This weekend marked the 250th anniversary of the start of the American War of Independence. It was common or even normal for the leading figures on the Patriot side to use psuedonyms, or ‘noms de guerre’ as they were referred to (literally ‘names of war’), in writing and in publishing their arguments, both before, during, and even AFTER the war. Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Dickinson, Alexander Hamilton, Arthur Lee, John Jay, and James Madison all used noms de guerre. Samuel Adams, who did much to stir up Patriot feeling in the leadup to the war through his arguments published in various newspapers and publications, wrote anonymously under at least 25 different names. This continued among the Founding Fathers even when it came to debating the drawing up of the Constitution. One of the most forceful and persuasive opponents of the Constitution was an anonymous author who used the name Brutus. Historians still cannot agree on who he actually was. Indeed, it’s fair to say that without ‘anonymous activism’ the American Revolutionary War may not have happened or may not have been won, and even if it had the very constitution of the USA would be quite different today.
The Founding Fathers published anonymously for various reasons, and not only to protect themselves from retribution. They mostly used classical names referencing key figures in ancient Roman history, usually from the period of the Republic. This has led one writer to recently note that “if you read only the essays in the papers you might reasonably conclude that ancient Romans peopled eighteenth-century New England”. The key figures in the revolutionary debate wanted to seperate their arguments from their own personas, not simply out of fear, but because they had a lack of ego, and wanted their arguments to be judged impartially and on their own merits. This, as one writer explained in 1774, would ‘further the cause of liberty’. Using the names of Roman Republican authors would draw upon the strength of historical arguments and concerns that had continued to resonate and inspire down through the centuries.
Writing anonymously allows the author to seperate his ego from his argument, both in his own mind and that of his reader. One of the most promising aspects of a possible super-AI that may emerge quite soon is that – if it is truly built without any of the prejudices of a human programmed into it, as Elon Musk claims he is trying to build – then it should reason, argue, and conclude based upon the facts and evidence, completely impersonally and free from any ‘ego’ driving it. Making one’s arguments anonymously does not achieve this, but it goes a little way. It at least helps the reader have faith that the writer is not so much seeking any kind of personal reward. We have recently seen the dangers of what can happen when an inflated ego combines with public activism, and the noble ambition of ‘drawing blood with every word’ turns into ‘trying to get laid with your sword’.
There are, no doubt, occasions when a writer is going to have more of an impact upon the world through public activism than using a nomme de guerre. Somebody with deep charisma and boundless confidence, such as an Andrew Tate, will clearly benefit (although even here it might force him to water down his message). The likes of Matt Forney (formerly ‘Ferdinand Bardemu’ of the defunct InMalaFide website) and Eivind Berge probably do not. I do not either. When I was a teenager, I suffered from a schizophrenic breakdown. Although I recovered fully over the next decade, the ‘secondary symptoms’ of schizophrenia are almost impossible to shake off, and so nearly forty years later I still often stumble over my words when speaking, or suffer from embarassing ‘brain freezes’. So there’s no point in me debating with anybody live, or even having my own YouTube channel and the like.
Despite still being handicapped by the ‘secondary symptoms’ of schizophrenia, as I said, I have made a full recovery otherwise. In fact, it’s quite rare for anybody to recover as fully as I did. When I look up online the people whose names I knew from the psychiatric ward I shared with, most of them died long ago, either through suicide or from health problems likely caused by the medications and the chronic stress of their condition. I often wonder though if this is why I can both see the ‘elephant in the room’ when it comes to the issues we discuss, and yet I am not as ‘autistic’ as many others who can. I am able to see the world as it is free from personal self-deceit, just like autistic ‘Maps’ and the like, and yet at the same time I do not quite share their sense of social blindness.
This brings me to another point about the dangers of public activism in the area particular to us. I’ve often made the argument that those who identify as ‘ephebophiles’ or ‘MAPs’ are simply individuals on the spectrum who cannot see that other men are lying when they deny they are attracted to teenage girls. Further, it seems to me that ‘aspies’ are inclined anyway to feel that they are ‘special’, probably because they have been forced to notice from a young age that they are ‘different’ to other people, as well as because of their difficulties in fully ascribing a theory of mind to others. This results in the ‘community’ of individuals who speak out on this topic skewed towards those who do identify as ‘ephebophiles’ or ‘MAPs’. And that then re-inforces the MAP’s belief that he is different and part of a ‘minority’.
I believe a similar issue applies to those who are choosing to engage in public activism on our behalf. It will be skewed towards those who are on the spectrum, and who are unable to fully consider the possible social consquences for themselves of doing so. And for the same reason just noted, such people are also likely to be self-identifying ‘MAPs’ and the like. The end result is the further reinforcement in both their community AND that of ‘normie’ society, that any man who finds teenage girls attractive is like this – an autistic weirdo with a sexual pathology.
Finally, to return to the issue of the American War of Independence, Nommes de Guerre, and personal safety. In the days of the revolutionary war, towns in the colonies were obviously much smaller than today, and retribution would be easy against those who took sides publicly. As populations increased and towns grew into cities, it became somewhat easier and safer to express controversial positions openly. In the 21st Century, Social Media and cancel culture have put us back in a similar situation to 18th Century America. But it’s about to get even worse with the rise of AI. OpenAI released two new ChatGPT models this week. One of them was an advanced reasoning model called o3 which has left those clinging to the hope that AI is ‘over-hyped’ a little more unsure. One of several viral trends it has already triggered is for users to share online the results of giving it a photograph and letting it pinpoit the location it was taken in. It can do this remarkably well, even locating an exact restaurant from a photo of a meal taken inside it. In a global village in which nearly everybody carries a pitchfork, choosing a nomme de guerre has never been more vital.
the VC beat the USA with guerrilla tactics, we are now the intellectual guerrillas…
That’s a very useful way of looking at it anon69. This is why Male Sexualists should remain a ‘loose collection’ of activists, with no leader, no detailed manifesto, and no flag (I think that was even suggested). We’re not out there fielding an army in a pitch battle, we’re just making the enemy know we’re around and trying to be a nuisance to them, rallying others to our cause, and hopefully wearing them down – though it will take a very long time. In a similar way you could compare the approach of some activists, who demand quite ludicrously unrealistic goals, with a ragbag bunch trying to storm the capital, knowing that they will just get annihilated by the regular army. Instead, it would be wiser to engage in limited skirmishes on terrain that suits us, picking off the enemy in their weak spots.
I confess that I did take a sneaky look at Eivind’s blog yesterday, and saw the discussion of the Manosphere you were having. Some good points raised there, especially by you. Yes, it’s true that the Manosphere has been neutered to a large extent, but at the same time it has got to the point were even the Vice-President of the USA is using the terminology, and individuals like Andrew Tate have millions of followers. If the Manosphere had collectively agreed in some way to make lowering the age of consent as a key ‘red pill’ element in the early days, then it would likely have had no more influence on anything today as the MAPs do. It’s certainly disheartening and quite sickening to see the widespread paedohysterics and anti-Epstein obsession that scumbags like Cernovitch display all the time now, but in terms of tactics, you can’t storm the parliament on day one and plant your flag, you need to ferment the rebellion first and get a significant portion of the population to at least see your enemy as their enemy. That’s what the Manosphere has done. Meanwhile, the incels have largely kept alive the spirit of the early Manosophere, and remain one corner where you even see memes such as ‘age cucks’ being established as part of the red pill vocabulary. These are the same incels who the UK is currently talking non-stop about due to the recent Netflix drama ‘Adolescence’.
As I use a nom de guerre and have no interest in getting laid from a female follower through ‘public activism’, I have no reason to dismiss the incels as losers in the hope of portraying myself as an ‘alpha male’. So I will repeat what I’ve always said here – “If there is hope, it lies with the incels.”
Smaller or weaker armies who have defeated much more powerful ones have almost always done so through guerrilla tactics.
For example, the Hungarians finally defeated the Mongols through guerrilla tactics, or at least until they were powerful enough to face them full on. I’m mentioning this because I happened to be reading about the Mongol conquest of Hungary in the 13th century just this morning, and saw this contemporary source speaking of life after 25% of the population had been genocided: “It was harvest time, they brought in the grain, hay, and straw, and put them in the barn. The Tartars [Mongol] stood by us and were amused that the father would redeem his life at the price of his beautiful daughter. They found a special pleasure in making love with the women in the presence of the father or husband. They rewarded those who brought them nice girl”.
The brutal and unstoppable Mongols were MAPs, lol!
lol It’s beyond doubt the Mongols preferred the youngest pubescent virgins, just like every invading force in the history of humanity for some reason that no MAGA moron can seem to acknowledge without apologizing to his evangelical church community and fat, old wife.
Fully agree on the incels. Their problem is they are still constrained by an insecure feminine viewpoint of the world. Instead of realizing that anyone can get laid with a woman if they understand it’s not about looks but rather about dominance, money, and attention, and that if prostitution was legal we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, they sacrifice themselves in self-pity by lamenting how they “can’t get laid” within the constraints of the bad information they’ve been taught, the bad rules they live under, and to an extent their own laziness. In reality, under western rules, everyone is an incel, including so called “chads” because more desirable men have no direct control over nebulous feminist consent theory either. If incels weren’t so whiny and believed in themselves, they could be a real force.
