The internet as a religious superorganism

The role of the internet is still not entirely clear to me. But let’s do some aloud thinking.

The Chinese government controls Chinese internet. I imagine there is a dark Chinese internet, but your average Li has no choice but to surf the internet as if he were sitting in an office space shared with 3 colleagues.

The West has free, anynomous internet. Not for the lack of trying by the government, sure, but look at their attempt to ban DailyStormer. It’s back. It’s Googable! If the deep state can’t even censor loud and self-proclaimed nazis, what are they going to do about sane rightists?

The problem with bioleninism is that while the weak are always willing to play game and suck up to the strong, a significant portion of the strong has to be bamboozled for the plan to work. It is a religious game after all. Experts, journalists, academics and politicians hand out sacraments to the masses, and their privileged role in handing out the sacraments to the masses reaffirms their position as moral authority. It’s a positive feedback loop.

But the internet cuts the loop short.

Imagine that in the story ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’, the kid gets banned by one of the emperor’s mods. But, suddenly, another kid with a frog mask materializes behind the emperor and repeats what the first kid said. Then, another kid with a V for Vendetta mask shouts from the rooftop. And another with a troll face, and another, and another.

The priests of the old order see their status crumble before their eyes. Of course beyond the age of 30, 40, men’s brains are generally too crystallized to change religion, so currently the priests are retreating to the safe bunkers of their 40+ audience. But make no mistake: the left is losing the youthful strong and it is driving them nuts.

The only answer to internet blasphemy is to shut it down. Censorship works. People blab about the Streisand effect, but the Streisand effect is as fictional as the notion of guerrilla warfare. Per Jim, if the rebels are hidden by the villagers, you kill the villagers. Simple as that. The only way you lose is if you are not allowed to kill the villagers, but this has nothing to do with guerrilla warfare. Similarly, if you as an outsider are reliant on the judicial system to suppress photographs of your villa, you aren’t allowed to win. What you are supposed to do, is send the military to occupy Digg Headquarters, track down some 4chan trolls and publicly execute them to send a message.

But how could the deep state have known that Barbara Streisand would be the turning point in the meme wars?

The Streisand effect did not show that censorship fails, because we know censorship works. Instead, the Streisand effect showed the inability of the deep state to effectively censor the internet.

They are trying, and maybe one day they’ll be effective. In the Netherlands, the secret services are pushing a ‘drag net’ law to legally install spyware and hack into all computer devices. Chinafy the internet.

But for the priests of the old order it seems like it is too late. Too many kids making fun of the emperor, and the emperor depends on not being made fun of. Isn’t the internet fun.

13 thoughts on “The internet as a religious superorganism

  1. A few things:

    First, it’s in the interest of the state (deep is a nebulous qualifier) to appear censorious of sites like DS, but not to effectively censor them. Their existence re-enforces the state narrative that dissidents are neo-nazi and everything they utter should be disregarded out of hand. One would expect much more reactive curtailing of measured dissent and indeed the first victim of youtube censoring was Jared Taylor.

    Second, guerilla warfare and the Streisand effect aren’t simple phenomena (if a weaker force faces a stronger one, then guerilla warfare takes place OR if something is censored, then a Streisand popularization will occur). Guerrilla warfare occurs when a superior force is hamstrung by domestic political problems and cannot wage the Jim war of extermination. The Streisand effect occurs when censoring something so ubiquitous that banishment from the public sphere simply invites the mass to re-introduce that which was removed because it is so commonly accepted.

    Third, while the Chinese put vastly more effort into policing their Internet they have roughly similar results when it comes to curtailing very widely held beliefs. The problem of western censors isn’t so much that they are technically inept at censorious behavior, but that they are not interested in following the Chinese model. This is for several reasons, but the primary one is that rigid doctrinal censoring won’t work in a diverse and multicultural society. Prohibiting calls for sedition (China’s rule number one) can’t be forbade in Europe or North America because the ruling class thrives on the rampant seditious behavior of their preferred minorities to deliver them increased votes and political power.

    The Internet as a system more neatly fits into the analogy of the agora. It’s a quasi-public space where anything sufficiently wealthy or powerful individuals want to push can be pushed, but it is also at the center of a broader polis context where existing popular ideas are going to seep in or distort efforts to trade in the above. The goal of the current elites appears to be simply diluting the majority to the point where popular ideas are rare and the mass can be more effectively herded by ideas handed down from on high. The miscalculation of the elite is that they will have enough fine control over demographics to prevent a new popular set of ideas from impeding this. Mestizo populism is likely to foil North American elites in much the same way Islamism will foil EU elites.

    1. > First, it’s in the interest of the state (deep is a nebulous qualifier) to appear censorious of sites like DS, but not to effectively censor them.

      Too many measured dissenters not being censored. Spandrell still has a Twitter account.

