themselves because of what happened. it was a massive downward spiral and I see it becoming A Trend, especially since we had two messed up situations happen back to back now.

there is a really unhealthy trend of people connecting their whole identities to fandom and the One White Boy they happen to be watching the most, oftentimes it's a fandom they found when they were at a very low point (again, this is a cult recruiting technique. while I am not saying that people joining fandoms when feeling low is a cult thing, the fact that people enter a fandom that is so emotionally taxing while also fully investing themselves into this one thing does oftentimes have similar results) - there is obviously the cult of purity and perfection and "unproblematicness" involved in all this, from ships through behaviour checks and content that we are allowed to create and consume. it's really, really unhealthy in so many ways because if something big happens, like with the stuff about W being introduced, people tend to fall apart because they intertwined their lives so thoroughly with the figures they worship with a puritan mindset they feel like they lost purpose. there are people who try to scrub Years of their lives off the internet (and sometimes even delete off their hard drives or destroy items tied to it IRL) because their fave CC happened to do something shitty. which is a really scary thing to even think about.

I'm genuinely getting the feeling that people are so deep in denial (both W fans before W admitted to everything, and now with qolos being in denial of Q fucking up big time) BECAUSE they tied their whole lives with the celebrity they love so much. combined with the fact that mcyttwt has a massive purity issue, admititing that their "figure of worship" did something bad, which in their puritan eyes is an irredeemable sin, their lives are pointless, all they ever did was pointless, and by supporting someone who was fucking them over and hurting others they are taking on the blame like it's the primordial sin.

so to keep themselves from admitting that people Can fuck up and some of them Do fuck up, be it intentional or not, Especially when they see such things as Irredeemable, they just keep lying to themselves while wrapping it up in woke language, because the purity was always packaged in leftist language without any of them actually examining what any of those words mean.

tl;dr the fandom is a cult and I am worried because it is actively harming people's wellbeings

[bylillian]

Of the many films that dramatise the deranged behaviour of celebrity fans, one of the most popular is Der Fan, a German production from 1982 about a teenage girl obsessed with a pop singer. It begins predictably enough – she writes him dozens of letters – but the ending is a little less orthodox. When he doesn’t reply she intercepts him outside one of his gigs, hangs out in his dressing room, has sex with him, kills him with a statue, chops him up and puts the dismembered body parts in a freezer. Unsurprisingly, it has become a cult classic.

Like most works of its genre, Der Fan taps into a stereotype that fans have had to endure since the emergence of popular culture. Characterised as hysterics, fantasists, psychopaths, geeks, misfits or mindless consumers, they are feared either as obsessive loners who spend their lives fretting in their bedrooms (like the protagonists of most fan movies) or as members of a frenzied mob (screaming teenagers at a Harry Styles gig). The word is still associated with “fanatic” in the public consciousness. We assume that anyone with a consuming interest in a celebrity or fictional universe is this way inclined (unless they are a sports fan, in which case their behaviour is likely to be applauded).

Psychological studies of fans tell a very different story from this narrative of folly. While every fandom has its extreme fringes, in the vast majority of cases, being a fan – and particularly being part of a fandom – appears to have a remarkably positive influence on people’s lives. Gayle Stever, who has been studying the psychology of celebrity for more than three decades and has interviewed thousands of fans about their passions, says she has largely found them to be “normal people carrying on normal lives”, who view their relationship with their idol as similar to an important friendship or a special hobby. Throughout the course of her career she has met “maybe 15” fans who were unwell (these include one who used extensive cosmetic surgery to make himself look like Michael Jackson).

Taylor Swift’s millions of young fans love her for her music but also for her awareness of things that matter to them

It is hardly surprising that fandoms have a normalising effect on behaviour, for they fulfil an ancient human imperative: the need to be part of a group. The groups we belong to – family, friends, neighbours, colleagues – are an essential part of who we are. They give us companionship, purpose and a sense of security, and allow us to do things we wouldn’t do on our own. Fandoms are social groups like any other. They connect us with people who share our interests, and they give us the courage to follow our convictions. It’s safe to be different, weird or nerdy with your fellow fans as you’re all in it together. Studies have found a “psychological dividend” for mental wellbeing and self-esteem among fans of Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, Dr Who and One Direction. The fact that many know each other exclusively online doesn’t seem to diminish the strength of their bonds.

Psychologists refer to this group effect as the “social cure”. It is not the only way people benefit from fan culture. For many, their idol becomes a role model, someone they seek to emulate or who represents an attitude or way of being that might previously have seemed closed to them. Often we are drawn to people whose experience or outlook reflects our own. Taylor Swift’s millions of young fans love her for her music but also for her awareness of the things that matter to them, and because her lyrics about heartache and angst mirror their own trauma. They don’t know her, but her songs make it clear that she knows them.

The screenwriter Jane Goldman, whose credits include X-Men: First Class and Kick-Ass, told me about her teenage fascination with Boy George. She was a fan, she said, partly because of his music but also because his androgynous appearance and uniquely flamboyant style made her believe she could achieve something in life other than what was expected of her. “I saw in him this possibility of going out and living slightly outside of what society tells you to do,” she said. “I remember the first time I saw him on Top of the Pops – it was like something clicked. I’ve spoken to a lot of people who have had the same experience. I felt like an outsider, I wasn’t quite sure where I fitted in the world, and then I suddenly had a sense of belonging, like I had found my way.”

Role models are no less powerful if they are fictional. Indeed, fictional heroes come with many advantages. They are readily available (you can always reread that book or rewatch that TV series). They have dependable personalities. And they come with a ready-made network of like-minded enthusiasts. As with real-life idols, fans tend to latch on to fictional characters whose values they admire. Harry Potter is adored by adolescents because he made it acceptable not to fit in, and because of his close circle of loyal friends. Many Star Wars fans find inspiration in the wisdom and ideals of the Jedi, the ancient order of protectors who learned to channel the light side of the Force through meditation and the control of negative emotions. Among Jane Austen fans, Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice is a standout model of courage and independent thinking because of how she defied the patriarchal norms of her era.

These dynamics of hope and transformation are hardly ever discussed in the public conversation about fans, yet they are a common thread, whether your interest is celebrities or classic literature, sci-fi or medieval history. Most fans are on a search for meaning, and they are prepared to give a great deal of themselves to find it. To be a fan means many things, but at its heart it is an act of love.

 Fans: A Journey Into the Psychology of Belonging by Michael Bond is published by Picador.

[murfpersonalblog]

What else would you call a fan of Richard III writing fictional stories about him, other than a fanfic? 🤔 That's like people who say celebrities didn't exist before the Industrial Revolution and the creation of radios & tv. Which is total BS.

YES, modern media revolutionized the way we access/consume & circulate creative works like fanfic & fanart. And sure, the human inclination to categorize & label every frikkin thing impacted how we've come to identify & codify said works. But that doesn't mean modern society created fanfiction as a concept, even if things like the internet, mass marketing, and even literacy rates definitely broadened how we as a community engage with art & e/o.

IMO the only difference between fanfiction & religious texts or Shakespeare is the level of power/influence/respect an institutionally-sanctioned text can have, compared to a story posted as a recreational hobby/creative outlet. I think a lot of the pushback comes from connotations about hella serious works like religious texts, vs uber-respected works like Shakespeare, vs more frivolous(?) works like fanfiction. But I don't think they're as distinct as it's being made to seem.

Like, yes, there's the divine right of kings; but fandoms are cults (e.g.: cult classic movies, books, etc; X X X X X X X), and monarchs 100% have cults of personality. Folks have been invested in the lives of popular figures since forever ago. Not even the divine right of kings kept monarchs (hell, even popes!) safe from people gossiping, spreading stories/rumors, satire, making up all kinds of stuff about them--headcanons, etc. Same way there are modern celebrity fandoms--people even ship band members & actors together who are verifiably NOT a couple. Look at the INTRIGUE surrounding Versailles, and the MASSIVE cultural impact that the lives of the Sun King's Court had on the popular imagination (even in his own time!)--from Dumas (Man in the Iron Mask, Musketeers, etc), to La Voison, all the way down to the Scarlet Pimpernel (Louis 15 not 14 but you get what I mean), and Monchevy--all involving the lovers & love-lives of kings (which is a big deal in a hereditary monarchy surrounded by a sycophantic Court (fans/posse/entourage/groupies/etc).

And when your king is tantamount to a god (i.e.: divine kingship, priest-kings, no separation of church & state), then ofc religion can be seen as a type of fandom, with religious texts being tantamount to fanfiction--or vice versa (depending on the text's impact).

Look at the oldest story on the frikkin planet: the Epic of Gilgamesh, a (fan)fictional account of a (quasi?)historical king. He was an idolized hero--a popular local/international celebrity, and a cult was built around him that included the creation of multiple stories by all kinds of people, of which the EoG is just the biggest & best preserved--in which the author denied that he'd become an immortal god. Other writers disagreed, and said Gilgamesh really was deified. The lines between CANON & FANON blurred, to the point that we don't really know if he was a real or fictional dude. But people wrote all kinds of stories about him for THOUSANDS of years! He had the world's earliest known literary fandom, that exists to this day!

Sectarianism & schisms occur when the CANON is disputed--literal wars start over people not agreeing with peoples' interpretations or takes. FANON can lead to the Mandela Effect, which can even affect the REAL canon if certain ideas gets picked up by people with enough influence to turn fanon into the new canon.

Look at Plutarch & Shakespeare's "biographies," which we often treat as legit history--the lives of Alexander the Great (which started an entire genre of "Romances"), Julius Caesar, Antony & Cleopatra, King Henry & Richard etcetc. That was straight up fanfiction, but it's so dang OLD that everyone knows these stories/"histories", and we have a hard time separating fact from fiction cuz we just weren't there; and archaeological/textual evidence can only tell us so much.

Look at the history of theatre, and the way playwrights & rhapsodes & griots & skalds & bards retell events for entertainment, but are also relied upon as historians who orally preserve information that is treated as fact. It often recounted a religious story about a culture's gods, the origins of popular cult(ure) practices, folklore, and legendary/historical events & figures--look at the way Greek theatre emerged from worship of Dionysus (plays like the Bacchae and the Frogs are literal fanfiction versions of the Dionysus myth). Look at Japan's kabuki, and its creation by a miko (shrine maiden) who performed Buddhist dances. In many ancient cultures, theatre was a RELIGIOUS performance art. These were held as fun & funny performances & art, but also dead serious. We laugh at Jaskier/Dandelion's antics on The Witcher, and how skewed his songs are, but also look at the HUGE fanbase he has, where even kings and actual historians look to his songs as legit information when really they're just fanfiction.

Speaking of singers--look at Star Trek TOS, and all the DECADES of speculation behind Spock & Uhura being a couple, before someone with influence & power finally went for it and made fanon into canon in the 2009 reboot.

Look at the Church of Scientology--which started as LITERAL (fan)fiction, before celebrities turned it into this big ole thing that some people actually take seriously 🤣, treating it as an actual religion. (They have a whole parasocial relationship with Hubbard, I can't even.)

The professional/monetary aspect of fiction (as Art™) vs fanfiction is important too. Terms like Intellectual Property, Transformative Work, and Copyright are new--imitation is the greatest form of flattery, but also the quickest way to a lawsuit nowadays. A lot of folk use "fanfiction" pejoratively (thanks, My Immortal, for giving fics a bad name), to demean its quality. Some literati get offended by even using Shakespeare and Fanfiction in the same sentence, like, blasphemy! 🤢🤮 But there are PLENTY of fanfic authors out there who write WAY better than some Pulitzer authors! Ao3 even won a Hugo award. But because fanfiction is transformative, the legality of publishing or getting monetary compensation for writings fics is a slippery slope, even with some fic authors successfully getting their work published (50 Shades, Shadowhunters, etc). Who cares that Virgil ripped off Homer, and Shakespeare ripped off Ovid?! God forbid you rip off GRRM or *boss music starts* Anne Rice! 💀 (And the WILDEST irony is that after making SUCH a stink about fanfic authors touching her work, Anne Rice sold the rights to ALL of her books to AMC, whose tv adaptations have sometimes been called fanfiction! 🤣 And look how many THEATRE KIDS make up the cast of Interview with the Vampire--and the triple irony wrt Lestat's origin story and the creation of the Theatre des Vampires!)

So really, all it takes is someone powerful & influential enough to reinvent the wheel and turn (fan)fiction into high art, a story into history, fandom into cult/religion, and fanon into canon.

My least favourite type of internet person is the person who claims fanfic is over thousands of years old or whatever. I understand we like to joke but fanfiction is fundamentally tied to fandom culture and is a very specific way of engaging with media. Religious texts based off other religious texts is not fanfiction and it is worrying the only way you can justify your interest is by comparing the two. I promise you you don't have to reinvent the wheel to write fanfic you can just do that but we don't have to say "Shakespeare wrote fanfiction about Richard III", there was not a Richard III fandom in 1592, that was called the divine right of kings.

[fhbggncdjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj]

Navigating the Digital Frontier: Trends and Innovations Shaping the Future of Digital Marketing

In the ever- evolving geography of digital marketing, staying ahead of the wind is essential for businesses aiming to capture the attention of their target followership. As we venture further into the digital frontier, instigative trends and inventions are shaping the future of marketing strategies. In this blog, we'll explore some of the crucial trends that are presently making swells and driving the elaboration of digital marketing.

 Personalization and client Experience: One of the most significant shifts in digital marketing is the focus on substantiated client gests . Consumers now anticipate brands to understand their preferences and deliver acclimatized content.Artificial Intelligence( AI) and machine literacy algorithms are enabling marketers to dissect vast quantities of data, allowing for the creation of largely substantiated juggernauts. From substantiated emails to personalized website content, this trend is revolutionizing the way businesses connect with their followership.

 Video Marketing Dominance: The rise of videotape content continues to be a dominant force in digital marketing. Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram rolls have come important tools for engaging cult. Live streaming, interactive vids, and short- form content are gaining fashionability, furnishing marketers with new avenues to showcase their products and services creatively. videotape content not only captures attention but also fosters a deeper connection with the followership.

 Voice Search Optimization: The proliferation of smart speakers and voice- actuated bias has given rise to the significance of voice hunt optimization. As further people use voice commands to search for information, businesses are conforming their digital strategies to insure their content is optimized for voice hunt. This includes using conversational keywords and creating content that aligns with natural language queries.

 Augmented Reality( AR) and Virtual Reality( VR): AR and VR technologies are making swells in digital marketing by furnishing immersive and interactive gests . Brands are using AR for virtual pass- on gests , allowing guests to fantasize products in their own space before making a purchase. VR is being used for virtual store tenures and enhanced liar. As these technologies come more accessible, they offer new openings for brands to engage with their followership in innovative ways. 

Influencer Marketing Evolution: Influencer marketing has evolved beyond hookups with celebrities to collaborations with micro and nano influencers. These influencers frequently have lower but largely engaged cult, leading to further authentic and relatable content. also, marketers are using advanced analytics to measure the impact of influencer juggernauts, fastening on criteria beyond just reach to determine the real value of hookups.

 Data sequestration and Ethical Marketing :With increased mindfulness of data sequestration enterprises, consumers are getting more sapient about how their data is collected and used. Marketers are conforming by enforcing transparent data practices and emphasising ethical marketing. Building trust with the followership is pivotal, and businesses that prioritise data security and ethical marketing practices are likely to stand out in the crowded digital space. 

  Conclusion

 As we navigate the dynamic geography of digital marketing, these trends and inventions are reshaping the way businesses connect with their followers. From substantiated guests to immersive technologies, the future of digital marketing is filled with instigative possibilities. By staying informed and embracing these trends, businesses can't only keep pace with the evolving digital geography but also gain a competitive edge in the ever- expanding digital frontier.

[hazzabeeforlou]

People have the worst takes lol. “Harry isn’t a morally perfect deity so should we support him??” He’s rich and famous, he is inevitably exploiting certain systems to achieve that, but come on, he’s not out there like assaulting people or doing awful things. No one is perfect, especially celebrities, they do live on another planet where they don’t face the same hardships as the rest of us, but as far as they go it’s obvious he’s got a good heart. Also I don’t understand what people think leaving Sony will achieve, news flash, all labels are run by bad people who are only interested in making money and headlines. Sony is one of the worst, but there’s no “good” label he can go to instead. Just enjoy celebs without idolising them.

It’s this new “purity culture” with the younger generations, from being upset at ao3 to bashing kink at pride to being uncomfortable with anything that’s not SQUEAKY CLEAN— and I’ve got a newsflash for them, believing that some person or system or belief CAN be perfect, CAN be morally incorruptible, THAT is what leads people to join cults. You wanna talk about cult- like behavior? Let’s discuss how purity culture is an OFFSHOOT of religious dogma used in both the Catholic and evangelical church, how it’s DEEPLY conservative and has its roots in white supremacy— I could go on. It’s OKAY to like pop stars, it’s okay to like problematic artists, it’s OKAY to consume media that the pope hasn’t christened with holy water—and NO ONE is NOT problematic in one way or another because it’s impossible to be free of the inherently exploitive systems we live under????

[samwisethewitch]

Cults? In my life? It’s more likely than you think.

In my last post, I talked about how the Law of Attraction and Christian prosperity gospel both use the same thought control techniques as cults. I’ve received several public and private replies to that post: some expressing contempt for “sheeple” who can be lead astray by cults, and others who say my post made them scared that they might be part of a cult without knowing it.

I want to address both of those types of replies in this post. I want to talk about what a cult really looks like, and how you can know if you’re dealing with one.

If you type the word “cult” into Google Images, it will bring up lots of photos of people with long hair, wearing all white, with their hands raised in an expression of ecstasy.

Most modern cults do not look anything like this.

Modern cultists look a lot like everyone else. One of the primary goals of most cults is recruitment, and it’s hard to get people to join your cause if they think you and your group are all Kool-Aid-drinking weirdos. The cults that last are the ones that manage to convince people that they’re just like everyone else — a little weird maybe, but certainly not dangerous.

In the book The Road to Jonestown: Jim Jones and Peoples Temple, author Jeff Guinn says, “In years to come, Jim Jones would frequently be compared to murderous demagogues such as Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson. These comparisons completely misinterpret, and historically misrepresent, the initial appeal of Jim Jones to members of Peoples Temple. Jones attracted followers by appealing to their better instincts.”

You might not know Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple by name, but you’ve probably heard their story. They’re the Kool-Aid drinkers I mentioned earlier. Jones and over 900 of his followers, including children, committed mass suicide by drinking Flavor Aid mixed with cyanide.

In a way, the cartoonish image of cults in popular media has helped real-life cults to stay under the radar and slip through people’s defenses.

In her book Recovering Agency: Lifting the Veil of Mormon Mind Control, Luna Lindsey says: “These groups use a legion of persuasive techniques in unison, techniques that strip away the personality to build up a new group pseudopersonality. New members know very little about the group’s purpose, and most expectations remain unrevealed. People become deeply involved, sacrificing vast amounts of time and money, and investing emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, and socially.”

Let’s address some more common myths about cults:

Myth #1: All cults are Satanic or occult in nature. This mostly comes from conservative Christians, who may believe that all non-Christian religions are inherently cultish in nature and are in league with the Devil. This is not the case — most non-Christians don’t even believe in the Devil, much less want to sign away their souls to him. Many cults use Christian theology to recruit members, and some of these groups (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) have become popular enough to be recognized as legitimate religions. Most cults have nothing to do with magic or the occult.

Myth #2: All cults are religious. This is also false. While some cults do use religion to recruit members or push an agenda, many cults have no religious or spiritual element. Political cults are those founded around a specific political ideology. Author and cult researcher Janja Lalich is a former member of an American political cult founded on the principles of Marxism. There are also “cults of personality” built around political figures and celebrities, such as Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Donald Trump. In these cases, the cult is built around hero worship of the leader — it doesn’t really matter what the leader believes or does.

Myth #3: All cults are small fringe groups. Cults can be any size. Some cults have only a handful of members — it’s even possible for parents to use thought control techniques on their children, essentially creating a cult that consists of a single family.  There are some cults that have millions of members (see previous note about Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses).

Myth #4: All cults live on isolated compounds away from mainstream society. While it is true that all cults isolate their members from the outside world, very few modern cults use physical isolation. Many cults employ social isolation, which makes members feel separate from mainstream society. Some cults do this by encouraging their followers to be “In the world but not of the world,” or encouraging them to keep themselves “pure.”

