After the reported assassination of Charlie Kirk, I was reminded of my definition of "Authoritarian Anti-Traditionalism", because I realised my definition was not broad enough to encompass certain probabilities, such as a right-wing influencer being brutally gunned down from over 100 yards away by a disgruntled Gen Z male, who was not employed by any public institution or public office, and was reportedly raised as a Republican by his family, but was later reprogrammed via the public education system into a faggot-loving antifascist. I don't know what the killer's beliefs were. But given what was reported about him so far, I think it's fair to say his brain was filled with more left-wing than right-wing ideas at the very moment when he pulled the trigger. I can't be certain he was really a faggot-lover or antifa. But if you have furry-inspired and antifa-inspired inscriptions on your gun and your bullets, I'm gonna assume your views are somewhere along the lines of pro-LGBT / antifa
I suppose this definition is a viable summation of a radical left-wing social order that could be administed by a left-wing government and its supporters
But what does it mean when you have a right-wing party in political power, but effectively all institutions in the public and private sector have somewhat been infiltrated by people with radically left-wing beliefs? You have a dichotomy, where the political divide between the Left and the Right is too far to sustain itself in the long term. If the people of a nation become too politically divided, it essentially sets the stage for a future civil war, or social decadence to the point where the nation becomes unsustainable and in need of radical revolution. Personally I'm not against anarchy or war, as I don't oppose to the idea of normies killing each other
The reason why the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's death stood out to me, is not because it exposed the hypocrisy of left-leaning normies and self-empowered women (I've always been familiar with the hypocrisy of foids and normies), but because it became quite evident to me just how politically divided the United States has become. This seems ironic when you think about the fact that the United States was essentially united against their former rulers, the British Empire
The social media reactions to Charlie Kirk's death reminded me of that agreement between Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias in the Watchmen (2009):
Manhattan was aware of the political tensions between the United States and Russia during the Cold War, and he believed the situation would escalate to nuclear war unless the US and Russia shared a common "greater threat". So how did Manhattan unite the US and Russia? By taking on the role of the "greater threat". Ozymandias was the one who caused that explosion in NYC, but his intention was to frame Manhattan for it. After Manhattan learned why Ozymandias did it, he agreed with his reasons. Ultimately, Manhattan would publicly take the blame for something he didn't do, in order to unite people who otherwise would've went to war with each other. The killing of Charlie Kirk doesn't directly relate to the plot in the Watchmen, but they both have similar undertones in political context
The bottom line is this: People need enemies. To be exact, people need enemies that they believe pose an immediate threat to them and their beliefs. Having enemies that they see as a threat gives them a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging (to people who share the same enemies), and a sense of self-worth. But once their enemies are no longer a threat to them, they need to find new threatening enemies, even if it means having to search within their own communities. Otherwise they will lose self-esteem and their sense of purpose
My theory is that the life of the average American has become too comfortable. Foreign nations such as China, Russia and North Korea may be their enemies or rivals with the potential to threaten the USA and its people, but it's been almost a century since Americans have actively participated in a great war with another militarized state that posed an immediate threat to the safety of American citizens on their own soil. For this reason Americans no longer have reason to feel immediate fear from the idea that a foreign military will invade their country and kill or imprison them. So as they now believe they dont have any enemies from foreign territories that pose an immediate threat to them, their next point of resort will be to seek out enemies from within their own communities
Their enemies don't even have to be real. All they need is the belief that their enemies are real. For all they know, Charlie Kirk could have been a covert agent with no loyalty to the Republican or Democrat party, despite his political activitism on social media and real life. But it doesn't matter who he actually was. The idea of Charlie Kirk that was planted into the minds of left-leaning normies and foids, was enough for them to see him as an immediate threat to their left-wing beliefs. Thus it provided the modern Left with enough motive to celebrate his demise once it was publicized on social media. Their enemy is slain. That is the essence of the situation as far as they see it
It's the same with blackpillers. If a foid that slept around outside of wedlock was murdered (or raped), blackpilled incels will feel a sense of solace or pleasure upon learning the news of her death, even if they've never seen or met this foid in their life, because in the same essence, their enemy is slain
This ties in with the post from @SlayerSlayer about how many people are covertly seekers of the Schadenfreude:
incels.is
They want to learn about people being hurt and killed, but specifically people who they believe are a threat to their identity and belief system. It's the same thing in the religious world as it is in the political world. I suppose the motivation for seeking out Schadenfreude is because people want to have enemies in order to experience the fulfillment and self-esteem boost from seeing their perceived enemies die. It provides fulfillment to see one's perceived enemy be hurt or killed
