#woke authoritarianism

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Colin Wright

Published: Dec 23, 2024

A new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) has revealed an alarming surge in anti-civil activity online following the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The NCRI study, titled “Killing with Applause: Emergent Permission Structures for Murder in the Digital Age,” highlights the profound societal implications of this event, showcasing the disturbing normalization of violence against corporate figures and the role of social media in amplifying such narratives.

While the specifics of Thompson’s murder are shocking, the NCRI warns that the broader cultural shift it appears to be facilitating may be even more worrisome. The data reveals an evolving “permission structure” online—a system in which social media platforms amplify narratives, and susceptible individuals provide justification—resulting in the normalization of violence on a scale previously confined to small extremist communities.

The murder, which occurred outside a Manhattan hotel during an investors’ conference, has sparked a wave of online glorification, memes, and merchandise celebrating the shooter, Luigi Mangione. The NCRI’s findings expose an unsettling trend: mainstream social media platforms are becoming breeding grounds for rhetoric that not only justifies violence but also facilitates its transition from the digital realm to the real world.

Public Opinion Reflects Shifting Norms

The NCRI’s research reveals a major societal shift, highlighting how public opinion has veered dangerously toward accepting violence as a legitimate response to perceived systemic injustices. Nearly half of Americans surveyed (44 percent) believe that Thompson’s murder was at least somewhat justified, reflecting a growing openness to violent means of addressing grievances. This finding is particularly alarming as it indicates that support for such extreme measures is no longer confined to isolated groups but is increasingly mainstream.

The data shows that social media plays a critical role in shaping these attitudes. Among heavy social media users—those who spend more than 5.4 hours per day on these platforms—the justification rate surges to 64 percent, starkly contrasting with just 23 percent among low-use individuals (0-1.3 hours per day).

Even more concerning is the generational divide: a staggering 78.8 percent of respondents aged 18-27 expressed at least partial justification for the murder, signaling a profound shift among younger demographics toward endorsing “targeted violence.”

The younger generation’s overwhelming approval for violent actions suggests a troubling cultural normalization of aggression as a tool for addressing grievances.

Platforms of Concern: Bluesky and Beyond

One of the most striking revelations in the NCRI study is the role of mainstream platforms like Bluesky in fostering permissive attitudes toward violence. Bluesky, widely lauded by political progressives as a kinder and friendlier alternative to X/Twitter, now exhibits the highest justification rates for the UHC CEO’s murder (78 percent), surpassing even extremist platforms like Gab and 4chan.

Bluesky’s user base skews younger and more tech-savvy, demographics that the NCRI study identifies as particularly susceptible to violent rhetoric. The combination of algorithmic amplification of extreme views and a vulnerable audience creates an environment ripe for the proliferation of violent narratives. This grim reality was recently illustrated when Bluesky users called for the murder of journalist Jesse Singal, en masse, due to his fact-based reporting on pediatric “gender medicine.” Users even posted what they believed to be his address and photos of his apartment door online.

Across social media platforms, including X, Reddit, and TikTok, there has been an alarming increase in content justifying violence. Viral hashtags like #EatTheRich and “Free Luigi” dominate many online discussions, and moderation efforts often lag behind the pace of content creation and dissemination, allowing violent rhetoric to flourish.

From Memes to Real-World Impacts

The transition of violent rhetoric from online spaces to real-world actions is perhaps one of the most troubling revelations of the NCRI study. Viral memes, fancam edits, and merchandise such as “Free Luigi” t-shirts have commodified his image. Events like the “UHC Shooter Lookalike Contest,” held in Washington Square Park, reveals how online rhetoric is influencing real-world behaviors. Participants, many of whom were dressed to mimic Mangione, gathered to celebrate and parody the assassination, demonstrating an alarming erosion of societal norms.

On social media, fancam edits and viral videos glorify Mangione’s actions, framing him as an anti-establishment icon. According to the report:

These videos frequently feature romantic or hyperbolic captions, highlight niche cultural affinities, or focus on his physical appearance, further amplifying his image and fueling narratives that glamorize his actions. This glorification fuels permission structures that could inspire others to perceive violence as a legitimate form of activism.