Myth #5: Only stupid, gullible, and/or mentally ill people join cults. Actually, according to Luna Lindsey, the average cult member is of above-average intelligence. As cult expert Steven Hassan points out, “Cults intentionally recruit ‘valuable’ people—they go after those who are intelligent, caring, and motivated. Most cults do not want to be burdened by unintelligent people with serious emotional or physical problems.” The idea that only stupid or gullible people fall for thought control is very dangerous, because it reinforces the idea that “it could never happen to me.” This actually prevents intelligent people from thinking critically about the information they’re consuming and the groups they’re associating with, which makes them easier targets for cult recruitment.

So, now that we have a better idea of what a cult actually looks like, how do you know if you or someone you know is in one?

A good rule of thumb is to compare the group’s actions and teachings to Steven Hassan’s BITE Model. Steven Hassan is an expert on cult psychology, and most cult researchers stand by this model. From Hassan’s website, freedomofmind.com: “Based on research and theory by Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Singer, Edgar Schein, Louis Jolyon West, and others who studied brainwashing in Maoist China as well as cognitive dissonance theory by Leon Festinger, Steven Hassan developed the BITE Model to describe the specific methods that cults use to recruit and maintain control over people. ‘BITE’ stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control.”

Behavior Control may include…

Telling you how to behave, and enforcing behavior with rewards and punishments. (Rewards may be nonphysical concepts like “salvation” or “enlightenment,” or social rewards like group acceptance or an elevated status within the group. Punishments may also be nonphysical, like “damnation,” or may be social punishments like judgement from peers or removal from the group.)

Dictating where and with whom you live. (This includes pressure to move closer to other group members, even if you will be living separately.)

Controlling or restricting your sexuality. (Includes enforcing chastity or abstinence and/or coercion into non-consensual sex acts.)

Controlling your clothing or hairstyle. (Even if no one explicitly tells you, you may feel subtle pressure to look like the rest of the group.)

Restricting leisure time and activities. (This includes both demanding participation in frequent group activities and telling you how you should spend your free time.)

Requiring you to seek permission for major decisions. (Again, even if you don’t “need” permission, you may feel pressure to make decisions that will be accepted by the group.)

And more.

Information Control may include…

Withholding or distorting information. (This may manifest as levels of initiation, with only the “inner circle” or upper initiates being taught certain information.)

Forbidding members from speaking with ex-members or other critics.

Discouraging members from trusting any source of information that isn’t approved by the group’s leadership.

Forbidding members from sharing certain details of the group’s beliefs or practice with outsiders.

Using propaganda. (This includes “feel good” media that exists only to enforce the group’s message.)

Using information gained in confession or private conversation against you.

Gaslighting to make members doubt their own memory. (“I never said that,” “You’re remembering that wrong,” “You’re confused,” etc.)

Requiring you to report your thoughts, feelings, and activities to group leaders or superiors.

Encouraging you to spy on other group members and report their “misconduct.”

And more.

Thought Control may include…

Black and White, Us vs. Them, or Good vs. Evil thinking.

Requiring you to change part of your identity or take on a new name. (This includes only using last names, as well as titles like “Brother,” “Sister,” and “Elder.”)

Using loaded languages and cliches to stop complex thought. (This is the difference between calling someone a “former member” and calling the same person an “apostate” or “covenant breaker.”)

Inducing hypnotic or trance states including prayer, meditation, singing hymns, etc.

Using thought-stopping techniques to prevent critical thinking. (“If you ever find yourself doubting, say a prayer to distract yourself!”)

Allowing only positive thoughts or speech.

Rejecting rational analysis and criticism both from members and from those outside the group.

And more.

Emotional Control may include…

Inducing irrational fears and phobias, especially in connection with leaving the group. (This includes fear of damnation, fear of losing personal value, fear of persecution, etc.)

Labeling some emotions as evil, worldly, sinful, low-vibrational, or wrong.

Teaching techniques to keep yourself from feeling certain emotions like anger or sadness.

Promoting feelings of guilt, shame, and unworthiness. (This is often done by holding group members to impossible standards, such as being spiritually “pure” or being 100% happy all the time.)

Showering members and new recruits with positive attention — this is called “love bombing.” (This can be anything from expensive gifts to sexual favors to simply being really nice to newcomers.)

Shunning members who disobey orders or disbelieve the group’s teachings.

Teaching members that there is no happiness, peace, comfort, etc. outside of the group.

And more.

If a group ticks most or all of the boxes in any one of these categories, you need to do some serious thinking about whether or not that group is good for your mental health. If a group is doing all four of these, you’re definitely dealing with a cult and need to get out as soon as possible.

These techniques can also be used by individual people in one-on-one relationships. A relationship or friendship where someone tries to control your behavior, thoughts, or emotions is not healthy and, again, you need to get out as soon as possible.

Obviously, not all of these things are inherently bad. Meditation and prayer can be helpful on their own, and being nice to new people is common courtesy. The problem is when these acts become part of a bigger pattern, which enforces someone else’s control over your life.

A group that tries to tell you how to think or who to be is bad for your mental health, your personal relationships, and your sense of self. When in doubt, do what you think is best for you — and always be suspicious of people or groups who refuse to be criticized.

[palmett-hoes]

wrote this at first to be a reply to this post by @annawrites but it got super long so i figured it would be better just to make it a standalone post

---

it’s a great post about how neil probably has a perfectly functional knowledge of popular culture and how continuously representing him as totally ignorant of it isn’t a fair read of his character or circumstances. neil has incredible street smarts and that involves knowing how to blend in and disappear in a crowd. his knowledge of popular culture is probably eclectic and not very american, so he may not know all the pop culture touchstones that his teammates know, but he definitely knows stuff

meanwhile there are several foxes it would actually make much more sense to have extremely limited or just similarly patchy knowledge of mainstream pop culture

(i’m using “mainstream pop culture” here to refer to a combination of movies, tv shows, celebrities, video games, entertainment and communication technology, music, fashion, pastimes, books, etc. each one has it’s own specific considerations but all together if it was new and popular and timely, it’s pop culture)

---

kevin, for one, i think definitely knows like, next to nothing, and i honestly think it’s weird that people decided neil was the “knows nothing about pop culture guy” rather than kevin. i mean, kevin was raised since childhood in an extremely insular and one-track-minded underground cult. he was literally raised under a rock! you think the ravens were taking the time to watch saturday morning cartoons and disney movies? absolutely not. like i truly do not believe that kevin has ever consumed media in his life. he does not know songs, movies, celebrities, video games, tv shows, nothing. and he also has absolutely no idea that he doesn’t know about these things. neil has a working knowledge of most things even if it has plenty of holes but he knows what the holes are. kevin genuinely does not know that the movie Titanic exists

(also i’m ragging a bit here but this is a genuine analysis and a fascinating way to view kevin’s character and i wish people took more time to think through and flesh out his influences and the effect they had on him)

---

nicky. son of a conservative christian pastor? his access to media was likely heavily censored to remove “sinful” and “ungodly” influences. the media he consumed probably had a heavy christian focus and there were probably tons of mainstream popular things he wasn’t allowed to even look at, like especially things that were maybe a little risqué or sexual, which a lot of 90s and 2000s pop culture was considered to be. i also wouldn’t be surprised if he went to a private christian school that would still keep his chances to access other influences limited even away from his parents’ immediate view. nicky grew up on christian rock and veggie tales. he was forbidden from going trick-or-treating because it was “satanic.” that vein. watch the movie Saved! (2004) to get a sense of what i’m picturing. obviously once he got away to germany he got the chance to branch out and experience a lot of things, but doing things as an adult is very different growing up with them as a child. i also think this feeds into like,, nicky’s enthusiasm and why he tries so hard to get everyone involved in things and get neil to hang out with him so much and it’s not because he pities neil for not knowing these things but rather that he himself is still enthralled by their novelty

---

dan. but also renee, seth, andrew, and possibly aaron to varying lesser extents. these foxes all grew up poor, and access to pop culture is heavily tied to having money, especially in the technology boom of the 90s and 2000s that the foxes came of age in. it’s common for kids from low-income families to be “behind” on popular culture because engaging with it costs money

dan and seth we know grew up in poverty. yes people need entertainment but money considerations have to take priority so what they had access to was probably very touch and go. it’s hard to pin down anything for sure because it just comes down to what their guardians prioritized, but i can say that i doubt they had cable (and it’s possible they didn’t have tv) so their tv influences would be public broadcast rather than like,, disney channel and nickelodeon. dan especially, as someone from the rural poor in north dakota is the one most likely to be out of the loop of mainstream pop culture imo

.

renee’s mother is implied to have also been involved with renee’s gang which makes it really hard to pin things down. gangs and other forms of organized crime tend to have a profit motive but because it’s mostly off the books it’s just,,, different. they may had some money but it’s,,, complicated, and she was still living in an impoverished neighborhood. i really can’t make any guesses about it because i just don’t have any context for it, but i think it’s fair to say her media influences wouldn’t have been entirely mainstream pop culture. then of course she spends a year in juvy and two years in the foster care system, which definitely has very limited access to pop culture

.

andrew being in the foster care system means that his influences were constantly changing. he could have been in houses from a wide range of economic means, but regardless he probably wasn’t treated well or given gifts or access to new toys or anything that requires an additional fee or tool to access. stories from kids who lived in foster care often reveal that even very wealthy houses enforce extreme limitations on their foster kids. the idea that andrew had a foster sibling with a gameboy, an xbox and a tv in their room while andrew himself didn’t even have a bed,,, isn’t outside the realm of possibility. so, probably no video games or internet. limited choice in what movies or tv shows he could watch. social services are wildly underfunded so what he had access to in group homes and “at-risk youth groups” was probably pretty dated

.

we don’t know much about tilda, especially things like her job, but we know aaron grew up in san jose which is one of the most expensive cities/housing markets in the world. this means that they were probably either rich or very poor. personally, i think they were probably poor, which means aaron would have been subject to the same sorts of things as dan or seth in terms of spotty or inconsistent access to a lot of things in popular culture

---

so yea, ig just remember that each fox comes from different and complicated circumstances, that upper-middle-class pop culture experiences are not universal, and it’s weird to think that neil has absolutely no concept of pop culture at all while every other fox is apparently highly in tune with it and all have the same up-to-date experiences

[azems-familiar]

Zakuulan Death Masks

it's ya boi, back again for more Zakuulan worldbuilding re: the six machine gods and Zildrog! this is going to be a mixture of screenshots from a discord conversation last night and text, but basically, this all stemmed from me deciding that the Zakuulans have symbolic masks related to death and its place in their culture.

