If you don’t know who Chris Chan (a.k.a. Christian Weston Chandler, a.k.a. Christine Chandler) is, Chris Chan is the author of the infamous Sonichu series of webcomics, which initially stars a mashup character inspired by Sonic the Hedgehog and Pokémon’s Pikachu. Chris Chan, who currently identifies as a transgender woman, has become famous online for the webcomic, and for how poorly he has responded to trolls.
While it’s true that Chris is autistic, he only has a mild case of autism, so his many poor choices are for a lack of genuine wisdom.
Since then, Chris Chan has been detained, subsequently released, but is now barred from his own home, where his mother resides.
There are a couple possible mitigating factors to consider. For one thing, that the crime is alleged. Another is that Chris may have confessed to a crime he did not commit.
Chris does get trolled by a group of people who are collectively referred to as the “Idea Guys”, so named because they take advantage of Chris’ gullibility to convince him to say or do some inadvisable things. Chris believes in numerous delusions, such as that there are multiple dimensions, which are a likely product of the Idea Guys’ influence.
If Chris really did commit the crime in question, it’s possible that he might implicate the Idea Guys for their influence. If not, he might still come forward with claims that he was being extorted into producing the messages. Having said that, I’ve read the messages in part, and they seem convincing (and graphic, which is something to consider if you’re thinking about reading them for yourself).
I’ve been following Chris’ antics over the course of years, but with the hope that he could, in time, turn matters around for himself, and live a better life as a result. Making this an unlikely outcome is that Chris has interpreted advice as an attack against himself, even if well-worded. There isn’t much that can be done to help someone who thinks like that, but if Chris could turn things around for himself, that could give hope to just about anyone who is in a pretty bad spot, whether or not it’s through fault of their own.
This makes the latest drama involving Chris even more disappointing. At this rate, it’s likely that the guy is going to wind up living in an institution. It might not be ideal, but it might be the protection needed for someone who apparently lacks the ability to make the decisions needed to properly take care of himself.
It’s a disturbing turn of events, but Chris’ life has been zany and sad. His parents didn’t properly prepare him for the real world, and this was how things have developed.
It’s mildly amusing how when pedophilia is discussed, you’ll usually find people who virtue signal, as though they have to make sure that people don’t think that they might be pedophiles. Look, you’re not a pedophile. I believe you. Cool your jets.
I haven’t heard of the MAP community until today. Pointing out as much probably counts as a kind of virtue signaling. Perhaps the desire to virtue signal so hard about it comes with running out of sexual deviancies that’s societally acceptable to make fun of.
You’ve probably pieced it together by now, but the MAP community is an online community of pedophiles. MAP is shorthand for “Minor Attracted Persons”. Even when it’s put in the most stale language possible, it still gives off creep-vibes. What they call for is recognition of attraction to children in the same way that society has come to more openly accept the various elements of the LGBT+ community.
The MAP community needs to watch it’s back, but not for the reason that you might think. The reason probably being that you’re a 2A kinda person. Unless you’re not, in which case, maybe you can find some rocks to throw, or something.
There is a saying that’s going around: Where two KKK clansmen gather together, at least one is an FBI informant.
If you’re in the MAP community, the implication of that probably turned your stomach to ice. Did it really not occur to you until now that your online group of professed pedophiles might be a snap to infiltrate? The MAP community has “honeypot” written all over it, but you didn’t notice?
On the chance that you identified as a MAP, and were only trolling, would the laughs be worth ending up on the map? After all, when a person is great at trolling, it’s hard to tell them apart from someone who is completely sincere.
It was a couple years ago that I heard about the Targeted Individual (TI) community. A TI is a person who is convinced that he is targeted by phenomena such as gang stalking or “psychotronic” harassment by electromagnetic waves, or by having been “chipped”.
As you could probably imagine, I’m skeptical. I do believe that something like that can happen, but it seems like in the majority of cases, the TI is actually experiencing paranoid delusions.
Pictured above is a QuWave Defender, a product that’s marketed towards self-proclaimed TIs. The claims made by QuWave, who markets the product, are pretty sketchy. The general claim is that the product, while powered on, provides protection to the person who keeps it near them.
Personally, I’d like to get my hands on one of these things, so that I could take the thing apart and find out how it’s made, then document my findings on a blog post. The thing is, I don’t really want to spend something like $300 just to find out that it does nothing but power an LED or two.
One thing that I’ve noticed about TIs is that they usually blame “the government” for their plight. How they’d know that it’s “the government”, I don’t know. But I suppose it seems to follow in their thinking, considering that they’re large and resourceful enough to be a likely culprit.
When TIs blame “the government”, what they’re demonstrating is that they’re ignorant to the fact that “the government” themselves seldom does the heavy lifting. If “the government” wants something shady done, they usually hire subcontractors to do the dirty work. That way, “the government” can avoid doing something that would be illegal for them to do themselves, and if the cover is blown on the operation, “the government” could easily distance themselves from the subcontractor, throwing them under the bus.
It’s because of this that, if you really are a TI, there’s something simple that you can do to make the abuse stop. It’s going to sound counter-productive at first, but when you think through it, you’ll understand it as the genius that it is.
What you do is you identify subcontractors that could possibly be targeting you, then you buy stake in those companies.
Here’s why this works: If you run a company, you should understand that if it’s found that your company has been harassing shareholders, it’s going to be insanely bad press. If you’ve been conducting unethical experiments on your own shareholders, and this comes to light, anyone who has invested in your company will drop your stock like a hot rock, in all the time it takes to finish this sentence.
Suppose that some data-collection company in the business of anti-terrorism has been found to have been somehow chipping people because they don’t like their religion. If they were to find out that someone that they’ve chipped has invested in their company, they definitely don’t want that person coming forward with their suspicions, especially to the press. Because if it’s discovered that the company chips their own investors, no one would want to have that company’s shares, and the stock value would plummet faster than a mark in the Weimar Republic.
This isn’t financial advice, and the typical risks apply when buying any stock. It can appreciate or depreciate. I’m just saying what can possibly happen as a result of taking a course of action, which isn’t guaranteed. Maybe the company that’s harassing you is tremendously idiotic, too much so to understand why conducting experiments on shareholders is a bad idea. That’s a possibility, too.
Then there’s the fact that the stock market is largely a big, rigged casino. I’m not telling you what to do. Besides, if you invest more money than you can afford to lose just because of some blog post on the internet, you’d be worse than paranoid; you’d be stupid.
The assumption of the simple is that humanity tends ever towards non-mysticism. That is wrong. Whether cursory or deep, every study of the human psyche reveals that humanity is well-adapted to mystical and religious beliefs.
Even in the Far East, where people are largely non-mystical in their conduct, there is still a tendency to check their daily horoscopes. Even where religion is actively discouraged, there is a tendency in ordinary people to seek out spiritual meaning, even if they look in the wrong places.
We must not assume that the ruling class of the western world is unaware that this tendency exists. In fact, their knowledge of the human psyche is so well-advanced, that they’re aware of what information they need to present to people in order to override their better judgement, either to suggest an idea to them while causing them to believe that it is their own, or to exploit a tendency towards synchronicity to influence towards a behavior.
While this seems new, it’s simply another manifestation of an old religious deception. Through nearly the entirety of human history, kings have made the claim to be divinely-appointed, or to be gods among men. What we are seeing today is a mere adaptation of an ancient idea, implemented through current technology. While the tools are different, the base tendencies of the common population are no different from what they’ve always been, and the same is true of the ruling class.
Marketers have been using subtle hypnotic tricks for decades. With the extensive psychological profiles that social media have built about every person they could, they have a new vehicle with which to hypnotize the masses. It would be too generous to suggest that they failed to resist the temptation presented by all that power.
They didn’t even try.
The atheist who convinces himself that he is immune by reason of his own non-mysticism is fooling himself in his conceit. When they are influenced into atheism, it’s because the influencers are aware of how the atheistic can be exploited.
Considering all this, there are a few questions to ask: Are your ideas your own? Are you aware who may have been presenting them to you? Is a person who would engage in such underhanded methods worthy of your respect? What can you do to protect your mind from malign influence, even as the influencers are on some of society’s highest levels? What reasonable measures can be taken to reduce their enrichment?
The fact is, everyone serves someone, whether they intend to or not. The American founders didn’t view freedom in the sense of doing whatever they pleased, but as serving one who is worth serving. The Biblical idea of freedom is similar. It’s because of this that this question is so important: How worthy is the one you serve?
It’s not really new to hear someone say something ignorant about crypto, but it gets to be rather amusing when the higher-ups have little choice but to speak up, because they can’t ignore it any longer.
Such was the case with fed chairman Jerome Powell, whose statement about the prospect of a U.S. digital currency was roughly the equivalent of, “If we had our own digital currency, it could beat your crypto!”
This is what he had to say: “One of the arguments that are offered in favor of a digital currency in particular you wouldn’t need stablecoins you wouldn’t need cryptocurrencies if you had a digital US currency” (source: Forbes).
He was basically saying that if the U.S. had its own digital currency, it would render cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin obsolete.
Done laughing? Let’s move on.
While it may not be digital in the sense he means, the U.S. dollar has already become a digital currency. If you’re like me, it’s been a long time since paper money last passed through your hands. I get paid electronically. I pay my bills online. I use debit and credit to buy things. I’ve actually turned panhandlers away because I don’t carry cash.
We can get an idea of how the U.S. would manage a digital currency by paying attention to what they do with the currency they already have:
They want the money stored in institutions that charge recurring fees for holding onto it, and profit off your money by investing it,
They want transactions to pass through third parties that charge fees on transactions,
They want ledgers to be off the blockchain, enabling surreptitious activity without accountability,
They want to arbitrarily generate huge sums of money to pay for spending budgets, inflating the currency and committing immense fraud and theft against those who attempt to use it to store value.
If the U.S. wants to make its own digital currency, that’s their business, but I’m suspicious that it’s just going to be more of the same-ol’-same-ol’. But if they want it to compete with cryptocurrency, their best bet would be for it to work on the blockchain in just the same way as cryptocurrency, and hope that anyone gives a care.
But as it is, the dollar is another vehicle with which the ridiculously wealthy steals from ordinary people continually. If it went digital, is there any expectation that that would change?
The photo above shows ground that’s dry, so if it rained, it didn’t rain for long.
The lightning didn’t strike nearby metal poles or trees, and even the metal gutters along the roof seems mostly unaffected. The lightning struck the bricks.
Near the center of the damage was an image of George Floyd’s face, suggesting that the lightning strike likely hit the face directly.
Artist David Ross, contrary to the sentiments of Kaitlin Durbin (below), vouched for the structural integrity of the wall, saying that there were parts of the wall he couldn’t remove because of how strong the wall was. He was the artist who worked on the mural.
It’s been suggested that the lightning strike was a product of divine intervention, pointing out the circumstances surrounding the event, and that people were making an idol out of George Floyd.
While one might defend against this by saying that they weren’t treating George Floyd as though he were a god, that doesn’t mean they weren’t committing idolatry. What idolatry is would be ascribing a disproportionate amount of honor on something or someone upon which it’s not appropriate. And when it comes to George Floyd, that’s certainly what happened.
George Floyd was just a man. And as a man, he was no exemplar of virtue. Prior to his death, George Floyd was arrested nine times, one of which for armed robbery of a family wherein Floyd himself pointed a gun at a pregnant woman, to which he pled guilty. During his final arrest, Floyd was doing a speedball, and had just before attempted to operate a motor vehicle, which could have killed someone. The arrest was over a counterfeit $20 bill, and during the arrest, Floyd had attempted to conceal a lethal dose of fentanyl by eating it, to tragic results.
If that’s the kind of guy you’d want to build a statue for, you’ve lost your way, it’s as simple as that.
In any case, there’s no shortage of people out there who should rethink who their heroes and role-models are. Perhaps a little electricity is what it would take to jump-start their thinking.
Yeah, I’m aware that a guy in a rainbow monkey suit with obvious male genitals appeared in front of children as part of a reading event. Yeah, I think that was insane.
What’s impressive about the incident (aside from how garishly hideous the outfit was) would be that, out of the people that planned the event, any one of them could have objected at any point along the way. Or, at least, determine the idea to have been as insanely idiotic as it was, and promptly dropped association with the organizers, and made considerable physical distance, in an act of self-preservation.
The incident has challenged some people’s belief in a humanity that ever strives for the truth and for something better, as the man in the rainbow monkey suit provided ample evidence to the contrary.
While I do still have the optimistic belief that humanity continues on a path of self-betterment, that perspective isn’t without the understanding that humans have the same basic tendencies that we’ve had for thousands of years.
Insanity can occur in all levels of society, including the very top. One of the biggest civilizations in western history, the Roman Empire, was headed by Caesars who were, for the most part, obviously insane. It’s apparent that there were also insane leaders in east Asia. Those who learn what Mohammad was really like are often disturbed by what they learn. Ordinary people can be insane, as well. Of course, when commoners go mad, it tends to impact fewer people.
It’s because of this outlook that when I see people doing insane things I see it as yet another expression of an old insanity that has been with us. Of course, I’m not making excuses for the man in the monkey suit. What he did might have been illegal. Obviously, what’s a tendency of human nature may be criminal or in some other way bad for society.
Still, it’s something old, expressed in a new way. And if humanity were to continue in its devices, there’s no reason to expect it to stop any time soon. But if you have a blog where you make fun of the stupid things that people do, it’s not hard to find new material.
It seems like it’s nearly every day that I hear someone complain about tech censorship on the major platforms. Today, it was about a video that was removed that was from a highly influential individual. It will probably be something again tomorrow, too.
In spite of all this, people are continuing to use the major tech social media platforms, even though there is no sign that the censorship is going to stop anytime soon. And because these platforms can enjoy the smug high that comes with feeding into activism while at the same time profiting heavily off these platforms, is there any reason to expect them to change?
What’s more, big tech can simply remove from web servers the competitors that threaten their establishment position, under the pretext that these alternative platforms promote extremism. It was actually just this year that the free-speech social media outlet Parler was blocked from Amazon’s web servers based on the reasoning that it was there was there that the activists behind the January 6th capitol incursion had organized (putting aside that these activists had actually organized on traditional social media sites like Facebook and Twitter).
It’s considering this that many people are blackpilled into thinking that the tech oligarchs are positioned firmly, and that there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them. But there is, and it’s been with us here for a while. And when you understand it for what it is, you’ll understand that big-tech’s biggest weapon for staying relevant is ignorance.
The weapon of the masses for fighting back against big-tech censorship is the blockchain. It’s a term you might have heard before; it’s a form of decentralized record-keeping that validates itself over a network of volunteers, to put it in just a few words. You’re probably aware of the blockchain’s application in keeping ledgers in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.
However, cryptocurrency is only the beginning of the blockchain’s applications. To help stir up your imagination, consider the example of peer-to-peer file sharing. This has been around for nearly as long as the internet itself. It worked with file-sharing programs, which downloaded files chunk-by-chunk until they were complete. Once the files were completed, users could then seed these files, voluntarily making them available to other users who wanted to download copies.
One problem with this old system is that there were relatively few volunteers to seed files. It was largely a labor of love, as seeding could consume system resources, and plenty of bandwidth. But what’s great about blockchains is that they incentivize participation with cryptocurrency, an act that’s called mining.
Those who mine crypto are using their computers to host data on ledgers, being one of many that contain copied data that is used to verify other data on the blockchain. The nature of crypto makes it nearly impossible to counterfeit, or to inflate anywhere outside of what’s allowed by a particular cryptocurrency’s intrinsic design.
But what if the data stored on blockchains isn’t just a ledger for digital currency, but instead entire websites? Sounds like food for thought, right? But it’s not actually a what-if scenario anymore, because it’s actually happening.
One prominent example is the open-source social media platform Minds.com. It’s there that you can do social media posts, upload photos, watch videos, write blog posts, and share memes. You know, the typical social media stuff. It’s like Facebook, except free speech. You can find me there.
Want secure email on the blockchain? You have choices. One of which is Cryptamail. Ledgermail is another option which is coming soon. Do your research to find out which one is right for you.
How about blockchain search engines? Presearch is one choice. People complain about Google’s ubiquity when it comes to online searches, but they’re not acting like alternatives actually exist which aren’t tech giants.
There are even video streaming sites that use the technology. Video hosting site Bitchute may not have become as huge as YouTube, but is a fine example of how the blockchain can create free speech video hosting. The pro-establishment elements try to ignore it, or resort to name-calling. There’s not much else they can do.
What’s that? You thought that YouTube was special because you could embed their videos? How special is YouTube, now?
You see what I mean? The main thing that the tech oligarchs count on to keep themselves afloat is ignorance. If people were aware that they could escape their censorship through websites that they can’t do anything about, such as those that I’ve linked to above, they’d experience afresh the joy of the internet reminiscent of two decades ago: completely candid and honest, belonging to the people, and not to tech giants.
And really, why should you trust tech giants with your web usage? The blockchain is intrinsically more reliable than what’s stored on their servers. But what’s more compelling is that, by using their web services, they are storing information about you.
Based on what you click on, what you search for, how long you have their websites open on tabs, even your web activities as long as their cookies are on your browser, the tech oligarchs can build an extensive psychological profile about you, which can then be sold to networks of advertisers.
And as long as you continue to use the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., they are going to continue collecting information about you.
