#WalkAway – Millennial Voices Series

Why did you #WalkAway?

Walking to clear one’s mind can be therapeutic. Walking away from something or someone who you know is toxic for you is powerful and freeing. For myself walking away was just that. Why did I decide to walk away? Well, it all started during the time I was transitioning from middle school to high school I was smack dab in the middle of the awkward phase. I was one of those low self-esteem scene kids who was trying to fit in by being different.  You know the usual dumb teenager logic. During this time, I was super left wing all the way. Whatever my friends and left-wing media outlets said I agreed without question. I agreed because I didn’t want to ruffle feathers with my friends, I just wanted to belong.

During this time I was raped by someone who I had built a relationship with and thought I could trust. I was devastated, ashamed and I decided to hide it from my family. When I went to my friends about this because I didn’t know what to do and I was scared, they just gave me the typical, ” Oh I’m sorry,” and then they brushed it off and started talking about things like music and media. It made me feel so small and like what I  went through didn’t matter. These people that I was trusting with something that destroyed me yet didn’t even care, were the same people who always talked a big game about how they would be there for anyone who was sexually assaulted.

Shortly after this, I began to show different views from the rest of my friends. Trying to rebuild my relationship with God and still trying to overcome the traumatic experience I went through by developing more conservative views,  didn’t sit well with the group of people I had called friends.  They began excluding me, only a smaller group stayed friends with me and that was because I wasn’t showing all of myself to them. I was still trying to fit in. The same people who used to be my friends were turning into secret enemies, they began talking about me behind my back and spreading horrible rumors about me. By the end of high school, I had only but a hand full of friends and I was ready to be done with it.

College rolled around, and I still had some left-leaning views, and a herd mentality when it came to the 2016 election.  I believed what I was being told by the left media outlets until I was challenged to explain why I believed what I believed and what facts I had to back those beliefs up. This was the real wake up call, it made me stop and think and research for the truth. I finally felt free. This is my #walkaway story.

Katherine T.G.

5 Ways to Spot an NPC in Real Life

The NPC meme is spreading faster than the red flush of anger on a triggered liberal’s face. Twitter is swimming with NPC accounts spouting #greylivesmatter and #orangemanbad. Memes about the left are bountiful as their figureheads like Hilary fail to stand strong, and their mouthpieces like CNN and MSNBC crumble under the weight of public and political scrutiny. It comes as a reaction to growing factions of the American population waking up from the lies and deceit, the whitewashing and polemics, and the vitriol extolled as virtue in American politics.

The power of truth, nation and freedom are pushing through like new flowers after the snow. A conservative renaissance grows here, and NPCs will do anything to stop you from realising they’re losing the battle. The reason they hate the meme, calling it ‘dehumanising’, is fuelled by the same astounding lack of self-reflection that got them into this mess. The dehumanising has already been done, and the people who created the meme didn’t do it. Nevertheless, you’re waking up from liberalism. Ok, great! Want to know how to spot the machine in the man? Here’s five things you can look for to spot an NPC in real life.

1. They’re probably a student or an academic.

Not always the case, obviously, and their are more young people than ever waking up from the nightmare that is left-wing totalitarianism and group-think. However, there’s a sizeable number of young, impressionable and vacuous people out there, filled with with the residual fire of pubescence and a virtuous, if misplaced desire to change the world. Students are even moreso at risk of catching NPC-syndrome as they look up to their liberal professors for political guidance.

2. They REALLY hate the NPC meme.

Seriously, it turns them into slavering, rabid beasts, raging against the meme machine. Irony being they are the machine and no attempt at <compute= [show emotion . {Rage}]> is going to pull the wool over our eyes.

3. They are anti-Trump and they tell you ALL THE TIME.

‘TRUMP’S A RACIST’ is almost like a salutation for these people. ‘Hi Bernie, how are you?’, ‘TRUMP’S A RACIST’. Linda, what did you do at the weekend?’, ‘TRUMP’S A RACIST’. ‘What do you think about that new show on Netfl….’, ‘RACIIIIIIIST!’. I heard you loud and clear. I don’t agree with you, but my ears are doing cartwheels and may never recover.

