Misfits logo with "Normies" written instead of "Misfits"

It's near impossible to imagine a current day anarchism that leverages our collective isolation into something meaningful. Anarchists have retired from our positions as missionaries who spread the good word to awaken the latent spirit of common folk, and instead vow to resume our rightful battle stations as Enemies of Society once again! In doing so, we've taught ourselves to treat former members of the dreaded Community with suspicion and judgement--sometimes deserved, sometimes not. Who's to say?

We've learned not only to appreciate difference but to radically define ourselves through it--you know, to really put the "an" in front of "archy" and live it out no matter who gets in our way (go, team, go!)!

Claiming difference as anarchists usually means breaking some ideological concepts, laws, and maybe a few hearts along the way, while doing our best not to apologize for it (even when we could). After all, opposition to "regular" society is foundational to anarchism.

It's not just that we are opposed, but how.

In attempts to abolish normalcy, however, I see anarchists continuing to do the enemy's work for free, reducing large swaths of people to the category of "normies" -- no doubt a self-serving us vs. them dichotomy where anarchists conveniently gain the higher ground.

What's a normie anyway? The guy fixing my car when I haven't a clue what that rattling noise means? Oxford button-up shirts with button-down collars? Only stroller-pushers or all passers-by whose misery doesn't match my preferred aesthetic? Does this category include all taxpayers, or only those who do it with a smile? Cis-hetero-colonial-patriarchy-white-supremacy?

A strict enough definition would find normies infiltrating anarchist study groups and staring back from within mirrors. How we judge others usually applies to how we see ourselves.

I wish this framing was a simple defense of normal people, but it's not. I've met quite a few normies (by my own definition) and can't say the pros outweigh the cons. Hell, I feel no different some days. Perhaps harsh judgment is warranted, after all. Maybe normies dream in muted grayscale while anarchists learn to marvel at our Technicolor failures in Dolby Digital Surround Sound. Is this the qualitative difference worth fighting for?

===

Where do you draw the line between yourself and normies? How can anarchist self-perception create difference without falling into snobbery and moral judgement of others? Equally as important, how can anarchists be critical of others without falling back onto some milquetoast, laissez-faire "to each their own" position?

Or are you one of THEM?!

Listen to the conversation here!

Comments

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/10/2024 - 14:04

There's many ways to ponder this topic. One way I am amusing myself with is asking myself : who is happier and how?
There are people that are pleased with the status quo, and people that are happy despite of it, then there are people who are happy in their own bubble of delirium, detached from reality. Then there's people who are unhappy with things as they are, and people who are miserable in their own delirium. Was Sisyphus a normie? Must one imagine him happy?

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/10/2024 - 14:12

In reply to by anon (not verified)

While the question of human freedom in the metaphysical sense loses interest to the absurd man, he gains freedom in a very concrete sense: no longer bound by hope for a better future or eternity, without a need to pursue life's purpose or to create meaning, he enjoys a freedom with regard to common rules".

To embrace the absurd implies embracing all that the unreasonable world has to offer. Without meaning in life, there is no scale of values. "What counts is not the best living but the most living."

Thus, Camus arrives at three consequences from fully acknowledging the absurd: revolt, freedom, and passion.

Thus norminess in the metaphysical sense is abiding by common rules, bound by hope for a better future or eternity, pursuing goals and creating meaning, failing to revolt, and lacking passion.

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/10/2024 - 20:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

This wrong-headed in sooo many ways I can only laugh at the comment.

So yes, you're correct that Sysiphus -despite being a Greek myth that's got nothing to do with our world- was a symbol of non-normativity and to an extent of anarchy. As the dude was doing things *his own ways*, according to his own principles and feelings, and cared little about the codes, values and rules of the herd. He didn't give a fuck about the norm, and when his own way. And was punished for it... so this legend served as a moralist tale on individualism.

Which is the clue here.... that the individualist -not necessarily the anarchist, even tho they are relatable- is the true antagonist of the normie. As the normie is the one that *conforms*, complies, compromises... so to be "fitting in the mold". For whatever reason that may be, from personal opportunism to fear of social reprimands.