A completely untapped resource is the tens of thousands of men unjustly convicted for feminist hoax crimes and trapped on the sex offenders list. These men could easily be the standing intellectual army if rallied properly. They have proven they are willing to transgress feminist laws to get what every man truly wants, so they have the balls which the incels lack, and they are actively being oppressed by a hostile government that officially declares them fourth class citizens even to incels. Fertile ground with the right outreach. Many Hell’s Angels fit this definition in the 1960s, and they were feared. Now imagine tens of thousands of potential Hell’s Angels manufactured by the feminist government, the only thing they need is for someone to give them a jacket, aka organize them under colors. I know we said it’s better not to have a big intellectual army that’s easily identifiable, but a group like the Hell’s Angels sort of fit in between standing army and guerrilla force. We have that opportunity now with the offenders, and since the lists are public, we know exactly who they are and how to reach them. It’s an already identified and categorized demographic!
Finally, trannies have personified this sort of group that fits in between standing army and guerrilla force, with much success on the left. Imagine an alliance between left wing trannies and tens of thousands of right wing sex offenders campaigning against feminism and the sex laws? Unstoppable and bewildering for the normies to resist.
anon69
I love the reference to the Hells Angels. I remember when I was growing up in the 80’s it was part of their legend that new recruits would sleep with a 15 year old girl as part of their initiation ceremony (of course, every man who could was doing it back then). In the last few years I’ve read several times of Hells Angel chapters or similar biker gangs actually vigilante hunting ‘pedos’.
Yes, you’re right that the incels do wallow in self-pity and lack any kind of clear or realistic goal. Yet whenever I browse one of their forums I do feel a sense of hope more than anywhere else. A good percentage of them can see that both feminists are evil AND that their sex laws are unjust (not just false accusations or ‘equality of injustice for all’). If only they could see, as you refer to, that if feminist sex laws were removed, then they would have a hugely increased likelihood of getting laid, even without paying for it.
If only we could somehow politicize the thousands of sex offenders who have had their lives destroyed under feminist hoax laws. In countries like the UK a fair percentage of them will be Muslim and would be difficult to ‘reach’ because they already have their own community to fall back on. Another percentage will be real paedophiles who are mostly usesless allies anyway, even if they had done nothing other than look at pictures. And the largest (and increasing) percentage will be those convicted under ever more absurd and draconian anti-porn laws. And this is why I get so angry with you know who.
It’s all made near impossible by the fact that in many countries like the UK, sex offenders often have to show that that they are fully repentent and ‘no longer a danger’ in order to be released. Recall Gary Glitter being sent back to prison recently just for browsing ballerina videos on YouTube.
BTW, I watched an old Black Mirror episode for the first time the other day – S3 Ep3 ‘Shut Up and Dance!’. I don’t know if you’ve watched it, but it’s about some mysterious trolls hacking into the computers of apparently innocent ordinary people and capturing them jerking off to porn and such like and then blackmailing them. But it turns out in the end that most of them, including the main sympathetic young male character, was looking at underage porn.
I only recently discoverd that the writer Charlie Brooker is a good friend of Chris Morris (of BrassEye/Peadogeddon) and co-wrote the TV Series ‘Nathan Barley’ with him, which also satarized paedohysteria. I may write an article soon about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xffrgR1o4xM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shut_Up_and_Dance_(Black_Mirror)
“I’ve been splashing a few tonsils… younger… younger… fucking awesome”
hahaha
Yes, I remember that particular episode when it came out several years ago. Really horrible for the protagonist when it was all for nothing. I wonder what societal message the writers were trying to convey there. Charlie Brooker is one hell of a guy. He reminds me of people like Ricky Gervais or Quentin Tarantino, folks who really have the most “out-there” opinions and are no stranger to being very critical of the modern entertainment industry, though in a certain “avant-garde” type of way. Brooker had a distaste for The X Factor and he still refuses to watch any episode of Severance.
I’m not sure if you know this but his sarcastic critique on paedohysteria goes back further to when he criticized the dominant and ratings-vacuum reality show that was “To Catch a Predator”, when it neared the end of its run in 2008. He wrote an article about the show in The Guardian and it’s an absolute goldmine!
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2008/may/31/features16.theguide6
These are two of my favorite quotes from the article. I will admit, it gave me a bit of chuckle with his clever writing descriptions.
“When a TV show makes you feel sorry for potential child rapists, you know it’s doing something wrong. To Catch A Predator (Mon, 10pm, FX) is that show. It hails from America, where it’s not some wacky bit of far-out cable madness, but a mainstream network broadcast; a staple feature of Dateline NBC.”