4. They love stealing pro-republican signs.

This is their FAVOURITE thing to do. Like the crumpled creature Gollum in his pursuit of the one ring of power, these withered hobbits simply lust after republican cardboard signs with a vitality that is not reflected in their pallid, papery complexions. You’ve seen them tearing apart sign after sign, posting them through letter boxes and garbage containers, and running off into the night howling with triumphant satisfaction as they go. Newsflash, posting cardboard signs into the garbage, is bad for the environment. Posting it to the postman is just making his life more difficult. Anti-environment and anti-working person, very socialist, very virtuous.

5. In arguments, you’re always the ‘stupid’ one.

If you’ve argued with as many left-wing lexophobes online as I have, you’ll know that you’re winning when you’re blasted with the robotic, restricted repertoire of preset insults like: ‘stupid’, ‘loser’, ‘low IQ’, ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘bigot’ etc. Take it as a general rule that, if you’re getting at least one of these per response, they’ve got nothing, and are running on pure hatred, not the power of higher-thinking. Generally speaking, NPCs can only identify threats to their communal identity, as in any divergent idea from their homogeneous mess, by responding with buzzwords designed to alert other NPCs to the source of ‘malfunction’ in the matrix, you.

3 Minute Book Review – ‘Rude’ – Katie Hopkins

Rude‘ is an eye-opening and inspiring look at a life which everyone has decided is driven by ‘evil’. Crude at times, but (as always) brutally honest, Hopkins takes us from where she began to where she is now. This might better be named ‘The making of Katie Hopkins’, than ‘Rude’, because rudeness really features at the bottom end of the scale. What shines through is honesty, an integrity (which at times has cost her dearly) and boundless ebullience. You wouldn’t believe the trials Katie faced to get where she is today, and the struggle has shaped everything she does now. Knowing you might have less than two years to live, having seizures every night from a brain tumour that’s killing you slowly, and making a huge number of personal mistakes, would make anyone with courage into a Hopkins. Why we give her so much crap for it I will never understand.

Anyway, once you read ‘Rude’ and understand the foundations that built the person we see today, it all makes sense. In a way, not only does this book make for an interesting insight into someone you might not necessarily understand, it is also a humbling experience. What so many of us think of as ‘hardship’ is relative. Katie drags you into the depths of yourself to consider your moral fibre. What should I be doing with my life? How important is it to say what I really mean? How can I learn from my mistakes?

Life is not everlasting. We could all reflect on our own laziness and life-inertia, and learn how to be people of action by listening to the wisdom of a life lived in the fast lane. So fast, in fact, that this book encapsulates the feeling you get before you go over your bike or crash a car. This book is the essence of a ‘life flashing before your eyes’ and ‘Rude’ will make you reflect deeply on how to make yours count as you consider the time you have left.

5 Takeaways from Kanye’s Visit to the Whitehouse

The internet roared in response to Kanye’s dinner with Trump yesterday. If you were on Twitter at the time, it felt as if the two meeting had the impact of comets colliding in space, or the shuddering vibrations of the Earth’s tectonic plates. Surprising really, considering the placid, amicable discussion the two had together, never really feeling heated, never having the essence of catastrophe that so many highlighted online.

This was a frank discussion about beliefs, values and political standpoints between two happy, consenting adults. Sure, Kanye runs away with himself at times, probably more to do with nerves and excitement at the opportunity to speak to someone he admires more intimately. Even so, though his speech is sometimes rapid and disorganised, there’s a degree of truth in some of the things he says, and a great deal of hypocrisy from the liberal media in response to his genuine comments.

tuckeron kanye

Tucker sees some wisdom in Kanye’s enthusiastic discussion.

So, let’s look at the 5 main takeaways from the #kanyetrump dinner:

1. Swearing is not the worst thing that’s happened in the Oval office.

So, let’s be real about this, a little swearing is probably the least awful thing that’s happened in the White House. As Ben Shapiro was quick to point out in a twitter response to Jim Acosta who himself tweeted ‘Kanye just said ‘motherf***er’ in the Oval Office. Per WH pool.’, Shapiro responds: ‘And Clinton had Oral Sex in there. So if we’re going to talk about degrading the location…’. And he’s got a point. A few expletives aimed at no one in particular are, by histories standards, nothing to write home about.

clinton shapiro tweet

Ben Shapiro reminds people, a couple of swears is not the worst thing to happen in the Oval Office.