(off the bat: yes this is free for people to use just please credit me)

starting with: Zakuulan funeral traditions and the yearly festival celebrating/pacifying Izax, the dragon of Zakuul and god of death.

there are five festivals held throughout the year celebrating the pantheon: Tyth (winter turning into spring), Esne + Aivela (spring), Izax + Zildrog (summer solstice), Nahut (fall turning into winter), Scyva (winter solstice). each of them are important for various reasons, but we're going to focus on Izax and Zildrog's festival, set on the summer solstice, which is the longest day of the year, but the shortest, darkest night, after which the nights begin to get longer again.

in the old days, before Valkorion unified Zakuul under the Eternal Throne as the machine gods' demon slayer that was prophesied (which he was not actually, but that's for a different post), the Six Gods were revered more out of fear than anything else (Scyva being the only one truly loved). the most feared was the dragon, the god of death, Izax the Devourer, who consumed the souls of the dead and could strike at any time. nearly all-powerful, Izax was so far above mortals that he needed one of them to help him tell apart the human souls from the rest of the life in the galaxy - hence where Zildrog comes from. Zildrog is the one who guides Izax to take the souls.

during funerals, the entire settlement would wear death masks modeled after a mechanical rendition of Zildrog's face, with only the dead person's face left uncovered. when Zildrog came to lead Izax to devour souls, he would be confused by everyone wearing his face and, unable to tell them apart from himself, would only guide Izax to the recently-deceased. this logic was the same one that guided the death festival; before Valkorion's rise, the various settlements would have an annual sacrifice (volunteered for, not forced) at the culmination of the festivities. the sacrifice would be the only one not wearing a mask, and the hope was that having been given a willing sacrifice, Izax would thus leave them alone for the rest of the year.

Valkorion took power by claiming to be a prophesied hero who slayed the machine gods. he turned the festivals worshipping them into parties, but to keep the Zakuulan people content, and to give them something to focus on in their utopian society, he didn't outlaw the practice of the Old Ways. however, most Zakuulans look down on people who still practice, because it means they don't have complete faith in their Immortal Emperor. some people who practice just do it for the same reason they idolize Firebrand - it's a small, harmless rebellion that gives them a bit of a rush (ex: Tyth's festival involves bonfires and walking over the hot coals when the fire has burned down. it's still widely practiced; most Zakuulans get the damaged fixed up after. some do not. those ones are either the thrill-seekers - or the truly devout). others practice it because they really do believe in the Six Gods. there's a spectrum, ofc, but no one who practices it talks about it very widely.

after Valkorion's death, there's a renewed interest in the Old Ways, mostly by people who truly regarded him as their god and don't know what to do now that he's dead and their faith has been shattered. (there's definitely at least a small group of people that decide to worship the outlander instead, as the new vessel for their god's spirit.)

now we get into the various cults on Zakuul - the Heralds of Zildrog and the Scions. i'll start with the Heralds. the Heralds and their Exalted serve Zildrog and Izax, and their desire is to bring back their serpent to cleanse Zakuul in fiery death (wow, dramatic much?). they perform the Old Ways, especially the rituals to Zildrog and Izax, in their entirety - including the sacrifices (the Exalted seems to generally be less of a devout believer and more political, so i fully believe they'd use the opportunity to get rid of people who threaten the cult's stability) - but with the difference of not wearing the death masks. they want Izax's attention on them, they want Zildrog to return, and they are perfectly happy with, even eager for, their own deaths happening to bring that about.

the Scions, on the other hand, manage to be the ones to combine the Old Ways with the worship of Valkorion. yes, they worship fate above all else, but they are absolutely devoted to Valkorion. i believe they think Valkorion - who is absolutely full of dragon motifs, who calls himself the Dragon of Zakuul - is Izax in human form.

Valkorion is immortal. Valkorion has been guiding their civilization for a thousand years. therefore, Valkorion must be the god of death, because no true human could live for that long or be that powerful. the leader of the Scions does not wear a mask, but all of their followers do (this is supported by the game iirc), because only the leader communicates directly with Valkorion (only the leader is worthy to, perhaps, i haven't completely worldbuilt this out). Valkorion was very content to let them keep their mythology; he had no interest or use in the rest of the Scions anyway, except in how they could be useful to him.

(more screenshots of some Bonus Lore that i'm not expanding upon in this ridiculously long post but will go into more detail on at request will follow in a reblog, because i'm about to hit the image limit)

[rhys-rambles]

FIGHT CLUB | 1999

I was introduced to the movie Fight Club around 3 years ago. It wasn’t until recently I’ve become interested in it. So here’s my Fight Club breakdown :) WARNING FOR SPOILERS!!

For those who don’t know, Fight Club is a cult favorite novel that was later adapted into a film released in 1999, directed by David Fincher. Starring Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and Helena Bonham Carter.

The story of Fight Club revolves around three main characters. It’s told from a first-person perspective by a nameless character that’s commonly called ‘the narrator’, who has a dead-end white-collar job at a major car company and has fallen prey to what he calls the ‘Ikea-nesting instinct’. Dictated by social norms he walks perfectly in line like a docile sheep, which translates into an inauthentic, repetitive and empty life.

He suffers from a bad case of insomnia, which causes him to be neither fully awake, nor fully asleep. Sometimes, he entertains self-destructive thoughts: as he flies around from state to state for his job, he prays for a crash or mid-air collision every time the plane bankes too sharply on takeoff or landing.

During a flight, he meets an eccentric and hypermasculine character named Tyler Durden.

Tyler seems to be the direct opposite of the narrator. He’s a wolf rather than a sheep, disentangled from society, and impervious to social norms. He takes what he wants, without asking, and whenever he pleases. He’s self-sufficient, has no superiors, and doesn’t care about material possessions.

The movie later reveals that Tyler and the narrator are the same person, as Tyler is a product of the narrator’s imagination, that’s probably induced by severe insomnia combined with dissatisfaction with a dull, meaningless existence and a lifetime of repressed urges.

The narrator is addicted to going to support groups for specific illnesses because these give him the opportunity to cry, which seems to be a remedy for his insomnia. The downside of his behavior is that he isn’t genuine; he has no testicular cancer, or blood parasites, yet acts as if he does, so he can reap the benefits of these sessions.

But these benefits come to an end when another non-genuine visitor starts to join the sessions as well. This is a woman named Marla Singer, and her motive for joining these sessions is, and I quote: “It’s cheaper than a movie and there’s free coffee.”

Marla is a self-destructive, chain-smoking fatalist, who’s expecting to die at any moment, but finds it tragic that it never happens. She steals food and clothes for a living and attempts suicide by overdosing Xanax.

Even though the narrator, Tyler, and Marla are totally different personalities, they all live their lives accompanied by a nihilistic undercurrent.

Tyler seems to have figured out what causes this emptiness, and during the course of the story, his solution unfolds. Unfortunately, his character slides from a sage-like father figure to an anarchist terrorist, who’s out to destroy modern civilization. Nevertheless, he exposes a series of harsh realities about modern life that are worth contemplating.

Anti-consumerism

The anti-consumerist stance of Tyler Durden becomes obvious when he verbalizes his concern about the modern way of life. Shortly after the narrator meets Tyler, he discovers that his apartment went up in flames. After this unfortunate event, realizing that he has no friends to call, he calls Tyler. The two meet, and the narrator complains about losing his furniture, and his respectable and almost complete wardrobe. Tyler responds rather indifferently and slightly sarcastically before he begins to express his views on the matter. Quote:

“We’re consumers. We are by-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty, these things don’t concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy’s name on my underwear. Rogaine, Viagra, Olestra…”

It becomes clear that Tyler has quite an unconventional view of what’s good and bad. Murder, crime, and poverty are generally considered bad things, while consumer goods like televisions, clothing from a certain brand, products that help to hide aging, enhance bedroom performance, and help us with weight loss, are considered preferable.

Tyler has a contempt for the artificial, as opposed to elements that have been a natural part of the human condition, probably as long we exist. This way of thinking touches upon an ancient Cynic philosopher named Diogenes of Sinope, who believed that modern, civilized life hinders our natural state.

At the end of the movie, it appears that the narrator has destroyed his apartment himself when he was taken over by his alter ego, Tyler Durden. This deed was the first step onto the road of detachment from his property, into a more authentic way of life and to (how Tyler puts it): “reject the basic assumptions of civilization, especially the importance of material possessions.”

The narrator moves in with Tyler, who lives in a dilapidated house with ongoing leaks, power failures, and no Ikea furniture. Slowly but surely, the narrator indeed detaches from his previously destroyed property. “Things you own end up owning you,” Tyler tells him. And this simple piece of wisdom probably hits home, when the narrator realizes that he doesn’t need all these worldly goods, and is actually much happier without them.

Non-conformity

Tyler Durden is a non-conformist, and shows, again, similarities with Diogenes, who not only purposefully lived in poverty, but also rejected social norms. For him, social constructs are nothing more than a superficial layer of culture that represses our true nature.

Diogenes lived in a barrel, Tyler lives in an abandoned building. Diogenes urinated in public, Tyler urinates in the soup of a restaurant.

The narrator, on the other hand, seems to be the embodiment of conformity, as he adapts his lifestyle completely to societal expectations. The problem with this behavior is that we dedicate our existence walking the paths that people other than ourselves have laid out for us. This need to conform, the fear of falling by the wayside, this sickly preoccupation by what others think of us, this necessity to keep up with the Joneses: what an exhausting way of life, just to feel ‘accepted’.

So, what if we stop caring? What if we reject the generally accepted norms, and choose our own values, elect our own leaders, determine our own goals, regardless of the social expectations? This is a fundamental difference between the narrator and Tyler Durden, who puts it like this: “I am free in all the ways that you are not.”

Ironically, later on in the story, Project Mayhem, a terrorist organization led by Tyler that grows out of Fight Club, is a textbook example of conformity, as it’s members wear the same clothes, are absolutely equal, abolish their names, and are referred to as space monkeys that sacrifice their lives for a greater cause. We could say that by rejecting one doctrine in order to be ‘non-conformist’, we often imprison ourselves in another one.