Being a normie or not has nothing to do with someone's stance on "the absurd".. it only has to do with your attitude toward social norms, whether perceived, implicit or instituted. You're a dude and keep your hair clean cut, bathe, shave and perfume every morning.. that makes you a good soldier of society, i.e. a typical normie, soldier. And it's not in a metaphysical sense, it's basic sociology. lol

anon (not verified) Wed, 06/12/2024 - 11:34

In reply to by GO3

showers, and baths with soap uphold euro-civ normativity. why, besides xenophobia, did post-roman societies give up on the roman tech of using oil as soap? if you oil your body up, especially at a public bath, you're gonna feel good about yourself, and you might even feel really good about every part of yourself. whereas soaping is done with the connotation of separating the grain from the chaff? sin from sinner? God, Cleanse Me Of The Need To Cleanse Myself!

anon (not verified) Thu, 06/13/2024 - 14:02

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Listen dude, soap is cool, and if mixed with warm water kills 95% of bacteria, and it stops these skin growths I get on my face, but I digress, I made soap from woodash and fat, it's a useful byproduct which maintains the morale and health of many poor communities who only have a few clothes, their good health, their intellectual wit and olfactory pleasure and their clean unsoiled beauty to display.
Use soap and read a book!

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/10/2024 - 18:08

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Was Sisyphus a normie?"

Why is that even a question, or how is that relevant to normativity?

Of course he was notma normie... his very miserable fate was due to him not conforming to the collectivity and its culture.

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/10/2024 - 15:21

Wow... we didn't have a good TOTW like this one in centuries. Thanks to put that up and will comment later.

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/10/2024 - 15:25

Individualism is United States of 'Murika hogwash, but that Occupy slogan "We Are the 99%" is also complete bullshit. The wealthiest - roughly - 11% of the populace are the class enemy. We must politically combat and dispossess them..

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/10/2024 - 17:59

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Got any data to.back that up or you just seen that in your soup?

Society is made of *castes*, not classes. Even today's marxoids constitute castes. Why you guise keep insisting on classes, is because you need a revolutionary subject to seek taking control of, toward overthrowing the Rich. Good luck with that in 2024, tho.

anon (not verified) Mon, 06/10/2024 - 21:04

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Keep huffing solvent -- it's doing you wonders. Pre-capitalist class societies have castes, not the one we are in now.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 09:17

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Ok so thanks for confirming that you're just talking out of your ass, and got absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

Class theory is DEAD.

The US is NOT individualistic... it is on the contrary almost as much collectivistic as China. Big business schemes based on social trends would have never worked in an individualist America. Like Graeber said, this is a collectivist society, but run by capitalists. Just not state capitalists.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 12:31

In reply to by anon (not verified)

To 09:17

That's nice -- now eat your cereal. And no phone time until after breakfast! And don't leave your dishes in the sink. Just because I'm your Mom it doesn't mean I'm also your maid.

GO3 Tue, 06/11/2024 - 12:35

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I wouldn't say class theory is dead though because classes are analytical categories unlike castes which are sometimes rigid institutions of exclusion and subjugation. Just because you're a small business owner or professional managerial class doesn't mean the world isn't basically divided between owners and workers. Even the cops are wage slaves who have sided with power and most revolutions rely on a certain segment of non proletarians to side with the revolution. So whether you drive a hybrid, drink Starbucks coffee and carry an iPhone or ride a girl bike, carry a Tracfone and shop at Dollar Tree you are still a wage slave who doesn't own the means of production.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 13:50

In reply to by GO3

So basically "I wouldn't say class theory is dead... but class theory is dead."

I mean you gave a solid cause in your first sentence for using caste as analytical tool (which would lead to rich, complex, multidimensional inquiry) instead of the dead horse of class theory, so why keep riding a dead horse?

GO3 Tue, 06/11/2024 - 15:55

In reply to by anon (not verified)

The lower classes outnumber the ruling class so I think there's still potential in the workers and it may be useful to speak of such things. There is some overlap in the broader definitions of caste and class. I wonder what your motivations are for throwing out a history of class analysis? I'm more of a determinist than a voluntarist so I don't think that social transformations can necessarily be catalyzed by small groups but people get caught up in the movements of history and play their part on the world stage. So if you are Papa Stalin you have a principal role to play while an urban cyberpunk role is minimal but then there is the butterfly effect, so go figure. There are also bad actors.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 22:21

In reply to by GO3

Well first off, I wonder what are you doing in anarchism as determinism is quite fucking ontologically opposite to it. Is there such a thing as Christian Atheists? Not sure.

Then you say 'I wonder what your motivations are for throwing out a history of class analysis?"

Ask it the other way around.. why should I maintain it? How is this so relevant in 2024?

But my motives (and no it's not as the Maoist troll would put it, that I'm some Tatcherite libertarian capitalist.. and no one should care what I am anyways!) have gotta to do with the inherent shortcomings, tensions, contradictions that this analysis keeps raising.