2. Kanye is looking for a role model, something we are sorely lacking.

Kanye launched into a discussion about the MAGA hat he wore, and how it made him feel during the campaign for Donald Trump’s presidency. With bright eyes, he exclaims ‘it made me feel like superman!’ and comments that while Hilary’s campaign ‘I’m with Her’ was fine, it didn’t make him feel the same way that Trump’s campaign did. ‘As a guy that didn’t get to see my dad all the time’, Kanye explains, Trump’s campaign made him feel ‘like a guy that could play catch with his son.’. And he’s right. People are screaming for good role models, arguably men more so than any other demographic. Many rallied on this point to show their support.

3. Using someone’s mental health as a way to shut them up is not Democratic.

It’s stunning that a day after #WorldMentalHealthDay happened and with the hashtag still trending on Twitter, CNN news anchors and other left-wing media outlets immediately attacked Kanye on grounds of insanity. A white female news anchor launched into an attack on the soundness of Kanye’s mind, stating ‘I think you had there a man who’s clearly not OK and a president who’s willing to exploit that’, further dragging Trump into the firing line to make him out as some monster manipulator of the mentally ill. She then goes onto describe the dinner as a ‘circus’, having just a sentence ago voiced outrage at the lack of address of mental health issues and race relations between Kanye and Trump. Make up your mind CNN. Are you advocates for mental health or are you part of the problem?

mentalhealthhypocrisy

Just a day after #MentalHealthAwarenessDay, CNN discredits Kanye by claiming he’s ‘clearly not OK’ and describes the dinner as a ‘circus’.

4. White anchors speaking on behalf of black people seems a little racist, doesn’t it?

Many were quick to point out that a large proportion of reports in the liberal media were from white anchors speaking for black people and using racial outrage as a weapon to discredit both Kanye and Trump. Others were quick to point out that even where there were black speakers on the topic of Kanye and Trump, black people were only allowed a viewpoint if it was strictly in line with the interests of the Democratic party.

twowhitepeople

A twitter user points out the hypocrisy of white anchors discussing the opinions of Kanye, a black man.

 

heyblackpeople.png

Can you even have a right-wing view and be black? CNN says ‘no’.

5. Using someone’s dead mother as a smear doesn’t seem all that professional.

Don Lemon, speaking for CNN, later commented that ‘Kanye’s mother is rolling over in her grave’ at the opinions and views of her son. That’s a bitter Lemon indeed. Is this a game of limbo? How low can you go CNN?

thedailycallerkanye.png

Don Lemon’s comments about Kanye’s dead mother used as smear against political opinion.

Is Being Honest a Form of Brain Damage?

Recently I watched an interview between Katie Hopkins, controversial columnist and journalist from the UK talk about her book ‘Rude’, with interviewers Paul Ross and Carole Malone of Talk Radio. In the interview, Hopkins was asked very little about her book, other than to comment that it was, in fact, ‘rude’, as far as Ross was concerned. Then, as usual, the two began the dogmatic drudgery of common media interview technique, to zone in on this point, asking why Hopkins is so rude all the time, all the while giving her less than no time to respond before cutting into her reply. ‘Read the book!’, she says, and she’s right, it exists to address the ‘why’ of that question so commonly raised in debates. And Hopkins makes as much of the milliseconds she gets to reply to make this point. A testament to her ability to cut through the bullshit and make herself heard. If you aren’t given the platform you thought, find the shortest way to make your point, a skill that Hopkins has mastered completely.

If the manner of the interview technique wasn’t enough to wind you up (even Hopkins was showing signs of irritation with Ross), the pair, primarily Malone, sidled into talking about Hopkins’ frank discussion about her past experiences with seizures and brain surgery. This was handled with all the delicacy of a lobotomy and none of the delicacy of the modern brain surgeon, something TalkRadio, the BBC and other left-leaning media outlets could do with ruminating on, not that someone as resilient and rambunctious as Hopkins was affected mind you. With an alarmingly quick preamble through Hopkins’ experiences, Malone launches into a question which is interesting and deserves a deeper discussion: ‘do you think that tumour, in some way contributed to your outspokenness?’, she asks Hopkins, which Ross interjects to clarify, assuming she means as a result of the struggle which Hopkins faced every day to go to work while suffering seizures. Malone replies ‘not even that’, wondering instead if the tumour ‘physically’ had ‘some kind of impact’ on Hopkins’ brain. Essentially, Malone is suggesting that Katie Hopkins is loud, brave, honest and empowered because a tumour ate away at the parts of her brain which should make her meek, gentle, kind and passive. She effectively asks the question ‘does brain damage maketh-the woman?’.