The hashtag #EatTheRich has surged by over 500 percent week-over-week, accompanying calls for violence against corporate figures and circulating “CEO Wanted” posters and executive “hit lists.” These posters, which feature “mocked-up mugshots of healthcare executives,” promote vigilante justice and represent “a deliberate attempt to provoke fear and destabilize corporate leadership.”

According to the NCRI report, “The murder of Brian Thompson appears to have catalyzed a dangerous feedback loop, where glorification, humor, conspiracy, and targeted harassment create an environment ripe for further violence.”

This blending of online rhetoric and offline action reflects what the NCRI describes as an “emergent permission structure,” which they describe as “a framework that justifies previously unacceptable beliefs or actions, with a clear division of labor: Social media platforms provide the amplification, while psychologically susceptible individuals provide the justification…” Taken in concert, these elements form a system that normalizes and even glamorizes acts of violence.

The Lionization of Luigi Mangione

Luigi Mangione’s transformation from an obscure figure to a symbol of anti-establishment resistance has been meteoric. Within days of his arrest, his social media following exploded from 5,000 to over 400,000. The slogan “Free Luigi” was posted 47,000 times in 48 hours, generating nearly 800,000 engagements across X and Reddit.

The commodification of Mangione’s image extends beyond social media. T-shirts, mugs, and other merchandise featuring his likeness are being sold on e-commerce platforms, trivializing his actions while profiting from the controversy. New cryptocurrency “memecoins” such as $LUIGI have also emerged, turning a deadly act into a speculative financial opportunity.

Psychological Drivers

The NCRI study identifies three key predictors of support for the murder: authoritarian tendencies, heavy social media use, and diminished personal agency. These factors interact in a synergistic way, with social media amplifying authoritarian predispositions and fostering the normalization of violence.

The combination of authoritarianism, an external locus of control, and social media’s amplifying effects appears to be a perfect storm for radicalization. These factors interact in a way that makes violence seem rational and even heroic to those who might otherwise feel marginalized or voiceless.

The interaction between these psychological drivers is particularly pronounced among younger demographics, who are both heavy social media users and more likely to experience anxiety or disillusionment with traditional systems. The NCRI study reveals that among users aged 18-27, those with high authoritarian tendencies and heavy social media use were the most likely to justify violence.

A Call to Action

The NCRI study concludes with a warning:

As digital platforms become arenas for ideological conflict, the consequences extend beyond individual incidents of violence to threaten broader public safety and societal cohesion. This transformation underscores the urgent need for strategies that address the root causes of digital radicalization and mitigate its impacts.

The challenges we face require a comprehensive and collaborative response. No single entity can address the complexities of digital radicalization alone. Policymakers, educators, platforms, and community leaders must work in unison to restore the moral boundaries against violent extremism.

The study concludes:

The spread and scope of justification for murder have significantly eroded what was once the monopoly of fringe communities in supporting violence and glorifying shooters online. This shift underscores the urgency of initiatives aimed at reinforcing the bonds of civic trust and restoring civility. Such efforts are essential not only in countering the tide of extremism but also in fostering a resilient society where dialogue and mutual respect prevail.

==

EDIT: Wow, this managed to attract the murderous psychopaths. I hope you'll be just as understanding when someone kills someone you care about and justifies it in the name of nebulous "systemic" somethingisms.

If there was ever any doubt about Colin's premise, it has been proven by the insanity of those cheering it on in the reblogs.

The death penalty is unfair, unjust, and evil, unless you walk up to a rich guy you don’t like on the sidewalk and shoot him in the back. The only form of the death penalty that’s okay is the form that doesn’t include a judge, jury, or court, and where the executed person has not been charged with, convicted, or even accused of any specific crime.

You don't get to call it "justice" when it's not just bypasses but is in direct violation of the law.

"Arbitrarily killing people I don't like is good akshully," is not the moral high-ground you think it is.

How many times do you think you would have been shot dead if it became acceptable for someone to simply arbitrarily execute you because they don't like you, what you do for a living, what you do with your free time, what you eat, what you stand for, or any other random disapproval?

🤔

[doux-amer]

[undergroundusa]

"When juxtaposing the scorecard on political violence, the evidence is overwhelming that activists, anarchists, special interests, and Deep State operatives from the far-Left are much more likely to engage in violence than any group from the Right…"

ORIGINAL CONTENT: https://www.undergroundusa.com/p/the-far-left-hitler-narrative-is

[jensorensen]

I can't believe I'm still drawing cartoons about the word "woke," but its idiotic usage just won't go away. 

George Orwell's 1984 gets invoked a lot these days, but what happened to the word "woke" is exactly what was intended with Newspeak. Per Wikipedia, "Orwell explains that Newspeak follows most rules of English grammar, yet is a language characterised by a continually diminishing vocabulary; complete thoughts are reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning." With "woke" we see the entire project of humanism reduced to a stupid insult. Shamefully, many political commentators not on the authoritarian right still use this lazy shorthand to belittle activists or anything vaguely socially conscious, invoking the right's pejorative framing.

Help keep this work sustainable by joining the Sorensen Subscription Service! Also on Patreon.

[half-life-crisis]

We are less than a #week before the #most #crucial #Presidential #election of our #lifetimes. I #wish it was #hyperbole. #Believe it or not, many are still #unaware of it.

https://halflifecrisis.com/hlc-articles/t-minus-6-to-november-5th-are-we-ready…

#Vote #wisely by truly understanding #Trump's and #Kamala's #policies thoroughly.

[thenewdemocratus]

Michael Shermer: Why I'm No Longer Woke

Source:Skeptic publisher & blogger Michael Shermer. Source:The New Democrat “Before the transmogrification of the word woke into the pejorative slur against far-left politics it represents today, I would have called myself woke—and even a social justice warrior—inasmuch as I believe in civil liberties, civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, animal rights, and the continued expansion of the…

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Yes, let's talk about "your" pronouns for a moment, because I have some thoughts on the matter...

What's that? Oh, silly me. By "let's talk about," what you actually mean is "unquestioningly comply with my demands."

Be that as it may, "we" - which is to say, "I" - am going to talk about it regardless.

Let's analyze this for a moment.

She gives the game away right up front: blue heart is for boys, pink heart is for girls. This ideology is based on stereotypes. If you still doubt this, I don't know what else to show you to convince you.

Secondly, her "gender" isn't a profound knowledge of personal identity, because it changes faster than the weather. I'm not even sure it's her personality, because anyone whose personality changes that rapidly and that wildly has some kind of severe disorder. What she's calling "gender" seems to be nothing but her mood.

Thirdly, and I keep having to repeat this, if your "gender" requires others to participate, then it's not a "deeply personal sense of self." Just like your faith cannot be "a personal relationship with Jesus" if everybody else has to pray or refrain from pointing out the flaws in the bible. "Gender is a social construct" means that your "gender" only "exists" to the extent people play along. People are sick of being bullied into pretending for narcissists.

More importantly, you don't get to make others participate and then deny them any say or input. You can't give people an obligation with no authority, because if you think you can, then others can give you an obligation with no authority.

And you don't get to make others responsible for your mental wellbeing, to carry the burden you cannot or will not, and then get angry when they don't meet your standards or decline the obligation at all. You are responsible for you. Trying to make other people responsible for your emotions or mental state is psychotic. Xians insist that humans - and particularly children - are responsible for keeping their god happy, evidently because he cannot do it himself. You're just as much of an immature psychopath. We are not responsible for keeping you from bursting like a fragile soap bubble.

You can have a personal, unquestionable conviction, or you can have a matter of public interest and discussion. As soon as you insist others participate, you forfeit the right to cordon your beliefs off from scrutiny. If you want your beliefs to go unmolested, then keep them to yourself.

If it's nobody else's business, don't make it other people's business. You can't claim your "gender" is nobody else's business, nobody else gets a say, and then insist it is their business to comply with these demands and prop the whole delusion up.

Private concern or public interest. Choose one.

Fourthly, anyone who comes up with rules like this is a sociopath who is trying to control, manipulate and trap others. Since third-person pronouns are used primarily when someone is not present, when referring to an individual when talking to others, this is a form of authoritarian thought-control. You do not get to dictate how others must see you or think of you. They get to decide for themselves what they think of you, regardless of whether or not you like it, and it's none of your business. And if your sense of self is so flimsy that you must coerce them to conform their view of you to your own view of yourself, then you have bigger problems than "your" pronouns.

When she walks into room, people stiffen because they have to talk like idiots around her - and that's part of the appeal. She wants to be "misgendered," because who is she if she's not a marginalized victim and the center of attention? That's the trick: either you comply, and she wins, or you refuse, and she gets to pretend to be a victim and she wins. Nobody's obliged to pay attention to these insane, imaginary rules, much less play along. When she's already gamed it to win no matter what, the only way for you to win is to retain your integrity and self-respect and tell the truth.

And finally, you do not have pronouns. The pronouns belong to the language, in this case, English. The English language has pronouns for you. You don't have your own pronouns any more than you have your own conjugations or your own adjectives. Other languages, such as German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, Chinese and Japanese, have their own structures, and they're not for you to "fix" with your stupid activism.

And yes, languages change. They evolve through common usage and common acceptance, not through narcissists performing blunt-force creationism enforced with emotional manipulation and vilification.

She's an average, unremarkable girl who's found a socially acceptable way to control other people and pretend to be interesting.

My adjectives are amazing/brilliant/impressive.

Misadjectiving is hate. #BeKind

P.S. I miss the days when pink, green or blue dyed hair was a sign of rebellion and uniqueness, rather than a predictable trope and red flag that warns the world about all your views and opinions before you ever open your mouth. #MakeDyedHairCoolAgain

[patrocles]

the USA v Canada game could have been team usa honoring johnny and the gaudreau family but has instead become a right wing politicial point and players and coaches jumping over each other to lick trump’s taint.

i’ve never needed the spirit of the hockey gods to fill sid, davo, and natemac more bc apparently national sovereignty is on the line

[some-douchey-techbro]

As much as I despise the Trump regime’s censorship, I’m loving this I-told-you-so moment against the Left. Social media platforms created policies against this kind of speech years ago after pressure from Leftists, but the policies were selectively enforced against the Right. Now the Left is getting a taste of its own medicine and equality feels like oppression. This is exactly what centrists and classical liberals like me were warning would happen back in 2014 when cancel culture originated - if you give authoritarians the power to suppress your enemy’s speech, they’ll later use it to suppress yours.

[spockeye-fierce]

Take a chill pill? I'll take two!

Reminding my moots and followers to take your meds and hydrate

[themistressofdolls]

Was watching this video the other day and its a good one please see it

Got me thinking about in groups and we've seen a massive cottege industry of "Anti woke" videos around films, tv, games and more and I've been thinking.

Say you met these people half way, had a sit down and asked "What is that you want? What would make you happy? Why do the stories you see right now bother you? What would you do differently? If minorities in roles feel forced or its the writing you don't like then what is the right way to write them in your eyes? The right way to do representation?"

Not to appease people and I feel those channels are grifters anyway but also I feel not alienating the in group would be one of many steps to try and stop democratic backsliding along with hyperpolarization, lets not kid ourselves we have a huge crisis of loneliness, alienation and being condasending or smug to people isn't going to make that better.

I think we still need to have stories that don't make the in group feel they are being pushed out "In their mind" while still trying to increase represention for members of out groups.

Of course other steps are regulating social media, dealing with wealth inequality and building of more social spaces and third places etc.

[half-life-crisis]

In the #USA, despite their many #brawls the #Right’s messengers are #united like an #ocean, while the #Left are like little #independent #puddles which tend to #evaporate.

https://halflifecrisis.com/hlc-articles/the-left-well-meaning-but-not-united…

Learn about self-#sabotage occurring when #people #ignore their own team's #wisdom.

[stochastique-blog]

I dont Understand...

Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.

- Mark Twain

[ellipsus-writes]

The words they're afraid of.

(Read on our blog.)

The recently appointed Department of Defense head Pete Hegseth (formerly Fox News pundit, perpetually soused creepy uncle, and current group chat leaker of classified intel) banned images of the Enola Gay from the Pentagon’s website for the offense of “DEI” language. In keeping with the far right’s stated war on anything vaguely resembling diversity, equity and inclusion, even historical photos are up for cancellation. When a literal weapon of mass destruction is censored for being a bit fruity under the Trump administration’s war against inconvenient truths, what exactly is left untouched?