Fighting and masculinity

Fighting and the experience of pain play a significant role in Fight Club. At the beginning of the story, Tyler asks the narrator to hit him as hard as he can. He explains his strange wish by saying: “How can you know yourself if you’ve never been in a fight? I don’t want to die without any scars.”

So, the narrator hits him. Tyler hits him back, and the two engage in a fistfight. Both seem to feel surprisingly pleasant afterward and decide to do it again. Their nightly activities on a parking lot attract the attention of other men, that are also interested in joining these non-hostile fistfights. And thus, Fight Club is born.

It’s widely known that voluntary exposure to certain forms of pain makes us stronger in the face of adversity, which could be a legit reason to partake in these fights. As the narrator states: “After fighting everything else in your life got the volume turned down.”

However, Fight Club is more than just a metaphor for dealing with hardship through exposure: a physical fight, and the violence and aggression that goes with it, resonates with the primal part of our being.

Not only the men in the story are attracted to the violence of fighting; Fight Club as a movie and novel was so impactful on its audience, that real-life Fight Clubs started to emerge.

The story shows an experiment in which the members of Fight Club pick fights with random strangers (and are supposed to lose), which isn’t as easy as it sounds; most people do everything to avoid physical conflict.

But Fight Club makes us wonder if it’s a good thing that we’ve lost touch with these primal tendencies. Should we repress this part of human nature? Or, perhaps, integrate it in healthy and constructive ways?

Self-destruction

When the story progresses, Tyler and the narrator begin to see the world through a different lens. Tyler criticizes the modern self-improvement hype by saying: “Self-improvement is masturbation. Now self-destruction… ”

This statement is slightly confusing, as the increasingly destructive nature of Fight Club, in which faces are permanently mutilated and teeth are knocked out of people’s heads, doesn’t seem to be a sustainable way to live.

But Tyler might be onto something when we look at self-destruction as the destruction of a false self.

‘Self-improvement’ often points to the accumulation of external goods: a better house, a better job, a better body, more money. But why should we endlessly want to improve ourselves? Why can’t we just be happy with how things are, and take life as it comes? Or as Tyler states:

“I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let’s evolve, let the chips fall where they may.”

We create an identity through material wealth, and social status. And as far as Tyler is concerned, this false sense of self must be destroyed, before we are free to do anything we want. Therefore, the ‘space monkeys’ of Project Mayhem live by a mantra which goes like this:

“You are not your job, you’re not how much money you have in the bank. You are not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet. You are not your fucking khakis. You are all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.” - Tyler Durden, Fight Club

Tyler makes a so-called human sacrifice, namely a man called Raymond who works a dead-end job in a convenience store. Raymond wanted to be a veterinarian, but didn’t make it because it was “too much studying.” Tyler threatens Raymond, saying that if he doesn’t start studying within six weeks, he’ll kill him.

In this scene, Tyler points to another aspect of self-destruction: the act of letting go of fears, negative self-talk, and all distractions, so we can fully focus on our purpose. It’s the destruction of everything within ourselves that holds us back from living life on our own terms.

A near-life experience

Many people go great lengths when it comes to pain avoidance. The problem is that running from pain means running from an inevitable part of life.

The prospect of incurring pain makes us anxious, and often leads to self-indulgent decisions. That is: choosing the less painful path, even if a more painful path guarantees more success and pleasure in the future.

Tyler Durden deals with this by inflicting a chemical wound on the narrator’s hand using lye.

As expected, the narrator does everything to escape the pain: he uses visualization techniques he learned at a seminar, and retreating in his cave to find his ‘power animal’. But Tyler slaps him in the face, forcing him to stay with the pain, saying: “This is the greatest moment of your life, man. And you’re off somewhere missing it.”

For the narrator, Tyler has one central goal: he must reach bottom. After putting him through suffering, and destroying his false identity, there’s yet another aspect that must be crushed: hope. Losing all hope is freedom. And, therefore, he must reject what has rejected him: his father, and God. I quote:

“Consider the possibility that God does not like you. In all probability, he hates you.” - Tyler Durden, Fight Club

Tyler states that we don’t need God. That we shouldn’t care about redemption and damnation. And if we’re God’s unwanted children, so be it. Thereby, we lose all hope, but are also liberated from religious doctrine and fatherly authority.

Now we’re truly free. Now we can create our own meaning, and live how we want to live.

Tyler emphasizes the importance of knowing what we want in life. To achieve this, we must be willing to get out of our comfort zone and jump into the unknown without safety brackets.

The narrator, however, has difficulties letting go of security. He begs Tyler to not mess around when he lets go of the steering wheel in a driving car while hitting the gas. Tyler calls the narrator ‘pathetic’, and yells: “hitting bottom isn’t a weekend retreat. It’s not a goddamn seminar. Stop trying to control everything and just let go!”

After an inevitable car crash, Tyler states that they just had a ‘near-life experience’.

Wrap up

Fight Club is a story about rebellion against the status quo and a plea for the simple life. It criticizes the ways in which we are so hung up on security, and material possessions, and how people let social norms dictate their lives.

‘Stuff’ has become our religion. The idols we worship are Ikea and Starbucks. And the more we immerse ourselves in such an empty and unfulfilling existence, the more we start to resemble the things that we produce: manufactured products rather than authentic human beings.

Tyler shows us a way out. And even though his insights are profound, the execution is questionable. Fight Club, and its terrorist branch Project Mayhem, show us how easy it is to oppose one ideology, in order to fall into another, and how a cult-like echo chamber built on rigid beliefs could become very destructive.

Nevertheless, Tyler challenges us to be self-sufficient and disobedient to the authorities that let us down, to live authentically and in the moment, to confront our fears, to boldly step out of our comfort zones, and let the things that don’t matter truly slide.

[gra-sonas]

For two seasons, The CW's Roswell, New Mexico followed the struggles and triumphs that came with Liz Ortecho returning to her hometown. Along with dealing with acts of racism within her community, Liz's life is further sent into chaos after discovering her childhood best friend and his family are actually aliens. As the series progresses, the brilliant scientist not only catches an alien serial killer, but she also helps her resurrected sister, Rosa (Amber Midthunder), adjust to the future and saves the city of Roswell from a bomb threat.

There is no stopping Liz, especially with Roswell, New Mexico Season 3 kicking off July 26. In anticipation of the show's newest season, Liz's actor Jeanine Mason sat with CBR to talk about what's in store this year for her character, including how the show tackles social issues, the importance of Liz's role as a scientist, and how Season 3 isn't afraid to go big or go home.

CBR: Since Season 1, Roswell has tackled a lot of real world social and political issues. For you, why do you think this show is able to address such important topics, alongside the more sci-fi oriented plot points?

Jeanine Mason: First of all, that is the history of sci-fi, and that is why we love sci-fi, to actually be living metaphors for cultural issues, and that was the thing that made me most excited about getting to work in sci-fi with this show. Particularly because it's a show led by a Latin woman, and in 2020, which is when Season 3 happens -- but even in 2018 when we started, the idea to exist as a Latina you can choose to not be political is a farce. Your existence is political. Our existence as women is political. I assume that you identify as a woman?

I do identify as a woman.

Jeanine Mason: So there you go. Our existence is political because our body is on the ballot. So by the nature of this show, being led by a Latin woman, it is a show that is always going to be centered on social issues. Every year, it's fun to see what our writers, what their hearts are yearning to discuss, and what messaging activists they're connected to or that I'm connected to are urging us to put at the forefront of our dialogue in the year. People can definitely expect more of that in Season 3, and even more in Season 4.

That's very exciting, and talking a little bit about Season 3 without getting into spoilers... Since this takes place in 2020 and in past seasons we've seen [Roswell] directly address the past presidency and stuff like that -- what social themes can we expect in Season 3?

Jeanine Mason: A big part of our show always is LGBTQ+ social issues, and we had trans woman in Season 2. Is that Season 2?

Yeah.

Jeanine Mason: What I love about our show is it's in everything. Sometimes it's something where someone's just existing. By nature of that not being the reality as often as it should be on television, it is a protest. And then sometimes we're more explicit, and we find other things to nail some messaging with, and then other things we present questions and present both sides. That's the best kind of TV. I think we do a great job of that, especially with our LGBTQ+ characters. I love Alex the most, so I was thrilled to see what Alex is navigating, particularly in his journey as a war veteran.

I think this year for Liz it relates to work, which I thought was super fun. She's working for a giant corporation, and she is brilliant, and her contributions to this corporation are significant. She is doing them on the promise that this corporation's morality lines up with her own, and that all of her contributions and brilliance will then be brought directly to her community and affect positive change in her community. Oftentimes, we are finding that people of color, marginalized people who're thriving at their jobs, in journalism, and in everything, that when they get to a point where they're like, I'm getting to actually speak with a real platform or develop a drug that is going to save lives, but I don't work for a company that cares to do that first, that cares to put what they report to be a priority actually as their number one priority.

It's devastating because then you get people having to make the decision and not have all the resources they could benefit from with these big corporations, and that's absolutely something that Liz is navigating off the top of the season for sure, and Genoryx does become a big presence in Season 3. I thought it was a brilliant way to, first of all, honor her Latina, but also honor that she's a scientist, and especially after a pandemic, where we got to honor that she's a scientist, and what's something that a Latina scientist actually faces in her workplace, and this is maybe not the first thing people would guess, but we found it's very pressing.

Speaking about Liz and her role as a Latina scientist, there was one line that really stood out to me in Season 2, which was, "This isn't what the world teaches girls like me to dream." I wanted to know, for you, what makes Liz such an important character, and what's it like playing such a badass protagonist?

Jeanine Mason: I love it! Thank you! I think, to be honest, the amazing thing about Liz is that this book series that this is all based on, Roswell High, her name is Liz Ortecho; she's Latina. Not long ago, the original [television] series aired, and the decision was made to make that character white, and listen, Shiri Appleby, I'm her biggest fan. It is not a reflection on the actors at all. It's just a reflection on what we prioritize in our culture as the things we were going to consume, and we can love that series, and we can acknowledge the brilliant work that so many people... like a cult following my god! Brilliant! But we could also go, "That wasn't that long ago." And now you're getting to do this show, and we're going to honor what was originally the intention with this character.