And this isn’t the first time we’ve seen news of the pathology of the right-wing. Several articles and videos have been calling for Donald Trump to step down over beliefs that his mental health is unsound. On the website ‘Real Clear Politics’ (already a worrying overemphasis of transparency by title), an article with a video of an interview with Psychiatrist Dr John Gartner suggests that Trump exhibits ‘malignant narcissism’, consisting of ‘narcissism’, ‘paranoia’, playing the ‘victim’ and ‘demonization of the opposition’.

One might think to themselves that nearly any successful politician (or indeed successful anybody) falls under these personality traits. Narcissism drives success, especially in the public eye. Being able to make use of the oppositions faults and find ways to deflect blame are tantamount to good business acumen. A healthy dose of paranoia keeps someone on their toes against threats to one’s position, such as a political coup from inside your own party, or character assassinations from without. It’s a spectrum, and when you’re just a little narcissistic, it’s not always a bad thing. Vital nuance that Gartner fails to factor into the discussion.

The left has, for a long time now, taken a protectionist stance on mental health. If you’re unwell, mentally, you should have treatment, with respect and dignity, and with the belief that you should have a happy, functional life. And yet, if you’re on the right and suspected of mental illness, how are you treated? As if a scourge to erase. Protectionist only so far as it suits personal political interests it seems. Over and above all of this, Gartner expresses a lack of professionalism as he equates those with pathological narcissism (a real psychiatric disorder) to ‘the essence of evil’. Should we be listening to the advice of Psychiatrists who are prepared to ascribe moral values to the people they treat?

So let’s think about this as a whole. If brain trauma can make us better speakers, less inhibited and more honest, and the vast majority of people gravitate towards people who speak frankly and with gravitas, then what does that say about ‘normal’ people? If the people who have normal brain function agree with Hopkins, but would never admit it themselves, what does this say about the normal human brain? Is a ‘healthy’ brain a lying brain? Now, before we explore that point, let me put a few things straight. First, I don’t believe there is such a thing as a ‘normal’ brain. Second, I am not for one minute suggesting that people with brain damage are ‘superior beings’ with a paranormal propensity for parcelling truth. This is an exploration of what Malone’s statement says about her views and also what a view like that might mean for our society. What does it mean for people with brazen views? What does it mean for people who disagree with Hopkins’ methods? And above all, why is a core virtue such as truth now on the verge of being (in the eyes of some) a pathological, even medical disease?

Let’s play devil’s advocate here, humouring Malone’s position for a toasty minute. So what are the implications for Hopkins’ successes being down to nothing more than the excision of a part of her brain? Well, for one, it erases a life of experience which really adds up to show us plainly why Hopkins does what she does. Living with seizures, finding out that a tumour is eating away at your brain. Being told that you have a life expectancy of two years if you don’t have risky brain surgery. Having to wake up every day in pain, knowing, inevitably, that the force of your bodies spasms will almost certainly dislocate your shoulders each night. These are the experiences that make a person strong through pain, and direct, because life really might be over sooner rather than later. And who knows about this? Virtually nobody unless they read her book (who reads books these days anyway?) because she doesn’t talk about it. The left is obsessed with providing a platform for victims and here an individual, having lived a harder life than most, has never overtly spoken about personal hardship in the public sphere. When you know it, everything makes sense. This is someone who values the truth because life is too short to lie, a bitter pill in itself, but one we all need to hear.

Real, human experience aside, where’s the consistency in an argument like this? Here we’re implying that somehow, having a mental illness or brain damage makes you less trustworthy, less able to convey an opinion of clout than someone who doesn’t have these things. But again, we see from the left, a malaise of mashed principles. Is it not ableist to suggest people with mental illness or brain damage cannot be taken seriously? The kind of implicated thinking behind Malone’s question seems to smack of hypocrisy. Furthermore, if we discredit a person’s opinion, their voice, based on the fact that they have a neurological disorder or mental illness (or both), what do we leave them with? It’s anti-feminist, racist, classist, ableist and sexist because it takes away the right of a person’s voice by discrediting it on the basis of something they cannot change. It is a perfect contradiction in terms and the left wing make it unabashedly.