This is clown show stuff, but the stakes are far from funny. While some might be hesitant to compare the current administration to the very worst history has to offer, we can at least all agree that they are dyed-in-the-wool grammar Nazis. Policing language has been the objective of the MAGA culture war long before Project 2025’s debut—the wave of book bans orchestrated by astroturf movements like Moms for Liberty, and Florida’s 2022 Don’t Say Gay bill have already had a profound effect in the arena of free speech and freedom of expression (despite the far right’s long tradition of doublespeak performative free-speech martyrdom to the contrary). Don’t Say Gay ostensibly targeted K-3 education, but LGBT+ content at all levels of education (and beyond) was either quietly censored or entirely preempted in practice. The results were not just a war on so-called ideology, or words alone—but on reality and essential freedoms.

Now, words as innocuous and important as racism, climate change, hate speech, prejudice, mental health, and inequality are targeted as subversive. Entire concepts are being vanished from government institutions, scrubbed not only from descriptions but from metadata, search indexes, and archival frameworks.

If you don’t name a thing, does it exist?

These words are as numerous as they are generic: women, race, Black, immigrants, multicultural, gender, injustice. But what is painfully unserious is also particularly dangerous in its real-world consequences. The process of controlling words is a well-worn authoritarian tendency. Fifty-two universities are now under investigation as part of the President's effort to curb “woke” research and thought crimes. Institutions are being coerced to comply with a nebulous set of ideological demands, or face budgetary annihilation. That means cutting funding for entire departments, slashing financial aid, defunding scientific grants, and pressuring faculty to self-censor.

The possibilities for censorship extend far and wide—interfering, by extension, in everything from reproductive healthcare programs, to libraries and museums. The Trump administration’s proposed budget slashing all federal funding for libraries, including the Institute of Museum and Library Services, will effectively gut an infrastructure that supports over 100,000 libraries and museums across the country—community centers, educational lifelines, internet access points, and archives of marginalized histories (starting with the Smithsonian Institution).

When you erase access, you erase participation. And when you erase participation, you erase people, and the means by which future generations might even learn they existed. A culture that cannot remember is a culture that cannot resist.

The erasure is, yet again, unsurprisingly targeted at minorities and LGBT+ people. The National Parks Service quietly revised the Stonewall Monument’s website to remove references to transgender people—a fundamental part of the original protests. Not an oversight, not a mistake, but a deliberate excision—one point in a wider plan of erasure depicted in stark detail in Project 2025, a blueprint to dismantle civil rights, defund LGBT+-related healthcare, and rewrite history from the ground up.

Dehumanization by deletion—welcome to the reactionary resurgence of doubleplusungood governance. In Trumpland, words are weapons—but not in the way they intend. Their fear of language betrays its power; that’s why they’re trying so hard to police it.

Words hurt them.

Hurt them back.

- the Ellipsus Team

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Boy, 12, is referred to counter-extremist Prevent officers by his own school after declaring there 'are only two genders' and 'I'm gay not queer'

By: Alex Ward

Published: Jun 29, 2024

Boy also made a video in which he stated 'there's no such thing as non-binary'

School made referral to Prevent amid fears he could be radicalised by far-Right 

He was accused of unhealthy interest in weapons as he owns a toy crossbow

A 12-year-old schoolboy has been investigated by counter-extremism officers after he declared there 'are only two genders'.

The child made a video, posted online, in which he also stated: 'There's no such thing as non-binary'.

And in response to school bullies who mistakenly believed he supported transgender ideology, he said: '[I'm] gay not queer.'

Originally a homophobic slur, trans activists claim the word 'queer' now describes people who don't adhere to ideas of sex or gender.

But the school told the boy's mother they would refer him to Prevent, the Home Office programme that attempts to stop people becoming terrorists, amid fears he could be at risk of being radicalised by the far-right.

The Mail is aware of the boy's identity but has agreed not to disclose it, and has also viewed the social media posts.

The boy's mother was visited by Prevent and Northumbria Police officers this week, in a meeting she described as 'an interrogation'.