“And then it’s over. Justice prevails – provided you overlook the several billion troubling aspects to the show. The overpowering whiff of entrapment, for one thing. The collusion between reporters, vigilante groups and police for another. And that “attractive young actress” who greets them by the door: make no mistake, she’s hot. And at 18, she’s US legal. Presumably someone at To Catch A Predator HQ sat down with a bunch of audition tapes and spooled through it, trying to find a sexy 18-year-old who could pass for 13. They’ll have stared at girl after girl, umming and ahhing over their chest sizes, until they found just the right one. And like I say, she’s hot. But if you fancy her, you’re a paedophile.”
I’m shocked at how this guy hasn’t got cancelled yet. He’s like the next-to equivalent of Quentin Tarantino or Ricky Gervais, in terms of outlandishness, but in a good way of course. I really wish there were more people like him.
Thanks Original Insights – as you see I have copy and pasted your comment and changed my name to yours. Hopefully the issue that led to it not appearing the first time is a one off.
Thanks for the link to the brilliant piece on To Catch A Predator. They definitely get the ‘paedocrite’ thing. That entire paedogedden Brass Eye episode was perfect. There was nothing he got wrong, and few aspects of paedohysteria that he didn’t include. Even the segment where the ‘Millipede’ (militant peadophile) storms the studio, for example. Just the name is something so absurd that paedophiles really would choose it – I mean they have with ‘MAPs’. Of all the acronyms, especially in the age of Google, they choose one that is an actual common word. He also ‘gets’ the female sexual jealousy angle, personified in the ‘Swan Cheater’ female presenter. I just wonder why paedophiles themselves are unable to ‘get it’?
People often say that he was only ‘satirizing the media treatment of paedophilia’ and not defending ‘paedophilia’ itself, but it’s obvious he’s satirizing the feminist inflation of paedophilia too, as well as the excessive punishments.
I think the Black Mirror episode was indirectly attacking anti-paedophile vigilantes, as well as highlighting how absurd CP laws give others (who are truly evil) power over quite normal, decent people.
There are other Black Mirror episodes that almost leave me thinking Charlie Brooker might have come across this blog, lol. For example, the Christmas special where the character is put into a digital virtual hell that lasts hundreds of years (due to time dilation). I once highlighted here a feminist who had published a paper on possible future ways to punish criminals through uploading their minds to computers and creating virtual hells that could last for thousands of years (from the perspective of the criminal).
BTW, it’s good that you have started a blog and I wish you all the best for it. It would be quite something if we could build a network of blogs as we had in the old days.
Sorry Original Insights, I didn’t take in that the Guardian article you linked to was Charlie Brooker, not Chris Morris – my brain isn’t functioning today. https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2008/may/31/features16.theguide6
I ‘corrected’ my own comment (editor privilege, haha).
Charlie Brooker is an absolute genius. I always loved Black Mirror, but just in the last couple of weeks I’ve:
1/ Watched the amazing ‘Shut Up and Dance!’ episode for the first time.
2/ Discovered that he is friends with and co-wrote ‘Nathan Barley’ with Chris Morris.
3/ And now thanks to you, that he brilliantly mocked Chris Hanson and ‘To Catch a Predator’ in the Guardian.
BTW, I was going to leave a comment on your blog, but it appears you have to sign in with Google. Isn’t there a setting you can have to enable anonymous comments, as on Eivind’s blog?
It should be fixed now. Try it and see if it works.
I’m still going through old Black Mirror episodes that I never got around to watching the first time. I watched the Season 3 episode ‘San Junipero’ the other day, and was rather touched by it. I had been thinking recently about how I ‘feel’ old now and not just look old, and came to the conclusion that if I was still getting looks from young hotties, I would feel almost exactly like I did back when I was 20 or 25. In other words, I don’t think it’s unalterable changes in brain chemistry or other physiological changes that make you feel old, or even just being jaded with life over time. If I was ‘back in the game’ and could chase teens and 20 somethings without being found disgusting and old by them, I would probably feel young and alive again.
And of course, it reflects another thing that I was constantly banging on about here, with regards to old people (including, or especially feminists) jumping at the chance to be 20 or 25 again, just like in the Black Mirror episode. As I alway said, most women would choose to be teens, and probably young teens, but I guess in a near-future world where something like the digital San Junipero resort is possible, or even physical rejuvenation, there might be rules or social pressure not to be quite so ‘young’. And equally obviously, it might be too much for Black Mirror (and Netflix) to have made the characters turn back into literal teens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Junipero