Sometimes I forget because we're all making such a conscious effort to talk about our representation and do better, but the problem with that is it becomes commonplace for some people, and then I have moments where I have to remember it's been such a short amount of time. I've been acting now for 10 years, as a professional, and when I think about what my pilot seasons looked like, those first five years, and the kind of roles I was going up for, I never, ever would have thought this job would be coming when it's coming. The jump was fast, but the awareness was fast.

But that doesn't mean that as much as we are trying to normalize it, absolutely stoked to celebrate it, because it's huge milestones. So I'm trying to really be bold in what I advocate for, being included in this woman's journey on this show, and being honored and respected and fully fleshed out. So the next time it happens, it's like, "Oh, right! We have heard Jeanine talk about how her room should be a reflection of a young, Mexican woman, so it's not weird that we're setting aside extra funds to get the real products from Cuba for this Cuban character to have in her room." Whatever it is, little things like that.

What are you most excited for audiences to see in Season 3?

Jeanine Mason: Oh, man! I think it's like a real dynamic season. I think the beauty of a Season 3 is you're getting to get away with murder because season threes don't get handed out all that often anymore. We really took it as an opportunity to totally escalate their growth. All of the characters. To go, "Okay, let's confront some stuff that's been holding us back, that they themselves have not even been aware of." So it's a real big metaphor for marrying themselves.

The Jones and Max (Nathan Parsons) of it all is an actual sci-fi literal metaphor that all of the characters are going through, of them shedding what they have not acknowledged that's not servicing them for a long time. The characters end in a very different place and in a place that allows them to expand into stuff for some characters like Kyle (Michael Trevino) for example is more playful and romantic by the end of the season, which I loved for him.

And the other thing is, partially as a result of the COVID protocol, we just went full out with the alien explosions and gags and tricks and effects and stunts. Our stunt team, god bless them, they were just on overtime. The last episode of the season's insane. I think a majority of the cast had body doubles there, and even with the most incredible, competent stunt doubles, I still manage every year for the finale to have my knees all cut up. I just can't help but be, "Let me do a couple of takes." And I am no hero. Leave it to the professionals. Let them do their thing. But we really upped the ante on all that stuff this year, so it's really dynamic. You're gonna love that.

[spectrumed]

8. book

I decided to start writing a book. A novel, it’s going to be fiction. It’s a big project. I dread big projects. I don’t feel as if I am ever able to complete them. It’s going to be left unfinished, why do I even bother? So many projects that I’ve started and never finished. I get an idea, then I can’t make myself do the actual work to make it a reality. Why do I think I can write a book when I can barely read books without becoming distracted and doing something else instead? I give up too easily. But, then again, do I really have it in me to produce something that is good? That people would want to read? Insecurity creeps in, telling me that I will fail. I fear failure. Of course I do, who doesn’t? Whenever people say that their greatest fear is failure, all I wonder is who out there is not afraid of failure? Is there someone out there with so much confidence that they absolutely do not in any way fear failure? Even narcissists technically fear failure, it is what leads them to such ridiculous overcompensation, putting on the facade of bravado to mask their actual dire sense of insecurity. Do not fall for the scams, no person is truly without self-doubt. (Well, I guess maybe psychopaths, but there’s a whole lot of things amiss with them.)

Ever since I was a kid, I’ve entertained myself by coming up with stories, fictional universes that I would populate with characters of my own invention. When I was a kid, what I really wanted was to become a comic book writer and artist. Well, in between other gigs I imagined would suit me, including at one point wanting to be a “singing farmer,” as I put it. Still, I’ve always returned to fiction and storytelling. There’s something about creating a world that lets you so fully distract yourself from all the stressful daily hullabaloo that goes on around you. Escapism, it’s fun, it’s therapeutic, I think. There’s a reason why humans have been telling each other stories for millennia, since even before we lived in houses. Back when we were all huddled around the fire, wearing our best comfortable animal furs, sharing tales of the hunt. Your uncle who once took part in killing a mammoth, the impressive beast nearly gorging him with its big tusks. How clever he was when he noticed that the mammoth had one leg weaker than the others, and used that to his advantage. How the entire hunting party banded together to bring the behemoth down, getting all that meat to feed their families with for months! Stories make you feel good. Like as if you have something to celebrate, even when you might be starving due to the more recent hunts not having gone as well. Damn that saber-tooth tiger that killed your uncle…

Storytelling is linked to acting. Both with acting and with storytelling you have to commit. Whatever you are doing, whatever role you are performing, you have to sell it. You may be on stage talking about that time you went scuba diving with your future wife, and how you encountered an oyster with the most magnificent pearl inside, and how you made a ring for the pearl and used it when you proposed to her. You have to sell it. You have to get the audience laughing, gasping, crying, going “aww,” feeling as if they were there with you that day. Of course, they don’t know it is all just lies. You made it up. It’s all fiction. But you committed, so they won’t ever know. Storytelling is a gift to others, people will appreciate you if you tell good stories, but you’re also kinda deviant. Even if it’s technically based on a true story, you’ve certainly added your embellishments. You’re a trickster, a devious individual. No wonder actors have historically been seen as dubious folks. They come into town, romances all the young women and men, telling them big tales of their lives on the road, and they can’t possibly know if you are telling the truth or not. You may just be lying. You probably are lying. Let’s be honest, you’ve probably not told a single true thing in your life.

I am bad at the hustle. No, I can talk quite well, and I can keep people’s attention for a long while. But I can’t be a huckster. Going out there, putting myself on the line hoping people will swallow my bullshit. I can’t really avoid speaking from my heart when I do speak. Or when I write, as I happen to be doing now. This blog has so far been thoroughly candid in places, in such a way I may come across like I’m at a confessional. Not that I have much evil to confess, but I can’t help but be transparent. I can’t flip into different kinds of personalities, each with its own schemes and plots, being some master manipulator, someone who you can never figure out what they're truly up to, or what they truly want. No, what I am is clearly written on my face. I’ve got one self, and it is the one before you. He’s hairy, and tall, and a bit of a dork. I am happy to talk to you, to engage with you, but I won’t be anyone but myself. I am me. I hope that’ll do.

Of course you are familiar with all those pick-up artists that plagues the internet. Or well, not just the internet. Go into any old-fashioned bookstore (where they store books on paper, not in digital code,) and you are bound to find some sleazy book written by a sleazy guy about how to sleazily seduce women. Those books don’t want you acting like me. According to them, seduction is all about manipulation. To figure out the very right thing to say to get women to fawn all over you. They don’t want you to be sincere, telling the truth as you see it. Nah, you gotta keep that stuff bottled up, deep down inside your soul, because most likely, your true self is ugly. It’s interesting how you can get little details from these pick-up artists depending on the sort of things they say, the tips they provide. The fact that all of them seem to harbour this festering misogyny is no big surprise, but every so often, you get these little glimpses of these people’s true worldview, one where power is everything, true love is a fallacy, and happiness is a lie manufactured by Hollywood to make us all into docile consumers. No wonder the “red-pill” so often leads to people taking the “black-pill.” First hucksters will lure you in, telling you that they’ve got the secret as to how to be a success, then when they’ve got you isolated, they reveal to you how truly misanthropic and bleak their actual beliefs are.

I am fascinated with cults, for much of the same reason why I am fascinated with storytelling. What is a cult leader if not just a great storyteller? They’re something like the modern day shaman, capable of spellbinding people with their weird idiosyncratic way of speaking. High-functioning people with autism are often said to have an idiosyncratic way of speaking. No, I am not suggesting that cult leaders are all somewhere on the spectrum, though it wouldn’t surprise me if some famous cult leaders did turn out to have been on the spectrum. However, for an autistic person to become a cult leader, I think they would have to be a true believer, and not some fraud just looking to scam others. Ultimately, no autistic person would want to surround themselves with people unless they truly do believe it is essential, to like, save mankind from damnation or something. It’s the difference between sincerity and insincerity. It is difficult for autistic people to be insincere, as insincerity requires a lot of social skills that autistic people struggle with. Having to juggle all these balls in the air, making sure you keep the big lie going, that you remember to change your behaviour depending on who you are speaking to in order to keep them from figuring out that you’re a bullshitter. Hollow people are great at being insincere. People like L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the highly profitable cult that is Scientology, was at his core a hollow individual. He had no problems twisting the minds of the people around him, because he never felt a need to be sincere. If an autistic person were to become a cult leader, I can guarantee you that it wouldn’t be a profitable cult. Nah, autistic people aren’t in it for the money, we’re all about keeping it real.

Being a sincere person, surely I should be able to write a novel and make it feel earnest. Like it was delivered with passion, because I wouldn’t be able to write anything that wasn’t true to myself. Well, I do hope so. Having something I’ve made be referred to as genuine is something I see as a great compliment. I’m a student of art history, I’ve made some “serious” art before, I know how terrible art can be when it is not delivered with good faith. Sure, some art is cynical, or ironic, but even then, it tends to come from a real place. Good artists, even when they’re fully armed with the dada mindset, must believe in what they are doing. Whether they are doing it for a laugh or not, that’s irrelevant. Even if all you wish is to be silly and make something that is comical, you have to believe in what you are creating. Or else people won’t bother engaging with it. Why look at a painting by someone who is just interested in making money? Insincere artists do exist, and they can end up becoming quite successful, but ultimately, history won’t be kind to them. Damien Hirst comes to mind, heard he's into NFTs now.

Sure, I don’t like insincere people. Does that make me a bigot? Like, it’s not as if they can help themselves. It’s just who they are, spineless maggots with no soul. It doesn’t mean we have to hate them. No, no, no... I am just generalising. Don’t go thinking there’s just two kinds of people in the world, the sincere and the insincere. It’s not a binary. Most people are both, just like with introverts and extroverts, humans are complex. But there are definitely those that decide to feed into their insincere side, realising that it is often the key to success. Through insincerity, you learn to let go of self-doubt, you stop worrying so much about what others think of you, because you are never truly yourself. If they hate you, then so what? They don’t actually hate you, they just hate a role that you are playing. So what if you seduced that woman, made her feel as if you were the perfect match, then you ghosted her and completely forgot about her? It’s her fault for falling for your tricks. You were clearly just playing the game, being a super-seducer, she should have known better. By embracing insincerity, it’s like gaining a superpower. No longer do you have to care about the impact you have on others, no longer do you have to worry about what it means to be a social human being making choices that affect the others around you. Because you’re not the person they think you are. Actually, you’re not quite sure you’re the person you think you are… Who are you?