More like... the "proles" are just not a united whole, like nowhere near. The revolutionary subject, as a collective entity, is dead. It died somewhere mid-20th century. It's goine. The dispossed are a complex, multifaceted, fragmented, dispersed, and very often inwardly hostile bunch. But they're not even a bunch... that's the problem. They are not related with one another.. or they are, but only through technological and mediated means of production that are entirely in the hands of the masters. And the masters are doing that for obvious reasons.

The dispossessed also care more about possessing more (or the illusion that they do), than abolishing property altogether. Some will prefer avoiding its dogma, its rules, but then again to people like you that'll translate to "lifestylism", "individualism", "adventurism", yady yada.

So then you got power.

Even among your ancom-rads, it's an accepted ultimate value, and goal. People want more power, yes. That's why they get into gangs, family capital, workers coops with buddies, then move up the social ladder. But that's not revolution. That's just capitalism.

Also class theory is rather bad at explaining the history of racism in the US, or the broader mechanism of exclusion, consolidation and segregation in all parts of society. Caste analysis totally DOES, like in that great essay by Wilkerson linked in another comment, or like in my much shorter essay I put out a bit later: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fauvenoir-for-a-better-critical…

Class theory is an epistemological funnel; it turns everyone into a comic book level of ontology and identity, and the relationships they pertain to. I know there's something beautiful in seeing any other prole as a potential comrade... but that's delusional and on top of that, not really the most honest way to get to know people. There's something also flattening that's not irrelevant to this TOTW, too.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 23:20

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"There is no alternative." Margaret Thatcher

"The revolutionary subject, as a collective entity, is dead." Propeller-topped beanie-wearing poindexter.

Spot the difference!

anon (not verified) Wed, 06/12/2024 - 03:37

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I'm seeing quite a bit of confusion here. The person talking about "caste" isn't anywhere near Thatcherite. Being against class reductionism or social anarchism DOES NOT mean being for capitalism. Most post-left anarchists are anti-capitalist - but in the context of being against the whole of society or modern civ. That's very different from Thatcher's "no alternative". In fact, part of what fuels the post-left critique of leftism is the fact that lots of working-class people have become total fucking bigots who love cops, hate work-refusers, hark back to the 1950s, and whine whenever GDP goes down or protesters cause any nuisance. The rustbelt voted for Trump in 2016. Not all of them, but the majority. Honestly, at this stage the working-class has betrayed its own revolution, and that means that isn't a working-class socialist alternative. All the revolutionary force these days is with the radically excluded. In any case I want to destroy a lot more aspects of modern society than socialists do, I don't just want state ownership of companies or a bit more workplace democracy, I want rid of the whole normative spook-enforcement machine including the duty to work, the police, prisons, psychiatry, schools, most industry, industrial farming, etc. Everyone's unique and society necessarily excludes and oppressed. People should be able to move and settle where they like, live how they like, and form small societies if they want to, with people they're compatible with. They shouldn't be thrown together into big abstract collectives.

That "caste" book seems to be a novel theory of class/race oppression. It's not necessarily distinct from "class theory". Looks rather similar to stuff like Race Traitor. I haven't read it but the biggest problem seems to be that these castes do not officially exist and aren't even named. I do think the main lines of exclusion, oppression, dehumanisation have moved, and these days anyone falling below a certain bar of good-enough conformity is treated horrifically, whereas anyone above that bar is in a different world. This isn't the same as class or race or psychiatric hierarchies though it often overlaps with them. Nobody admits the bar is there and usually it's dressed-up as punishing "choices/behaviour" or "managing risk". For example, someone can be above the bar even if they have so-called mental issues if they self-manage in the ways demanded by the system. The people who do this often then have polar opposite experiences and political views relative to people who can't or won't self-manage or it doesn't work. It's a huge difference - people below the bar are dealing with a very violent system, blocked opportunities and systemic harassment everywhere, no recognised rights, a lot of outright brutality and abuse. People above the bar, until/unless they're unlucky enough to be caught up in some dragnet or witch-hunt or become unable to work, seem to live in a world which is banal, stressful, boring but basically tolerable, where they cope most of the time, nothing really bad happens, and they're lulled into a sense that things are mostly OK. The level of delusion about the state of the world, and about people below the bar, among people above the bar is absolutely staggering. Such as: we can protest legally and safely as long as we don't vandalise anything. Such as: police are only a danger to criminals. Such as: people can get help from the state if they need it. Such as: everyone can work and there's enough jobs for everyone.

anon (not verified) Wed, 06/12/2024 - 12:00

In reply to by anon (not verified)

yeah this is a nice way of describing othering by using a composite, abstract strata. the bar is set by overcoding and it changes slightly from time to time and place to place, but it's "I can tell you're below the bar simply from your first premise and so i can disregard you entirely, like i would a misguided child."
in "trust kids" they call it childization: a proxy for any type of othering. for lacan, below the bar is outside to society (i guess he's bourgeois-centric?). for derrida (please correct me if necc.) there are infinite potential systems of signifiers, and below the bar would be any that's not the set claimed by the social order. if you go out there, no bourgeoisie will be able to listen to you, but others who have more shared symbology will be able to coexist well... :)

GO3 Wed, 06/12/2024 - 11:40

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Thanks for the toots guise. I know it takes some emotional labor to write these comments but hey that's what we do cuz we're the commenting class. I read the text cited above so now I've had a taste of fauvenoir thought. Class, caste and identity are conceptual overlays that map the movements of human activity and where they coalesce but the map is not the territory and not the thing in itself. My motivation is to chart a course through the world and find like-minded people and I'm always sailing the seas of cheese.

anon (not verified) Wed, 06/12/2024 - 15:14

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Poking cheap shots at cyclists, dumpster divers as well as campfire enjoyers? Oooooooooh, sounds like some normie ressentiment here!

GO3 Fri, 06/14/2024 - 15:24

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Workers unite! We have a world to win, not resent. Marxism is a winning strategy not something to do because you're angry. If you're angry go protest or smash something. The way we win is by being united so let's get to it.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 07:02

I have a few different definitions of a normie depending on context.

Politically, normies are people who mostly remain within the Overton window and don't challenge state power or capitalism in any significant way. They don't think there's anything much wrong with the world as it is or if there's something wrong, it can easily be fixed without very much change, or in many cases they don't even ask whether the system is justified.

Philosophically, normies are moral idiots who are attached to conventional spectres/spooks and who don't show much autonomy from what they're told they should think. They're not Stirnerian egoists and they don't have many strong convictions of their own either.

Sociologically, normies are "good subjects" - people who have developed in such a way that they fit well into existing social institutions and structures, and have some kind of desire to do so. Normies usually work, drive, live in families or single-person households, pay rent or mortgage (unless super-rich), spend most of their spare time consuming contemporary mainstream cultural products, raise kids (if any) in nuclear families and send them to school, support/call the police, trust biomedicine and psychiatry, etc.

Psychologically, normies are people who think in the kinds of ways the culture industry and propaganda systems can manipulate easily. They have internal norms backed by breakers which make them anxious when something unexpected or forbidden happens, and these norms and breakers are closely aligned to those of the social mainstream and constructed through constant back-and-forth feedback with other normies and with propaganda sources. They don't seem to experience, or else repress or deny, the deep alienation and dissatisfaction felt by virtually everyone else.

Obviously these are rather fuzzy clusters and people fall on a continuum - but a lot of people are very definitely normies.

Not everyone who isn't a normie is an anarchist. People holding other political positions considered extreme by the state, the more excluded types of psychological minorities (especially those who won't or can't "self-manage"), criminals/social deviants, very eccentric people, houseless people, drop-outs, etc. are also not normies. There's people I don't get along with and criticise a lot, who also aren't anywhere near to being normies.

The main point of naming normies as normies is that there's so many of them and they're so socially valued that they're often able to pass off normie shit as human nature, everyone, natural, all reasonable people etc etc. Or, they portray things in such a way that everyone but normies is inferior or bad. It's important to push this back and say: no, not everyone is like you, you're also fucked-up as much as/more than others, and actually your kneejerk conformity is doing a lot of harm (even by your own standards). Also because normies think they're more unique and autonomous and different from one another than they actually are. Normies might be unique underneath but their surface selves are all similar within a very narrow range. List 1000 transhistorical variables in opinion and way of life and normies would probably have 999 in common.

Basically normies are either people who have been duped into taking the system and its spectres for granted, or people who decided at some point to submit, conform, and please the powerful and then later gilded this abject surrender with illusions.