And why is it that we now live in a culture that is on the verge of using appeals to insanity or brain damage in order to discredit people who are honest about what they believe? Is telling the truth a disorder? Is the lie natural and normal in human interaction? Perhaps it is, for now. But should it be? There is a sense that people like to hear the truth, even if they’re not prepared to say it themselves, and perhaps its time for as many of us as possible to bridge the gap between what we think and what we say. As for me, if it means that telling the truth is about the same as having a brain tumour, or brain trauma, then take me to the hospital. I’ll be honest Doc, all the way to the operating room.

Please follow Millennial Intent for more ideas on liberty, freedom of speech, and the direction of political discussion in society. Leave us a comment if you loved this article, we love speaking to you about your ideas. Have a great day and use your voice, you deserve to be heard.

 

University – A Psychopathic Institution?

Psychopaths come in many flavours, all of them dangerous, but there’s a common thread that strings them together. Psychopaths create personas to hide behind, they might be the pleasant co-worker who asks you what you did at the weekend, or the cheery neighbour who always says ‘Hi’ with a smile as you’re leaving the house. Psychopaths have no empathy, they don’t feel anything for others, and they work hard to keep it a secret until it’s too late. Psychopaths are punishing, they act with cool rage and crushing retribution, delivered with full force, no remorse, and no warning. Psychopaths are dangerous because you can never tell where you really stand with them, until it’s too late.

Universities, too, are a little bit psychopathic, and here’s why:

Before getting to University, I was sold a face that didn’t match the interior. The open day was a bright and happy affair, bloated with opportunities, glowing reports, shiny presentations, and cheerful students. The reality was nothing like it. Fresher’s week, a thoroughly bizarre experience, left me swept under by feelings of isolation, sadness, and confusion, in the wake of excess intoxication, no sleep, false friendships, and having to deal with the behaviour of students even less well adjusted than myself.

Seminars were awkward, uncomfortable silences, intermitted by an equally uncomfortable lecturer’s cajoling – to no effect. You could sense nobody wanted to be there. Exams came, I’d never felt so wrong. Existing, just, on caffeine, sugar, the promise of a restful summer with no essays or exams, and pure-bliss freedom. The relief came and went in an instant. I sat on my chair at 10 am, after being up for nearly two straight days and laughed. Hysterically. The summer lacked its promise. Where was the rest? Gone with the thought I’d not make it to year two. How did I know I would, when I wrote my 24/48 hour exams not feeling at all like myself? I didn’t trust Mr Hyde, the maniacal, caffeinated creature, to do me justice.

So that was year one. Sunshine and daisies? Hardly.

The flowers only grew on the grave of my stable sense of self, the sun revealed the camber of the newly disturbed earth beneath. And the face of the establishment fell. I knew that University was filled with hollow promises and veneered smiles. It came for the person I was and smashed it to pieces. A sledgehammer of insanity, it walloped me.

Am I the only one to take a bludgeoning? I don’t think so.

And what did it offer me as recompense? There’s the open door team. You can see them a couple of times a term, if you’re lucky. There’s your supervisor, untrained and helpless to help. There’s the groggy, sluggish system, which punishes poor attendance, but prances prissily around the issue of mental health support. I don’t even know where I stand with it. Who makes up the rules and more so, where are they?

So, for me, university feels like something pretending to be what it’s not. It left me to fend for myself psychologically and emotionally, and in confusion, caused by the dissonance between perception and reality. It didn’t care that I wasn’t coping. If it did, there would be the necessary infrastructure to support students in crisis, but the reality is, it doesn’t exist. The rapid pace, lack of support, and brutal examination periods has left me, and many other students battered. I didn’t realise until it was too late, and I’m part of a bigger problem. It’s happening to students everywhere.

UPP student survey for the Guardian found that 87% of first year students struggled with some variation of mental health issue. Of this figure, almost half (44%), reported feeling lonely or isolated. We are facing an epidemic of psychological illness at universities across the country. Universities are not doing enough to support mental health issues, and we need real change here. With an institution that hides behind a cheerful, sun-beam persona, obliquely avoiding the issue of mental health, and smashing students to bits psychologically, university is a lot like an anti-social monolith, and it must work with students to learn how to feel again.

The Age of Trickster: How Trolls are Saving the Internet

The internet troll, a harbinger of jibes, trickery and absurdity, has long been characterised as a perverse blockage, obstruction or intrusion on the normal flow of debate on the internet. But what if the troll was not a troll at all, but a voice of absolute necessity in times when internet discussions proliferate with censorship, vicious commentary backlash, and even harassment from the radical left and the suffocating clingfilm presence of political correctness?