Officers listed a string of allegations to illustrate the boy was at risk of radicalisation.

The boy's mother said: 'We think that he was targeted as the children believe gay people agree with trans ideology.

'He made a video which I uploaded to YouTube where he said there 'are only two genders' and 'I'm gay not queer'.

'The school phoned up and were incensed by it. They said that they would refer him to Prevent for that video.

'They said that he was at risk of radicalisation - not that he had been, but was a risk when he gets to 13 and is entitled to his own social media accounts.

'There was a risk he would fall in with Far Right groups.'

She said counter terror officers - who visited the family home - raised concerns over the fact that her son, who is Jewish, harboured extremist views on account of his response when asked if there were any groups that shouldn't exist. 

She said her son responded that 'Hamas (the Gaza-based terror group) should be wiped out'.

Further fears were raised over comments he made to school bullies, stating he wanted to 'exterminate' them. 

He is said to have made the remark in relation to appalling racist slurs from classmates.

In a letter to the school in South Tyneside - seen by the Mail - his mother detailed how he was subjected to vile verbal abuse and Nazi salutes.

Prevent officers also suggested the boy had an unhealthy interest in weapons on account of another online video - again uploaded by his mother - which showed him demonstrating a toy crossbow bought from English Heritage, she said.

English Heritage describes the 'best seller' item as 'completely harmless but lots of fun'.

The mother said the school and Prevent officers were guilty of double standards, claiming anti-Semitic incidents at the school were not dealt with in the same way.

She said: 'We sat down with the Prevent officers and there was an interrogation - they had an attitude of 'we'll ask the questions'.

'We were asked if we monitored his social media and what songs he listens to.

'They said there was a whole series of things he had been accused of.'

The police response was criticised by free speech campaigners who rebuked officers for 'wilfully missing the target'.

Harry Miller, chief exec of Fair Cop, said: 'His views on gender are as far away from terrorism that it's possible to be. 

'They are views that are held by the majority of people in Britain and don't even get into the foothills of terrorism.

'You couldn't call it criminality, let alone terrorism. There is a difference between bad behaviour and terrorism.

'This is another instance of the police wilfully missing the target because hunting down school children is easier than confronting actual terrorists.

'Fair Cop will continue to stand between these idiots and the public until they stop behaving like the woke, cowardly Stasi they have become.

'The Home Office needs to get a grip. Sack every complicit Chief Constable.'

Kate Barker, chief exec of LGB Alliance, said: 'If it's a sign of radicalisation to say you don't like being called 'queer' then according to our research, 94 per cent of LGB people can expect a knock on the door from counter-terrorism officers.

'We applaud this young boy for standing up for his beliefs, and we condemn the teachers and police who think it's wrong to abhor this horrible slur.'

The Prevent strategy was introduced by the Government in 2011 as part of a bid to tackle terrorism through early intervention.

According to the latest Home Office data there were 6,817 referrals to Prevent in the year ending 31 March, 2023 - the figure was up 6.4 per cent on the previous year.

A joint statement from Northumbria Police and Counter Terrorism Policing North East read: 'We are unable to discuss individual cases, or identify anyone who may or may not be the subject of a Prevent referral.

'All referrals are treated in the strictest confidence and will always prioritise the safety and welfare of those concerned.

'Prevent is a multi-agency approach to safeguarding and supporting those most at risk of radicalisation through early intervention. 

'It seeks to protect young and vulnerable people against all forms of extremist activity, regardless of ideology.'

South Tyneside Council declined to comment.

==

Apparently, there's so few burglaries and murders that police have nothing better to do than harass children expressing completely true, mainstream and reasonable positions, and treat them as extremists deserving of counter-terrorism intervention.

Nineteen Eighty-Four was not supposed to be an instruction manual.

[boggart23]

Posh Peoples Banker Humbled By Public Backlash To Authoritarian Debanking Policy

Much discussion in UK media and as far away as The USA and Australia this week has focued on the decision by Coutts (the posh people’s bank,) to ‘de-bank’ former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, the political outsider who successfully steered the campaign to take Britain out of the EU to victory in a national referendum. According to Coutts initial responses to media attention the decision was taken …