The Stalking Zone

Does acquiring an obsessive, mentally disturbed stalker mean that I'm now officially a celebrity?

Leaving Facebook

A few weeks ago I left Fakebook permanently and forever.

This was not a spur of the moment decision. This was a decision I had been mulling for a long time, and delayed, I believe, for far too long already.

Here is why I left.

I had had enough.

I had had enough of the drama queens, who think every moment of their existence is worth shouting out to the world. I had had enough of the liberals and their “Russiagate”, their anti-Putin rants, and their rainbow flagwagging. I had had enough of the “transgender activists”, the “gay rights” rubbish, and the neurotics who validate their existence by how obsessively they use Zuckerberg’s site.

I had had enough of pretending, even by my silence, that I give a damn about homosexuals or “transgender” people, or breeders who pretend that not spawning is somehow selfish and anti-human. I had had enough of Jew-hating Holocaust deniers, zionazi-supporting fascist vermin, Islamomisiac racists, Modifellating Bhaktonazis, and the rest of them.

And I had had enough of Amerikastanis. Back in 2003, when Bush invaded Iraq, I had made a statement that went like this: “If you are an American citizen, and you do not go out of your way to explicitly prove that you are opposed to the warmongering policies of your government, you are a war crimes enabler and a war criminal as far as I am concerned.” That was after 90% of American citizens had approved Bush’s declared “crusade” against the world in 2001.

Think about that a moment. 90% of American citizens supported a war of aggression without end, against people who had done them no harm.

There is no forgiveness for this.

Oh, I tried. Over the next few years I deluded myself into the mistaken belief that only the government and the media of America are corrupt and evil, and that the basic American has the same redeeming qualities as anyone else. That idea began to die when the blood soaked war criminal George W Bush left office to be replaced by the even more vile blood-soaked war criminal Barack Hussein Obama – and the very same Americans (people whom I had known for years) suddenly traded their opposition to war carried out by the Shrub for enthusiastic approbation of war carried out by the Mulatto Messiah with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Still, I hung on. I hung on until the Amerikastani 2016 election and its aftermath (which is still dragging on to this day). I hung on to see the same Amerikastani liberals who allegedly opposed American wars proudly pose with their spawn in uniform; I saw them become cheerleaders for the same FBI and CIA which they had been shrilly condemning a decade earlier. I saw people who spent their time hating everything about Trump either stay completely and deafeningly silent on his wars abroad, or attacking him because he simply wasn’t doing enough killing.

I repeat – these were the very same people.

And I had had enough.

Finally, I have gone right back to my position in 2003, which I now am fully convinced was essentially correct: “If you are an American citizen, and you do not go out of your way to explicitly prove that you are opposed to the warmongering policies of your government, you are a war crimes enabler and a war criminal as far as I am concerned.” I would however add one extra phrase: "... irrespective of the party in power in your country" after "policies of your government."

I do not intend to be fooled again.

Telling them this was, and is, pointless. Amerikastanis think they know everything already. As President Putin said recently, after unveiling Russia’s new missiles, Russia had been begging Amerikastan for years to understand that the current path led down to nothing except dangerous confrontation, but Warshington would not listen. “So listen now.”

They did not listen to him, either. Putin doesn’t really have an option; as a national leader, he has to deal with Amerikastanis. But I don’t.

This was another major reason why I left; I wanted to limit my exposure to Amerikastanis as much as I could. It was essential for managing my own stress levels, on top of everything else. On other social media I use, I interact either with relatively few Americans (who are not Amerikastanis, but thinking humans) or where politics are not discussed, like on the comic satire blog on the left of this page.

Then there was Fakebook itself.

What is Fakebook?

First, it is a tool of enslavement. Fakebook is like a drug; it drip feeds you “likes” in an effort to make you a neurotic whose self-worth is measured in those likes, and who therefore keeps trying to get more. In order to get those, of course, one has to fit in with the tastes of one’s contacts (Fakebook keeps suggesting an ever expanding list of contacts) and so you find yourself conforming to whatever propaganda Zuckerberg decides you should believe. And he censors the rest.