Just weeks ago, China started cracking down on cryptocurrency. As much as it’s understandable what their stakes would be in controlling the currency, I suspect that it’s about more than that. When you’re an immense dictatorship, the prospect of a decentralized internet that cannot be censored is terrifying. With VPNs, China cannot keep their own people from seeing the internet the way the rest of the world sees it. And with websites on the blockchain, the websites that they want censored cannot be shut down, whatever the incentives that they have to offer the tech giants.
Likewise, Russia restricts what their citizens can do with Bitcoin. If crypto were like any foreign currency, their stringency would make little sense. But if it were about the implications of the blockchain for a pseudo-democratic dictatorship, their trepidation would be understandable.
For years, we’ve watched in slow motion as the major tech institutions became propaganda outlets for the establishment. The time has come to take back what rightfully belongs to us. We have all that we need to do so. In fact, we have well more than what’s necessary. And in time, we shall have far, far more.
This is our internet. Have no reservations about taking it back.
“We cannot afford the luxury of men whose minds are so limited they cannot adapt to unexpected situations.”
I’ll probably have to walk on eggshells with this one, for caution of offending a certain subset of society that doesn’t take it as well as they dish it out.
Football fans. Who did you think I was talking about?
While the NFL is far from the first to say it, the NFL has turned heads with the fact that they said it themselves. This is an obvious side-effect of intersectional marketing, because it’s apparently the hot thing to appeal to about 2.5% of the population while alienating everyone else.
There’s a strong chance that you’re not taking my word for it. I actually applaud that. But the NFL themselves have shared video evidence:
And don’t worry if you didn’t watch the whole thing. I didn’t.
There’s a number of points to ponder related to this matter:
For one thing, that we’ve come from the point when who a person chooses to get intimate with was their business, to the point that it’s considered the principle feature of their identity, for them to tell everyone about, with accompanying erotica,
That last point was such a mind-blower that I almost forgot the other points I wanted to make,
If you laugh at Walmart shoppers wearing NFL apparel, that now makes you an intolerant bigot who is also a racist and a Nazi, and also a pedophile, because the braindead are getting to the point that they default to that last one, and
The NFL now presumes to speak on behalf of all professional athletes regarding their sexuality. If my employer pulled the same stunt, I can imagine that the company-wide reaction wouldn’t be pleasant. Is the NFL going to screen athletes based on sexuality?
I wasn’t a huge football fan to begin with. Spending three hours on a Sunday watching a bunch of millionaires throw a ball around doesn’t appeal to me. But I know that many football fans can rightly be described as macho, and would take offense to their sexuality being interpreted as anything besides straight. This being the case, is the NFL ready to take the hit that comes with alienating such a huge part of their base? Have they already decided that they don’t need these fans, as much as they contribute to the organization’s income?
I’m surprised that football came out before baseball did.
Three people decided to get together to play a game of Monopoly. One was a computer technician, one was an oil trucker, and the other was a police chief.
As the game was in progress, the computer technician and the oil trucker noticed something unusual: the game was only a few turns in, but the police chief had just purchased Boardwalk. The wealth that he had accumulated didn’t seem to make sense.
“How much money do you have?” asked the computer technician.
“Two thousand dollars.” answered the police chief.
“I saw you stealing from the bank.” said the oil trucker. “I think we should count your money to see how much you really have.”
“Accusing me of cheating is tantamount to challenging the integrity of the game.” answered the police chief, getting defensive.
Yet, the computer technician and the oil trucker were hesitant to challenge the police chief too far. He is the police chief, after all. He could retaliate by later writing them tickets for minor traffic violations. The computer technician and the oil trucker only made just enough to get by, and could hardly afford an additional expense.
“In that case,” said the computer technician, “we’ll just count the community chest cards. You’re the only one who has been drawing any, so we’ll see whether it adds up to the amount of money you claim you have.”
“That’s not going to make a difference.” said the police chief. “At this point, I’ve pretty much won. The outcome is already determined, so you should just accept it.”
If the police chief had nothing to hide, there would be no reason for him to obstruct any effort to verify the information he presented. Both the computer technician and the oil trucker knew it. If the police chief were really playing honest, he’d take the opportunity to say, “There you go, everything is accounted for, and it all adds up. You happy?”
Do the computer technician and the oil trucker have the courage to challenge the police chief any further? That’s up to you.
“I’m looking forward to playing against the police chief again in four days.” said the oil trucker. “Maybe he won’t cheat next time.”