I hate normies because they're cogs in the big social machines that try to oppress me, because they provide a dead weight in support of the police-state and the system, and because they generally hate me or think I'm worthless, even if they don't admit it. I can tell they hate me because they hate anyone who's too different from them, morally value conformity, and actively support and cheer for systems and crackdowns that threaten me or make my life harder.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 07:53

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"I hate normies because they're cogs in the big social machines that try to oppress me, because they provide a dead weight in support of the police-state and the system, and because they generally hate me or think I'm worthless, even if they don't admit it. I can tell they hate me because they hate anyone who's too different from them, morally value conformity, and actively support and cheer for systems and crackdowns that threaten me or make my life harder."

me me me me me me me me me me me -- go run for Governor of Florida, ideologue of victimization and passivity.

anon (not verified) Wed, 06/12/2024 - 03:45

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Why do you con yourself that the whole world consists only of clones of yourself and incarnations of your imagined absolute enemy?

Stirnerian egoism =/= rugged individualism.

Are you denying that normies make it harder for the rest of us to live actively and without being victimised?

Or are you just butthurt that I hate the people you think are the angelic "revolutionary subject"?

Keep arguing with your own shadow, spook-lover.

GEF (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 10:14

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Good points here.

Let's also add that it's really about conformity. Normies are the conformists, no more no less. Regardless of what they conform to; by conforming they are making the norm more pervasive, giving it force, crediblity and diffusing it further.

Normativity seeks to erase individuality, uniqueness, even as some normies will indeed believe themselves to be special, "edgy", on top of the crowd... while they're really just championing normativity, if not reforming it liberally.

Normativity's goal is to flatten people; make them look all the same within a mass society that's based on statistics, or Sartre's "serialization". You only count if you can fit in the mold, because "Everything Counts At Large Amounts" (title of an old Depeche Mode song). So fitting within molds defined as confluent to mass cultures, you give yourself a ticket to social entryism within any institution. But in the process there is a flattening of the Different, of the uniqueness of your individuality, as you become part of a socio-cultural agglomerate where everyone is the same.

Let's take in the picture Robert K. Merton's Strain Theory of Conformity and Deviance, and its five modes of adaptation. As embracing norms is only but one mode of adapting to social strain...

anon (not verified) Wed, 06/12/2024 - 04:27

In reply to by GEF (not verified)

Nice comment.

Just looked up Merton. Retreatism and rebellion seem to be the anarchist options (rejecting both goals and means of system), while innovation covers a lot of ordinary crime/deviance. Ritualism's probably the hardest to handle. Ritualists come across as hyper-normies, can we tell them on the surface from conformists? I get the impression that a lot of socially critical but conformist people fit into this group. Leftists, idpols, socdems, radlibs, who can have pretty radical critiques of the system in principle but their resistance never goes further than politics-as-usual or permitted lifestyle stuff - are probably ritualists. These people are especially annoying because they can't see how their activity ("means") is still deeply conformist even though their commitments aren't.

anon (not verified) Fri, 06/14/2024 - 03:53

In reply to by anon (not verified)

You hate fuzzy clusters of people on a continuum? That sounds like a rough place to be.

Is it really a helpful way of thinking about continua of difference?

fuck normies (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 07:33

Normies evil. The question is, are you a normie?

Normie scale

Talk to cops (+70 pts)
Supports cops (+30 pts)
Has job (+50 pts)
Has career (+100 pts)
Commits misdemeanors intentionally (-40 pts)
Commits felonies intentionally (-100 pts)
Lives in house or apt (+40pts)
Lives in squat (-40 pts)
Lives outside (-80 pts)
Lives communally (-40 pts)
Lives in van or bus (-60pts)
Feral (-120pts)
Drives car (+50 pts)
Uses public transport in (+10pts)
Rides bicycle or walks or skates as primary transport (-10pts)
Rides trains as primary transport (-90pts)
Dress like punk (+250pts)
Pat the bunny fan (+300pts)
Likes Tiqqun or in a polycule (+700pts)
Understands or wrote "more talk more rock" (-7000pts)

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 13:53

In reply to by fuck normies (not verified)

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 07:40

"They're not Stirnerian egoists" -- honk, honk -- cue derisive laugh track. Nothing is more red white and blue All-American and conformist as hell than wallowing in individualism. Go wear your MAGA hat, Jethro.

max (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 07:45

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Must suck to be up there on the scoreboard and look self in the mirror and ask: why am I wasting my life as a scared little bitch.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 07:47

In reply to by max (not verified)

And now we can add misogyny and incel online tough guy posturing to the mix. Goody goody.

anonarchist (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 08:29

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Different anon here. Why do you think "a scared little bitch" would be considered "misogyny"? This is an incredibly sexist position. It could be based misandry. You should learn from your error and eliminate the latent sexism from your thoughts. Neech is a good place to start when committing to examining yourself. Try some fresh, wild-garden vegetables too. Nutrients assist learning.

anon (not verified) Wed, 06/12/2024 - 03:49

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Have you even read Stirner, you half-wit?