This censorship is both direct and indirect. Fakebook direct, or overt, censorship is crude and highly visible. Links from RT or other non-Amerikastani or NATO-controlled media disappear quickly; I once had a link from RT vanish within thirty seconds of posting it, while one from the CIA-controlled Washington Post on the very same topic, saying the same thing, stayed intact. That’s obviously to compel adherence to the War Party line, as is the arbitrary banning of (invariably pro-Russia and pro-Syria) users for any or no reason whatever.

The indirect, covert, censorship is much less well known, and that is the one that makes a lot of money for Zuckerberg. You may miss this fact, but Fakebook has no content. None. It’s like an empty building. All the content is provided by users, and all of it is free of cost to Zuckerberg. He just has to make money from it.

And he does it by quite simple means. You have a page on Fakebook where you want to post your music, or art, or writing, or anything that you want the world outside your contacts to see? Fine, you can do that...as long as you pay Zuckerberg to promote it. If you don’t, said page might as well not exist as far as 99.99999999% of Fakebookers are concerned; they’ll never see it.

Then there are the adverts. Fakebook keeps trying to mine data, endlessly, so that it can tailor adverts to you. Any of the “games” your idiot friends keep trying to get you to play aren’t games; they’re tools to get information about you so that advertisers can hit you with their lies. And, of course, the data also goes to the CIA. Of course it does.

I was sick of the attempts to brainwash me into a neurotic zombie spending every waking hour making money for Zuckerberg. I was sick of the censorship. I was sick of the “promoted material” being pushed on me.

This was although I was using far less than all the tools Fakebook kept trying to push on me. I did not download the Fakebook App. I refused to use Fakebook Messenger or Fakebook Lite. I did not play any games. I disabled all text messages and emails from Fakebook. And still it was far too much to tolerate.

So I quit.

Even quitting wasn’t easy. Fakebook makes it as hard as possible. The site only gives you, from the site itself, an option to deactivate your account, meaning it’s still there, and any time you sign in it gets activated again. There is a way to permanently delete your account, but you would never know it from Fakebook. Google “How to delete my Facebook account permanently”, and you will find a link on this page. From it you can apply to have your Fakebook account deleted. But you would never know it from the main Fakebook site. Even then I had to wait two weeks before they wiped my Fakebook permanently.

How do I feel now that I am without Fakebook? Do I miss anybody? Do I have any withdrawal symptoms? No and no. As I said in a farewell message I put up before I left, those who were interested would know where else on the net to find me already. Those who didn’t know weren’t interested. And I am far from surprised to find that just one single person followed me to my alternative sites, no matter how much many of them pretended sorrow (or, a sad emoticon, :( ,because writing a line is too hard and taxing on the attention span) at my leaving Fakebook. Just one, who left one message for me on VKontakte and stopped being active there. The rest of those who are still connected to me on alternate sites were already connected.

I am still writing my novel, and I am still drawing cartoons, and I have some more peace of mind since I freed myself from Zuckerberg’s shackles. If you think you should, too, you know what to do.

Goodbye, Fakebook, won’t ever be back, won’t miss you.

 

[Image source]

Purkayastha's Four Laws of Modern Internet Debate

Isaac Newton had his Three Laws of Motion. Arthur C Clarke had his Three Laws of Technological Progress. The other Isaac, Asimov, had his – fictional and already disproved, but still – Three Laws of Robotics. Well, in the footsteps of these great thinkers, and of course desiring to go one better, let me now propound for your delectation Purkayastha’s Four Laws of Modern Internet Debate:

Purkayastha’s First Law (also known as the Law of Racist Trollery):

(Cf. Godwin’s Law, which states that “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.”)

In any internet discussion involving Barack Obama, the probability of any dissenting person being labelled an ignorant racist troll by True Believers increases exponentially the less the True Believers know about the dissenting person.

Corollary: If the dissenter is known to the True Believer, the reaction will centre round the proposition that the Nobel Peace Prizident is doing the best he can in the face of extreme and unprincipled opposition from the rival party, which is stifling all his initiatives. If the dissenter then asks why the Prizident, if so crippled, doesn’t resign his post, or why he appoints advisors who are known to be complicit in the crimes of his inglorious predecessor, the questions shall be ignored.

[Obviously, I have a long history of being labelled an ignorant racist troll and conservative right-wing Tea Partier by Obama religionists whom I have asked about the Peace Prizident’s war crimes. Apparently, they’re so hard-wired to respond in only one set of terms to all dissent that they can’t bring their minds round to formulate a new set of abuse to fit the circumstances.

[The most extreme – and pre-emptive – version of Purkayastha’s First Law I’ve yet come across was in November 2008, when Obama religionist and former Multiply member auntb93also declared – on the occasion of the Prizident’s first election – words to this effect: “(Obama is) ... a black man so superior that any criticism of him can only stem from racism”. Auntie B deserves full credit for inspiring the First Law, and I gratefully acknowledge her contribution.]

Purkayastha’s Second Law (also known as the Whistleblower Smearing Law):

The probability of any self-styled “left liberal” commentator launching a smear campaign against a whistleblower increases in direct relation to the distance said whistleblower’s personal lifestyle or political beliefs are from those of said commentator.

Apparently, to these people, in order to be acceptable, a whistleblower must be exactly like them - must have the exact same viewpoint on everything. Otherwise, he must be a fraud of some kind, and he is the Main Enemy; what he said can be ignored.

[I’m, of course, not talking about right-wingers in this because their response to any and all whistleblowing is predictable. But the “left-liberal” – by which term I mean the American kind of left, which is not left, and the Hollywood kind of liberal, which is not liberal – commentators who are making a daily routine of smearing Edward Snowden are a perfect example of this breed. When they can’t find anything new to smear Snowden with, they smear those who defend him. For example, when Snowden claims his life is under threat, they mock that assertion. And when the plane of the Bolivian President is forced down and searched on the allegation that Snowden might be aboard – and thus directly vindicating said claim – they frantically look for new targets to smear.]      

Purkayastha’s Third Law (also known as the Anti-Semitic/Kapo Law):

In any internet discussion involving the actions of the so-called state of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinian people, defenders of the Zionist entity will invariably reflexively label all opponents as Jew-hating anti-Semites. If the opponent then cites the many Jewish organisations which are openly and strongly opposed to the Zionist entity, the defenders will immediately call those Jews traitors and Kapos.

(Kapos being Jewish or other prisoners who acted as trustees in the concentration camps, ruling over their fellow inmates in return for better living conditions and food.)

[I once had occasion to point out on one such forum the fact that any Jew who therefore arrogates the right to speak for all Jews, and to decide who’s a “traitor”, is displaying the essence of fascism. That didn’t go down well with the forum members, who added “jihadist” and “pig” to the “Jew-hating anti-Semite” tag they threw at me. It wasn’t a very intelligent forum.]

Corollary: In any internet discussion involving the actions of the so-called state of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinian people, in a forum with an anti-Zionist majority, there will be a commentator who will blame its crimes on all Jews and will go on to deny the Holocaust happened. If one then cites the many Jewish organisations which are openly and strongly opposed to the Zionist entity, said person will claim that those Jews are merely providing a smokescreen for the crimes of the Jews as a group.

Purkayastha’s Fourth Law (also known as the Revolutionary Law):

The likelihood of a “popular revolution” being nothing of the kind increases in direct proportion to laudatory internet commentary praising it. Conversely, the more sceptical one is about such “revolutions”, the less likely one is to be surprised about the eventual outcome. Also, the more sceptical one is, the more likely one is to be at the receiving end of criticism or abuse from “revolution” supporters.

[The obvious example is the so-called Libyan Revolution. Remember all the talk of Gaddafi ordering his planes to bomb civilian protestors and the alleged impending massacres in Benghazi? Remember the “brave rebels” praised by Hollywood Liberals like Sean Penn? Well, we all know how the (so-called, Western-backed) Libyan “revolution” turned out, don’t we? And we all know how the so-called Arab Spring, so widely praised online, has morphed with extreme speed into a fresh Arab Winter, with the people now rising against the governments which came to power during those protests two years ago.

[I’ll admit that I’m guilty of this to some extent. I was always sceptical of the Libyan Revolution, but I was initially taken in by the anti-Hosni Mubarak First Egyptian Revolution, though I recovered fairly quickly from that delusion, I’m glad to say.]    

I'm sure these black Libyans are just feeling SO free

Other Laws will probably be added as and when I think of them. In the meantime I invite you to add your own.

This is why you shouldn't forward Internet crap

I came across this on another web page, and couldn’t resist analysing it, because it’s such a perfect illustration of why one shouldn’t re-post material from the net without a little fact-checking and analysis. Even if the author of the original article had a socio-political agenda (as it’s obvious he or she has) with which you agree, when the material is so shoddy and provably false, you’re harming your own case by regurgitating it.

First, the original article:

Question 1:

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already,
three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally
retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an
abortion?

Read the next question before looking at the response for
this one.

Question 2:

It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote
counts.
Here are the facts about the three candidates.

Candidate A:
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with
astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8
to 10 Martinis a day.

Candidate B:
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used
opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C:
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke,
drinks an occasional beer and never committed adultery.

Which of these candidates would be our choice?

Decide first... No peeking, and then scroll down for the
response.

*

*

*

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.

And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question:
If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.

Pretty interesting isn't it?
Makes a person think before judging someone.

Remember:

Amateurs ... Built the ark.
Professionals ... Built the Titanic

Right.

For the purposes of this analysis, I won’t go into the abortion question per se (though those of you who have read me for a while know precisely where I stand on that). I will, however, point out that Beethoven actually had a single older sibling (also Ludwig) who died at the age of six days, and three younger siblings - Anton Karl, Nikkolaus Johann and Maria Margaretha Josepha. ^[Source]

Don't you think the author of the piece had such great contempt for the readers that he or she assumed they didn't know anything about Beethoven or couldn't be bothered to read about him on their own?

Then, I don’t know enough about Franklin Roosevelt to say whether or how accurate the information presented is, but I do know something about Churchill, and I know a lot about Hitler. Oh man, do I know about Hitler.

Well, Churchill. The only reason Churchill wasn’t hanged for war crimes is that he fortuitously (more due to Hitler’s blunders than anything he did) ended up on the winning side of the war. Unlike Adolf, who came to the war crimes game late in the day, Churchill was an opportunist from the beginning, and a war criminal from long, long back, from the days of the Great War when he was First Lord of the Admiralty and – among other things – used the quite illegal Q ship programme (armed naval ships disguised as civilian vessels), had British ships illegally fly the (then neutral) American flag, and engineered the destruction of the Lusitania by stripping it of its escort when he knew a U Boat was waiting with orders to sink it. In Iraq in 1920 he had civilians bombed with poison gas. In the Second World War he attacked the virtually demilitarised and helpless ships of the neutral French navy, watched unmoved while three million Indians starved to death in an artificial famine, fire-bombed Dresden, and had planned to use poison gas at Normandy. He had to be persuaded to put the Nazi leadership on trial instead of executing them on capture. I don’t know about sleeping till noon, but there are plenty of reasons not to vote for him. Even supporters of Churchill need to acknowledge that he, more than anyone else, was responsible for the decline and fall of the British Empire.

Ah, now the Big One, Hitler. It’s a common myth that he was a vegetarian; he was actually rather fond of sausage, meat pie and stuffed pigeon, and last I looked that didn’t count as vegetarianism. Nor was he a “war hero” in any sense of the term – his fellow soldiers called him a “rear area pig”, a regimental messenger who rarely visited the front, and his alleged exploits were retconned into his biography by Nazi propagandists at a later date. His famous Iron Cross, incidentally, was recommended by a Jewish officer. And as for his non-adulterous nature, Hitler was probably a syphilitic, and it’s certain that his niece Geli Raubal died mysteriously (probably committed suicide) after he had what we might delicately call an “inappropriate relationship” with her. So much for that.

The depths of lunacy are reached, of course, with the Titanic part of the article. That ship had design errors which were absent on other ships made around the same time, and was sunk more due to the policies of the owners (the White Star Line) than to anything else – including the decision to steam full speed ahead through Northern Atlantic iceberg territory and the lack of lifeboats. As for the Ark...it’s a myth, for dog’s sake.

One would think the person creating this article might have spent a single minute googling for the facts, but that was probably beyond him/her. But then – seeing that there are people who are willing, nay, eager, to disseminate said “information” without analysis, one can’t really blame him for taking the easy way out.

I’ve often thought that if you write a thoughtful, researched article and release it on the web, it will die out in three forwards at the outside. Write a piece of attention grabbing crap, though, and it’s going to go viral at top speed.

Like this.