I’ve got the plot all laid out in my head for the novel. It’s going to be based in the fantasy world that I’ve been working on for the last few years. I’ve been working on this world for almost half a decade now, come to think of it. Why do I keep feeling as if I am never able to keep to a project, when I’ve clearly been working on a massive project all this time? Sure, it’s all just in my head, but it’s not as if most people have the kind of patience to keep going back to a single big project, even if it is just in their head. Not once, while thinking about my fantasy world have I been distracted and started thinking about cute puppies, instead. And you know how difficult that is. Maybe I am too hard on myself. Maybe I will finish this book, and maybe people will want to read it. Maybe it will even get a minimal number of angry reviews, like, I may get a book published without some folks trying to harass me into committing suicide for daring to think I can write. Some people may even be enthusiastic, blowing up my ego with great praise. Maybe someone will come along and tell me that they want to buy the rights to make my book into a movie or a television series. Maybe I will get rich? Maybe I will get famous! Woo! Success here I come!

Well, no, here I go being insincere. That’s not what it’s about. I should be writing this book because I want to write it. Because I want to prove to myself that I am able to write it. Sure, it’s not as if there’s not a little brain goblin inside my mind whispering sweet nothings about how one day I might turn out a real respected author. One with real fans that gets to do big book tours talking about how brilliant I am, how brilliant my work is, and how brilliant things are going for me. I am not going to pretend I don’t have the same aspirations for success that others have. Inside of me you will find the same greedy piglet of an ego hungry for more adoration and more validation that you will find in any person. Humans don’t know when to quit, we always want more. But I am at least safe knowing that I will never debase myself, descending to the same depths as those inhabited by soulless grifters who go through life abusing the trust of others in order to get by. I’m sincere, in the end. I always turn out sincere, in the end. I am a good boy.

And I am also really sexy. I don’t think I’ve mentioned this before on this blog, but I am really, REALLY, sexy. Like, you wouldn’t believe it. Oh, I am so hot. And if you follow and subscribe and hit that bell, I will teach you how you can be just as sexy as I am! And buy my book! And my merch! And my new single! And of course, my new cryptocurrency, by the name of “autism-coin.” It’s going to be a real success on 4chan, let me tell ya!

[st-just]

Barely coherent rambling about nation-states, culture, the Hapsburgs, and Canada

Because why have a blog except to occasionally purge one of the essays floating around half-formed in your brain. To be clear, it’s still half-formed, just on tumblr now. 1,666 words, here’s the Deveraux essay mentioned. Book is Martyn Rady’s The Hapsburgs: To Rule The World

So I’ve had like, nationalism on my mind recently.

And so there’s a kind of recurring beat in left-of-centre American political discourse (like, not ‘internet rnados screaming at each other’ discourse, ‘people with doctorates or think tank positions having debates on podcasts or exchanging op eds’ discourse) where you have some people on the radical end list some of the various horrible atrocities the country is built on, the ways that all the national myths are lies, and how all the saints of the civic religion were monsters to one degree or another – this can come in a flavor of either righteous anger or, like, intellectual sport. And then on the other end you have the, well, Matt Yglesiases of the world. Who don’t really argue any of the points of fact, but do kind of roll their eyes at the whole exercise and say that sure, but Mom and Apple Pie and the American Way are still popular, and if you’re trying to win power in a democracy telling the majority of the population that their most cherished beliefs are both stupid and evil isn’t a great move.

Anyway, a couple weeks back Deveraux posted an essay for the 4th of July (which I don’t totally buy, but is an interesting read) about why the reason American nationalism is so intensely bundled up into a couple pieces of paper and maybe a dozen personalities is precisely because it isn’t a nation at all. Basically, his thesis is that in proper nation-states like England or the Netherlands or wherever, there really is a core population that is the overwhelming demographic majority and really have lived in more or less the same places since time immemorial, and that once the enthographers and mythologists finish their work, all those people really do identify with both the same nation and the same state as its expression. America, by contrast, is by virtue of being a settler nation whose citizenry was filled by waves of immigrants from all the ass ends of Eurasia in a historical eyeblink, even before you add in the native population and descendants of slaves lacks any single core ethnicity that is anywhere close to a majority, as well as any organic national traditions or claims to an ‘ancestral homeland’ that aren’t obviously absurd (and we are trying to include the descendents of slaves and the native population these days, to varying levels of success). All this to say that his point is America is a civic state, not a national one, with the identity of ‘American’ being divorced from ethnicity and instead tied to things like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the whole cult around the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, and [FDR and/or Reagan depending on your politics].

Which, like I said, don’t totally buy, but interesting. (to a degree he overstates how homogenus ‘actual’ nation-states are, he makes America sound very special but if his analysis holds that it’d presumably also apply to several other former settler colonies, in the American context there’s a fairly solid case to be made that the whole ‘nation of immigrants’ story and the racial identity of whiteness were constructed to function as an erratz national ethnicity, with incredible success, etc, etc).

But anyway, if we accept that the American identity is bound up in its civic religion and the mythologized version of its political history, it’s absolutely the case that there’s several segments of the left who take incredibly joy in tearing said civic religion and national mythology apart and dragging whatever’s left through the mud. I mean, hell, I do! (reminder: any politician whose ever had a statue dedicated to them was probably a monster). And, well, call it a greater awareness of historical crimes and injustice, or the postmodern disdain for idols and systems leaking out through the increasingly college-educated populace, or the liquid acid of modernity dissolving away all unchosen identities, or a Marxist cabal undermining the national spirit to pave the way for the Revolution or whatever you like, but in whichever case, that critical discourse is certainly much more prominent and influential among left and liberal media and politics types that is was in decades past.

And, okay, so I finished Martyn Rady’s The Hapsburgs a few days ago. And I mentioned as I was reading it that the chapters on the 19th and 20th centuries reminded me quite a bit of courses I’d taken in school on the late Ottoman Empire and Soviet Union. Because all three are multi/non-national states (Empires, in Deveraux’s terminology, though that’s varying degrees of questionable for each, I think. Moreso for the Hapsburgs than the rest) who outlasted their own ideological legitimacy. And in all three cases it just, well, it didn’t not matter, but even as all the ceremonies got more absurd and farcical  and the politics more consumed by inertia punctuated with crises, things kept limping along just fine for decades. Even in the face of intense crisis, dissolution wasn’t inevitable. (The Ottomans are a less central example here, admittedly, precisely because of the late attempt to recenter the empire on Turkish nationalism. But even then, more Arab soldiers fought for the Sultan-Caliph than ever did for the Hashemites, and most prewar Arab nationalism was either purely cultural or imagined the Empire reformed into a binational federation, not dissolved).

But as Rady says in the book – losing WW1 crippled Germany, it dissolved Austria-Hungary. And in all three cases, as soon as they were gone, the idea of bringing them back instantly became at least a bit absurd.

And okay, to now pivot to talking about where I actually live but about whose politics I (shamefully) know significantly less than America’s. I mean, maybe it’s because most of my history education from public school was given by either pinko commies or liberals still high off ‘90s one-world universalism, or maybe it’s just a matter of social class, but I really can’t remember ever having taken the whole wannabe civic religion of Canada seriously (the only even serious attempt at sacredness I recall was for Remembrance Day). Even today, the main things I remember about our Founding Father is that he was an alcoholic who lost power in a railroad corruption scandal.

Really, in all my experience the only unifying threads of national/particular Canadian identity are a flag, a healthcare system, those Canadian Heritage Minute propaganda ads, a bill of rights from the ‘60s, and an overpowering sense of polite smugness towards the States.

And that last one (or, at least, the generally rose-colored ‘Canada is the good one’ view of history) is taking something of a beating, on account of all the mass graves really rubbing the public’s noses in the whole genocide thing. At least among big segments of the intellectual and activist classes, most of the symbols of Canadian nationhood are necessarily becoming illegitimate as Canada is, in fact, a project of genocidal settle colonialism.

But it really is just purely symbolic. Most of the municipalities who cancelled their Canada Day celebrations are going to elect Liberal MPs and help give our Natural Governing Party its majority in the next election, no one of any significance has actually challenged the authority of the civil service or the courts. And, frankly, most of the people who are loudly skeptical of all the symbols of the nations are also the ones whose political projects most heavily rely on an efficient and powerful state bureaucracy to carry out.

(This is leaving aside Quebec, which very much does have a live national identity insofar as the vigorous protection of national symbols is what wins provincial elections. If I felt like doing research and/or reaching more there’s probably something there on how pro-independence sentiment has largely simmered down at a pace with the decline of attempts to impose a national Canadian identity).

I mean, Canada does have rather more of a base for a ‘national’ population core than the US (especially if you’re generous and count the people who mark French on the census as a core population as well). At the same time, no one really expects this to continue to be the case – even back in Junior High, I remember one of the hand outs we got explaining that due to declining fertility most or all future population growth would come from immigration (I remember being confused when my mother was weirdly uncomfortable with the idea when it came up). I suppose our government gets credit for managing public opinion such that anti-immigration backlash hasn’t taken over the political conversation. Which you’d think would be a low bar but, well.

But anyway, to try and begin wrapping this rambling mess up – it does rather feel like Rady’s portrayal of the late Hapsburg empire might have a few passing similarities to the future of Canada. A multinational state whose constitution and political system and built on foundations and legitimized by history that no one actually believes in anymore, or at least no more than they have to pretend to to justify the positions they hold, but persisting because it’s convenient and it’s there and any alternatives are really only going to seem practical after a complete economic collapse or apocalyptic war. (Though our civil service is a Josephist’s dream by comparison, really.)

Or maybe I’m premature, and the dominant culture will just be incredibly effective at assimilating immigrants into that civic identity. Anecdotally, the only people I know who are at all enthusiastic about Canada as an idea are first generation immigrants. I could certainly just be projecting, really – I’ve never really been able to get all that invested in the nation-state as an idea of more moral power than ‘a convenient administrative division of humanity’, and certainly liberating ourselves form the need to defend the past would certainly rectifying certain injustices easier.  

Or maybe I’m just being incredibly optimistic. Half the economy’s resource extraction and the other half’s real estate, so decent odds the entire place just literally goes up in flames over the next few decades. BC’s already well on its way.

[anodyneer]

Tagged by @aragarna - thank you! (I don't get tagged often anymore because I'm not as active here as I used to be, but I still love doing these!)