How about Orwell? Gotta love that line "individuality = conformity". Can we add "uniqueness = sameness" as well?

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 08:23

The moderators are the real normies forcing everybody to conform to regulated conversational behavior or be punished and disappeared. What could be more normie than conforming out of fear of punishment?
FUCK THAT SHIT

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 09:19

In reply to by anon (not verified)

You got no idea what conformity and "normie" is, bird brain. Same as when you were calling moderating being the "police". Not sure you deserve arguments for this, tho.

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 12:27

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Same as when you were calling moderating being the "police". "

Except this didn't happen.
This is exactly like the time you said all women were nazis.
See? I can make things up too. Or did I???

You should beg the moderators to delete your mistakes!

anon (not verified) Tue, 06/11/2024 - 13:59

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I consume gloop-glop and spend tummy time on Anews to better develop my upper glutes so that the normies will think I am one of them when I impress them at the beach! Cornbread is delicious but contains too many GMOs that would better serve the multiple tummies of cattle!

alex (not verified) Wed, 06/12/2024 - 09:42

for 2 year olds? my kid saw some cartoon soldiers on the tv and now he's saying "soldiers are pretty cool" because "they do war." i asked him what "war" means and he said "it's what soldiers do." i can't seem to get across the concept of a tautology and i think he may require re-education...

lumpy (not verified) Thu, 06/13/2024 - 08:41

In reply to by alex (not verified)

you only NEED the gulag after you're trying to convince kids that war is cool (because it is, kids like cool shit cuz they're dumb) but some of the OTHER kids aren't that stupid, so you get the dumb kids to build a gulag for the gayer kids who like books and holding hands because they keep making the dumber kids smarter and gayer

it's called STATECRAFT alex, get your shit together

alex (not verified) Thu, 06/13/2024 - 14:53

In reply to by lumpy (not verified)

ah so you're suggesting i build my own gulag? thats fair, bad look on my part to forget the DIY ethos... fortunately my kid decided he's anti-war now because he realized eddie vedder is, so who can say whether normie conformism is good or bad

alex (not verified) Thu, 06/13/2024 - 17:45

In reply to by anon (not verified)

eh i don't want to encourage any kind of conflict or poverty tourism. maybe i should just sign us both up for the azov battalion, show him some drudkh, teach him about opportunism etc. thank you for the suggestion

anon (not verified) Thu, 06/13/2024 - 16:59

The Brilliant - Episode 94 – Kill All Normies
with Aragorn! and chisel
https://thebrilliant.org/podcast/episode-94-kill-all-normies/

Description from the website:
"Angela Nagle’s book was released at exactly the right time, with a perfect title, and great marketing. It is a leftist take on the Trump era, it is exactly on point about the intersection of a bunch of shitty tendencies, and speaks of them with surprising fluency. That said, this book is a lie. It is a dissertation about women and the Internet. It is more-or-less from a hard leftist position. It’s reach far exceeds its grasp.

chisel and I discuss all of this and more.

Here is a link to the book. http://www.zero-books.net/books/kill-all-normies"

anon (not verified) Fri, 06/14/2024 - 17:35

For the politically minded layman (petite-normie) who has just come across this site, this essay is about YOU! , and the other 99.999% of the rest of your caste. I'm just a Stirnerian observer, the only real anthropo-individualist on this planet. We laugh alot at the present global circus!

anon (not verified) Sat, 06/15/2024 - 12:04

This is a great prompt. Sometimes I feel normie as hell, riding a social script of predetermined filters. Other times I’m acutely aware of how far outside the norm I’m traveling. Maybe I’m not a good judge either. No feeling either way lasts perpetually. I love many of the so called “normies” in my life, several love me back. I also loathe quite a few. Ultimately I don’t think the monicker is helpful, all “normies” contain loads social differences and life experiences I can’t just dismiss, so many different life perspectives and adaptations totally outside of myself. I find it all fascinating and informative as well as deeply frustrating and confounding at times.

anon (not verified) Sun, 06/16/2024 - 14:51

a fictional idea to describe someone who works and doesn't engage in the activities of radicals and anarchists.

However, it has been clearly established, by people who are curious about what goes on with others, that everyone has some "weird" quality about them: some people share these qualities more than others.

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
E
H
f
k
z
L
a
b
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.