A Schadenfreudist unmotivated by a pursuit for enemies is merely a sadist without values, an amoral sadist. But a Schadenfreudist motivated by the pursuit for enemies is not only a sadist, but also a moral sadist - A sadist that has values, and regards those values as fundamental to their identity and sense of meaning
I suppose this definition is a viable summation of a radical left-wing social order that could be administed by a left-wing government and its supporters
But what does it mean when you have a right-wing party in political power, but effectively all institutions in the public and private sector have somewhat been infiltrated by people with radically left-wing beliefs? You have a dichotomy, where the political divide between the Left and the Right is too far to sustain itself in the long term. If the people of a nation become too politically divided, it essentially sets the stage for a future civil war, or social decadence to the point where the nation becomes unsustainable and in need of radical revolution. Personally I'm not against anarchy or war, as I don't oppose to the idea of normies killing each other
The reason why the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's death stood out to me, is not because it exposed the hypocrisy of left-leaning normies and self-empowered women (I've always been familiar with the hypocrisy of foids and normies), but because it became quite evident to me just how politically divided the United States has become. This seems ironic when you think about the fact that the United States was essentially united against their former rulers, the British Empire
The social media reactions to Charlie Kirk's death reminded me of that agreement between Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias in the Watchmen (2009):
Manhattan was aware of the political tensions between the United States and Russia during the Cold War, and he believed the situation would escalate to nuclear war unless the US and Russia shared a common "greater threat". So how did Manhattan unite the US and Russia? By taking on the role of the "greater threat". Ozymandias was the one who caused that explosion in NYC, but his intention was to frame Manhattan for it. After Manhattan learned why Ozymandias did it, he agreed with his reasons. Ultimately, Manhattan would publicly take the blame for something he didn't do, in order to unite people who otherwise would've went to war with each other. The killing of Charlie Kirk doesn't directly relate to the plot in the Watchmen, but they both have similar undertones in political context
The bottom line is this: People need enemies. To be exact, people need enemies that they believe pose an immediate threat to them and their beliefs. Having enemies that they see as a threat gives them a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging (to people who share the same enemies), and a sense of self-worth. But once their enemies are no longer a threat to them, they need to find new threatening enemies, even if it means having to search within their own communities. Otherwise they will lose self-esteem and their sense of purpose
My theory is that the life of the average American has become too comfortable. Foreign nations such as China, Russia and North Korea may be their enemies or rivals with the potential to threaten the USA and its people, but it's been almost a century since Americans have actively participated in a great war with another militarized state that posed an immediate threat to the safety of American citizens on their own soil. For this reason Americans no longer have reason to feel immediate fear from the idea that a foreign military will invade their country and kill or imprison them. So as they now believe they dont have any enemies from foreign territories that pose an immediate threat to them, their next point of resort will be to seek out enemies from within their own communities
Their enemies don't even have to be real. All they need is the belief that their enemies are real. For all they know, Charlie Kirk could have been a covert agent with no loyalty to the Republican or Democrat party, despite his political activitism on social media and real life. But it doesn't matter who he actually was. The idea of Charlie Kirk that was planted into the minds of left-leaning normies and foids, was enough for them to see him as an immediate threat to their left-wing beliefs. Thus it provided the modern Left with enough motive to celebrate his demise once it was publicized on social media. Their enemy is slain. That is the essence of the situation as far as they see it
It's the same with blackpillers. If a foid that slept around outside of wedlock was murdered (or raped), blackpilled incels will feel a sense of solace or pleasure upon learning the news of her death, even if they've never seen or met this foid in their life, because in the same essence, their enemy is slain
This ties in with the post from @SlayerSlayer about how many people are covertly seekers of the Schadenfreude:
The single thing I hate most about school shootings are the normie platitudes
RIP to all victims and my condolences :foidSoy: REAL MEN don't murder innocent victims :chad: Just because the shooter is trans, doesn't mean trans lives don't matter :soy: NO NO NO. Fuck all of this noise, its all so empty, fake, and boring. Every school shooting, to me, is the perfect time...
incels.is
They want to learn about people being hurt and killed, but specifically people who they believe are a threat to their identity and belief system. It's the same thing in the religious world as it is in the political world. I suppose the motivation for seeking out Schadenfreude is because people want to have enemies in order to experience the fulfillment and self-esteem boost from seeing their perceived enemies die. It provides fulfillment to see one's perceived enemy be hurt or killed
A Schadenfreudist unmotivated by a pursuit for enemies is merely a sadist without values, an amoral sadist. But a Schadenfreudist motivated by the pursuit for enemies is not only a sadist, but also a moral sadist - A sadist that has values, and regards those values as fundamental to their identity and sense of meaning
Last edited:
