The true identity of an artificially famous e-celeb named Ricky Vaughn was apparently leaked by the notorious Paul Nehlen, an American politician and “White Nationalist”. Vaughn’s faceless profile reads: “Staunch Republican, American Nationalist, Supporter of President Donald J. Trump, Free Speech and Anti-Racism Activist. Holocaust Respecter”. I am not sure how he was able to get so many followers, but I presume it is because people are paid to shill for him.
An extremely irritating person called Greg “Grinder Greg” Johnson wrote a sharticle condemning the practice of doxing, exclaiming that: “Any movement person who doxes another movement person must suffer the social equivalent of a death sentence”. Greg. Greg. Greg. I don’t know much about you dude, but the only time I ever heard you speak, you were arguing in favour of a Christian Theocracy so that the government would stop you from your own degeneracy. The role of the Government isn’t to make sure you’re a good boy, Greg. I find it confusing that the same religion you espouse denounces homosexuality, Greg. If Christians were as adamant as you apparently are about your anti-doxing stance about their theology, shouldn’t they shun you for being a homosexual?
Greg, you tool, you know full well that many in this movement have been shunned by their whole families and friends for espousing non-pc beliefs. How can you now promote the idea that they should be shunned by their only friends because they exposed the true identity of a person who was actively undermining them? There is a big difference between disagreeing about optics of military uniforms and banning anyone who dissents from the opinion that public demonstrations are bad.
Is Doxing Bad?
It really depends who is getting doxed and who is doing the doxing. Anonymous doxes are a sign that someone has a lot of enemies. When someone is willing to dox you under their own name, that means you have severely angered them. The question then becomes: is this anger justified? This is a complex topic but we can give a general stance that whoever is motivated without consideration of the harm their actions will cause is the one who is less justified in taking action.
Determining the least harmful path is not a simple matter because harm will often be caused either way. In the case of Vaughn, we have a list of alleged “movement contributions” supposedly indicating his loyalty but we also have to consider the fact that his opinions cause more conflict than they resolve.
The general rule is: a doxer should be minimising the overall harm caused by his action. That is: the doxee’s continued anonymity is more harmful than their exposure. I think it’s pretty easy to see that more good than harm comes from doxing Ricky Vaughn. One’s identity should back up one’s statements if they are assailing the honour of another person. A lemma of this fact is that when one defames another person publicly, they risk a stain on their own reputation. The practice of double standards (i.e.: backing up seedy shysters and banning truth seekers on your shitty forum to mould opinion in your favour) is repulsive to any honourable person and it should be exposed. There ought to be consequences for alliances, there is no other way to build a good dictatorship hierarchy.
We Strive Towards Indifference in the Face of Fame and Infamy
You are free to act, but you’re not free of the consequences of your actions. If you’re going to act like a fuckwit, you’d better have a damned good reason for it. If all you do is obsess over “movement optics”, don’t be surprised when someone does some “optical analysis” of their own on you.
I would have been happy to just ignore the dweeb Vaughn but asswipes like Gregulator seem to want to force people to take a side. Well, I’m on the side of smart people who have the compassion to govern. I’m against those emotional trainwrecks who think politics exists to pad their wallets or stroke their massive egos while they peddle neo-bolshevism.
Where is the Line Drawn?
While people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to force those opinions onto others. The day I take orders from a faceless, nameless online account is the day my brain takes a permanent vacation. Ricky Vaughn can fuck right off. Anyone who disagrees with me can fuck right off, especially Grinder Greg. This is unironically the future he wants:
The Future is Personality Cults
In my past life, I strictly condemned false religious preachers, why would I stop now? Some dumbzos say that this is “punching right”. It’s not. Since I have a high standard, I can hold others to that standard and it’s not hypocritical. I help others become smarter and better people, thus minor pains experienced their egos reformatted is certainly worth it in the grand scheme of things. A fat anonymous slob hiding behind a groyper avatar with the support of a bot army does not have a standard worthy of judging others. He does not deserve a “personality cult”. You should not have a personality cult if you are anonymous.
The structure of society has always been a tapestry of personality cults. Sri Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Adi Shankara and many others all shaped the societies they influenced through the mechanism of their personality. This is why each individual must choose the personality they want to follow. This will inform everything about their decision making process from morality to logic and beyond. The only logical personality cult to follow is the one which is most God-like. We cannot know what is God-like without first performing inquisition and we will not be able to craft an optimal society if we are not free to criticise those that defy the protocols of the God-like cult. Thus the logical position is that no individual person can never fully embody the God-cult and thus it is the duty of all persons to combine their energies to create it together. Thus the person that best embodies the God-cult should lead it but the cult itself must always be open to improvement, when such arguments are offered in good faith. Anything short of this causes a slow degradation into individualism (“muh cult’s better than yours!”), which causes a loss of God-knowledge, which causes atheism and general spiritual decay. The future is personality cults. Either join one or start one if none suits your fancy. But stop denying the central role of religion in public life. Please. Just stop.
Individualists become morose nihilists by denying the natural hierarchy of nature and seekers gain knowledge about the natural hierarchy. This knowledge serves as a vehicle for the attainment of desires all the way to the realisation of the final desire: the desire for the cessation of suffering. I have explored this idea previously when I discussed the logical flaw of individualism. In that piece, I attempted to demonstrate how no one can truly be an individual unless one has internalised the fundamental node of the God personality. In this piece, I have tried to demonstrate that actions cannot be separated from intentions and that considerations of harm are complex and must be conferred central importance by those accepted as priests.