1. Star sign and/or Hogwarts House:

Sagittarius / Ravenclaw

2. Put your Spotify/music app on shuffle. What are the first 4 songs that come up?

Blue Öyster Cult - (Don't Fear) The Reaper

Black Stone Cherry - Give Me One Reason

Five Finger Death Punch - Blue on Black

Waylon Jennings - Are You Sure Hank Done It This Way (live)

3. Who is your celebrity crush?

My all-timer is probably Tim DeKay, although it feels vaguely weird to say that now that I've gotten a bit closer to his family. 🙃 JR Bourne and Tyler Hoechlin have also been very high on the list for a while.

Current obsession is with Rahul Kohli after seeing him in Midnight Mass. I mean, c'mon...

4. What’s a sound you love?

Thunderstorms. There's just something both powerful and calming about them. We also live in a valley, and when the thunder rolls down the valley, it's particularly beautiful, if also a bit haunting.

5. Do you believe in ghosts?

Not at this time, although I keep an open mind in case the science ever changes. I've had whole discussions about this, ranging from what happens to a person's energy to whether or not parallel timelines exist. It's a fascinating subject, for sure.

6. How about aliens?

Depends on your depiction of aliens. Do I think we're alone in the universe? No. Do I believe in movie-style aliens? Also no.

7. Favourite place to travel?

The southern New Jersey shore.

8. Do you tend to hold grudges against people who have done you wrong?

I would say that I do, but I also don't let it consume me and don't give that person much thought. If something happens to bring that person to mind, I'll think, "oh yeah, that person's an asshole" and then will redirect my thoughts to something else. It's not worth wasting energy on the assholes of my world.

9. Tag 7 people who should do this:

As usual, I'm leaving the tags open to anyone who would like to claim one from me. If you do claim a tag, please tag me back so I can read your responses!

[celiottjohnston]

Article: Marginalization Tourism and the Smoldering Youth

“I am not what I think I am, and I am not what you think I am. I am what I think you think I am.”

Charles Horton Cooley

As recently reported by NBC news, a study published in the journal Pediatrics found that 9.2% of survey respondents from 13 high schools in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania metro expressed a incongruity between the sex of their birth and their experienced gender identity. In contrast to this study the similar, but broader scoped, 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that only 1.8% of surveyed 14-18 year olds self-identified as transgender, up additionally from a 2011 two-state survey (Gates) that estimated only 0.3% of the total U.S. adult population to identify as transgender.

In response to these data I’ve found myself considering the causes of this explosive growth in gender dysphoria, and frankly, have found it puzzling. Yes, it’s absolutely plausible that subtle cultural changes and broader acceptance of gender fluidity in Western culture has played a significant role, but over a ten year span (‘11-'21), a growth rate of more than 3000% clearly indicates that the catalyst of the change is more substantial than a shift in “repressive” mores.

Adding even more intrigue is the fact that though the Pittsburgh study found that more Black, Hispanic, multiracial, and other respondents identified as gender-diverse (which one might expect from the demographic makeup of an inner city school district), an observing pediatrician and adolescent medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Dr. Kacie Kidd, anecdotally reported that the vast majority of minors who visit her university’s gender and sexual development clinic are “white, upper-middle-class, *masc-identified youth.” Dr. Kidd implies that this racial disparity is most likely due to health care discrimination in the United States, but I would contest that this is only a part, and more than likely a small part, of the greater picture. Rather, I suggest that the rapid growth of gender dysphoria among Caucasian minors is neither due to a shift in familial and cultural mores or an example of latent racial discrimination in healthcare availability, but instead due, in part, to the rise of a phenomena that I’ve begun calling Marginalization Tourism.

Marginalization Tourism, as I’ve observed it, can be defined as the conscious or unconscious adoption of a moniker deemed “marginalized” by an individual hoping to gain a protected or unique social status—in this case, gender identity, but other examples of Marginalization Tourism (Rachel Dolezal or Oli London) also exist. Similar in ways to a form of social Munchausen syndrome, Marginalization Tourism takes virtue signaling and “allyship” to their logical conclusion by attempting not only to empathize with a population deemed “marginalized,” but rather to falsely inflate the intersectional status of the adopting individual by grafting perceived trauma or subjective labels of marginalization onto their own lives. As was aptly suggested by a friend and colleague, Reed Uberman, the real life implications of Marginalization Tourism can look similar to the “cutting” phenomenon of the early ‘00′s, yet the self-harm of that era was born out of the hopelessness flowing from the Nihilist Postmodern Condition. In contrast, the Marginalization Tourism of today, encouraging children to self label as post-biology, is born out of the Metamodern Condition. A condition that views the conventions (or in the case of this argument, gender norms) of the past merely as archetypes or myths on which to build the magically oppression-free trans-structural utopia of the future.

To help with qualifying Marginalization Tourism theory and specifically its impact on “white, upper-middle-class” youths, a brief consideration of the roles played by technology, society, and politics in the formation of this phenomenon is in order. Especially because these factors have become increasingly influential among those who are both highly vulnerable to peer pressure and prone to the adoption of extreme thinking (and thus extreme behavior).

Technology’s Role in Marginalization Tourism

Though in the past technology has had an important impact on mores of youth culture (see MTV Generation), its former one-way nature limited technology’s actual narrative influence over the lives of individuals, and was mostly kept in check by the random and disparate influence of local mores. Yes, moments of technology-catalyzed cultural cohesion would rise in communities, often culminating in the development of a local fashion, slang, or music and art scene, but would rarely extend beyond the borders of that region. Rather competing regional preferences would naturally limit the exponential spread of viral forms of subcultural behavior.

But today children are raised within a global technological ecosystem that particularly values the novel, the unique, or the extreme—where in contrast, being young, White, middle-class, and American is considered antithetical to those “virtues.” Thus to meet this In-group Bias-fueled fetish for the novel, if a young, white, middle-class, American netizen hopes to both protect and grow their online “personal brand”, adopting niche labels, celebrated by the online progressive monoculture as novel, unique, or extreme is not only important, but at some point, critical. For evidence of this escalation look no further than the explosive growth of OnlyFans, the direct to consumer pornography service for increasingly extreme behavior and niche lifestyle content, with former PG-13 Instagram “influencers”, or the sexual or gender identification evolution of social media spotlight-dependent celebrities like Demi Lovato or Miley Cyrus.

Being simply a tool, it’s important to remember that technology is ultimately agnostic to the extreme label adoption behind Marginalization Tourism. But likewise it would be absurd of us to ignore the impact that Reddit and TikTok-hosted spheres of influence, steeped in the aforementioned In-group Bias, emboldened by all-accepting Progressive Metamodern ideologies, and fueled by a lust for the novel, have had over lifestyle preferences of today’s impressionable youths.

Society’s Role in Marginalization Tourism

Sociologically, when thinking about development of Marginalization Tourism it’s crucial to consider the importance of symbolic representation during identity development. As coined by the imminent sociologist George Herbert Mead, we all employ “significant symbols” to communicate personal meaning outwardly and look for similar symbols as recognition of in-group acceptance. This use of significant symbols is particularly important during adolescence, when gaining in-group status is most important for emotional well being. Further, research (Adams et al, 2003) suggests that outwardly symbolic self-labeling by youths can be a predictor of actual behavioral adoption, most likely reinforced by the desire for in-group status.

Yet for those whose in-group status has been politically nullified (more on that below), the hunt for acceptance has continued to grow more desperate. No longer governed by the traditional group segmentation symbols: fashion, music, athletics, economic status, etc. those who have fallen afoul of our current political stigma machine have begun to reach out further—to gain in-group status not through these traditional symbols of in-group status, but via the increased adoption of labels of marginalization and thus intersectionality. Gone are the days of authentic subculture development and acceptance, which would have at other times been the refuge of these social exiles. Rather, they’ve been crushed under the weight of Metamodern sarcasm, to be replaced with vapid variations on the same milquetoast metanarrative—one that mindlessly drones on about the virtues and infallibility of dogmatic Progressive Collectivism.

It’s for these reasons why I observe Marginalization Tourism most uniquely among Dr. Kidd’s “white, upper-middle-class, *masc-identified youth.” This is a demographic derided as having no symbolic value in our current culture and because so, is incapable of building in-group status among peers without co-opting the social currency du jour, a history of marginalization.

Politics’ Role in Marginalization Tourism

Lastly, we will address the role that politics has played in setting the stage for the growth of Marginalization Tourism. Rather requiring a nuanced argument on the political catalyst of Marginalization Tourism, all that’s really needed is to simply open our eyes in any newsstand or bookstore, university lecture hall, or on any media, entertainment, or Big Tech platform and we will be spoon-fed a veritable deluge of information with the aim of first deconstructing, and then demonizing the societal contributions Western civilization. Whether it’s via culturally-promoted avenues, like The New York Times’ The 1619 Project, passed through longtime cult classics such as Zinn’s “People’s History,” or subtly woven into the agitpropatainment of The Handmaiden’s Tale, the consistent political narrative states that being Caucasian, and by extension, a product of Western civilization, is intrinsically and irreparably bad. Further, when this political posture is adopted by virtue signaling parents (where youths first seek value, stability, and familial in-group status), their progeny, who by no fault of their own physically and symbolically represent the so-called evils of Western culture with the level of melanin in their skin, are of course going to identify with the concepts of self-hatred and intrapersonal alienation so often reported by people with gender dysphoria.

And of course they will. Who wouldn’t feel a profound sense of remorse and humiliation when, as a child and adolescent, you were placed under the deconstructed burden of Western civilization’s so-oft illustrated legacy of failure and oppression? Even moreso with young, White males, who also have to atone for the repugnant actions of some of their past male counterparts.

We, much less our children, are not strong enough to contend with that burden, and the more that it is promoted as a labeling narrative, that symbolically defines their personhood, the more that our children will want to flee from any aspect of their “idiotically banal” and “intrinsically oppressive” identity.

I will be discussing additional aspects and possible counteractions for stemming the tide of Marginalization Tourism in the future, but in the meantime suggest that our first step toward combating this phenomenon of misidentity is to reject the idea that our intrinsic value is subject to the whims and opinions of consensus. Rather, I implore my readers to turn from the fickle advice offered by their limited perspectives, existential crises, and internal micronarratives in favor of the eternal wisdom of God and his son Jesus Christ who said in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 10:26-31:

“So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.”