      > if something is censored, then a Streisand popularization will occur

      Recall one of the few good ideas in Harry Potter: people could not call Voldemort by his name, they could only call him he-who-must-not-be-named. No Streisand popularization of the name Voldemort. Need a Schelling point for point deer make horse.

      > The problem of western censors isn’t so much that they are technically inept at censorious behavior, but that they are not interested in following the Chinese model

      They are quite obviously interested in following the Chinese model, just that the white man conforms a lot less easy than the yellow man. Sedition ís forbidden in Europe and North America — for instance, any Trump supporting minority is a traitor and trash.

      1. “Too many measured dissenters not being censored. Spandrell still has a Twitter account.”

        Reactionary thought isn’t considered reactionary or dissent to people with equivalent contempt for their own demos. Complaints about democracy and progressive morality are entirely non-threatening politically.

        “Recall one of the few good ideas in Harry Potter…”

        A fictional novel should not be used to evidence the effect or lack thereof of a social phenomenon in the real world.

        “They are quite obviously interested in following the Chinese model, just that the white man conforms a lot less easy than the yellow man.”

        I doubt this. Most white states with a population as relatively homogenous as China’s are very conformist as is the American bougousie. The diffirence is that western states host significant and growing non-white populations for the purpose of preventing anti-neoliberal populism. This requires a diffident sort of information management, one that emphasizes anti-native narratives and extreme native reaction to justify more of the former.

        “Sedition ís forbidden in Europe and North America — for instance, any Trump supporting minority is a traitor and trash.”

        Sedition is openly celebrated in Europe when it is non-European. The UK and many other states have allowed IS fighters to immigrate and openly call for rebellion against their host nations. In America too the Black Panthers, Antifa, and other minority organizations are allowed to engage in speech and activity that is transparently seditious, eg. Encourages rioting, calls for the assassination of political opponents, and the dissolution of the police and military.

        Obviously this is all who/whom and one can argue the agitation of minorities is not effectively seditious given that they currently lack the power to make good on their word. But China does not tolerate similar behavior from any minority or majority.

        1. You are not making sense. Either you are censored or you are not censored. Measured dissenters are only sort-of censored a.k.a. not really censored.

          Minorities are allowed to hate white males, but they are not allowed to hate the cathedral. When Moroccan rapper ‘thief’ called scantily clad women whores, all leftists in the Netherlands were outraged. The deal is that minorities publicly stay in line with bioleninism and only privately state their true opinion.

  2. Historically Guerilla warfare has worked
    1. As an adjunct to a conventional army: Nazi invasion of USSR, Hindu Marathas fighting Muslim Mughals, US in vietnam
    2. If the guerillas have bases in a neighboring Hostile state: Communists in nationalist China, India today, Soviet invasion of aghanistan, US in Vietnam
    3. If the Guerillas have someone in the Elite power structure backing them: India today, US in Vietnam

    Otherwise, Jim is correct. Guerilla warfare is overhyped Bunk.

      1. And this entire Guerilla warfare Romance is kinda like the allure of Tom & Jerry. Or the torrent of stories about China’s impending collapse by next year since 2005. It is wishful thinking masquerading as analysis. A part of them wants the underdog to win knowing that they themselves are actually underdogs. But The amusing thing is that the masses invariably back who they think is the strong guy and then proceed to pretend that they are somehow backing the underdog.

        Damn, Jim is right. The masses don’t matter. they’ll jump right into line given minimal incentives. Godamned Non sequitors.

      2. “The strong conquer the weak.”

        This is tautology unless you can define who is stronger ahead of time. The Americans would have been my bet when they invaded Vietnam and yet domestic subversion did them in. Similarly, the Chinese invading Vietnam yet they have yet to successfully do so. The Vietnamese aren’t objectively strong as they are unlikely to conqure their neighbors who are also weak relatively speaking.

        What makes the modern European weaker than a Somali? It’s quite likely the former is more imposing and the latter massed would certainly lose a directly conflict due to low intelligence and technological disadvantages. Is it all the emotional or lack of will? If so then why do we see the dispairing and miserable Russian peasants continue to beat back encroachment from European invaders? Numerical advantage and weather made them the stronger party.

        I simply don’t think this strong/weak dichotomy has any meaning without producing some qualifiers.

        1. Vietnam was waging war against red state, but had blue state as its ally. Pretty strong ally. Stronger than red state, in fact.

          It is useful to qualify ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ but it is not absolutely necessary. We know, see and feel when someone is weaker than us, just as we do when someone is stronger than is. I am merely describing what I see in front of my eyes.

  3. The deep state is behind nazism, using it as controlled opposition. If you want to know whom they really seek to get rid off, google my name.

  4. Lateral connectivity makes top down hierarchical social control structures a joke. It’s redistribution (of data) regimen makes Karl Marx a joke. The concept of “open source” is killing the monopolism of obsolete memes. We are witnessing the last nails being pounded into the coffin of war lord romantic feudalism. Death to nostalgia!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.