Now let me be clear, when I use the term troll, I am only referring to the internet presence that will roll over and duck under the comments of opposition, the magicians who raise the diametrically opposed opinion from the grave, play devil’s advocate, obfuscate, deflect and reverse public discourse online. We’re not talking about the harmful and evil presences on the internet who will hurt people, find where they live and ruin their personal lives. These people are destroyers. They are not trolls, they are actively malicious, disturbed and dangerous people who quite honestly should be held accountable for their behaviour.

No, the internet troll is a trickster, a devil and a God, a master of reversal, everyone’s fool and everyone’s master. We’ve all been talking about serious topics online and then someone comes into the fray and blows a ridiculous, silly hole in the discussion and everyone is losing their minds ‘you must be a troll, nobody can be that stupid’ they say. The conversation is very often political and sensitive to many. Feminism, racial tensions, transgender pronouns to name a few hot topics. Then, out of nowhere, when all prevailing discussion is comforting, safe and settled, BANG! ‘Men deserve maternity leave, the woman should get back to her job after having the baby’, or ‘I don’t know why transgender rights are an issue, I’ve been called worse things than the incorrect pronoun for my gender’. The troll has dropped a payload that has wrecked serenity, bastardised the unwritten rules of civility and defiled decency of discourse.

Naturally, people react with contempt, with loathing and hatred, some with dissolution, some with confusion, but some will see it for what it is, disruption. And ok, most of the time, people don’t get it, they reject trolls as if they are merely flies to be swatted and disposed of, but is a fly so easy to kill? Famously we have all seen the fly in a movie or cartoon that totally destroys the set up. Take for example Looney Tune’s Bugs Bunny conducting a symphony orchestra in one of many episodes from the franchise, a grand and serious affair. One fly flits and buzzes about, so insignificantly, yet, so crucially. Bugs loses it and proceeds to smash cymbals, puncture drums and feverously swat at the tiny thing until the entire ensemble is in ruins and the show, completely derailed.

Image result for bugs bunny orchestra

‘Bugs Bunny at the Symphony II’ A single fly brings a pompous event to its knees.

It’s the trickster troll’s resilience, evasiveness and ability to wreak inadvertent catastrophe with nothing but a whisper (or a buzz) which deserves our respect and attention. And we should look back to where the trickster came from to find out why he does the things he does. Carl Jung, a pupil of the most famous Psychologist in history, Freud, came up with the archetypes, including the archetypal trickster. He states, using the example of ‘Mercurius’ (The Roman God Mercury) that the roman God embodies most strongly the trickster in ‘his fondness for sly jokes and malicious pranks, his powers as a shape-shifter, his dual nature, half animal, half divine, his exposure to all kinds of tortures, and last but not least – his approximation to the figure of saviour’[1]. The motif is prevalent and recurrent. Apollo the messenger was also trickster, the Native American Coyote, and the figure of the shaman who deals in dark arts have all come to signify the archetype.

Trickster permeates popular culture too. For example, Dr Facilier from Disney’s ‘Princess and the Frog’ is a trickster figure who manipulates spirits but ultimately ends up at their mercy when he fails to fulfil the contract he agrees to gain their command. Daenerys Targaryen from the phenomenally successful Game of Thrones series makes a deal with a female witch doctor, Mirri Maz Duur, her child’s life for her husband’s (Drogo) restoration from a fatal wound. The female witch doctor tricks Daenerys and she ends up with a shade, a dribbling fool and a baron womb. Mirri Maz Duur dupes Daenerys but ends up being burned by fire just before we witness an even greater miracle of birth, the three dragons, thought to be long extinct. In this way, though the trickster plays tricks, the new trick deployed always backfires and trickster becomes the one in the firing line.

Image result for daenerys mirri maz duur

Mirri Maz Duur tricks Daenerys into paying for Drogo’s life with her unborn child.

The trickster, Jung suggests, is also exemplified by the ‘’monkey tricks’’, the ‘state of affairs in which everything goes wrong and nothing intelligent happens except by mistake at the last moment’, the preface leading into a connection of trickster with the workings of politics[2]. Again, we have all witnessed our own disbelief at the sheer absurdity, pettiness and childishness of our political representatives, yet the world has not fallen apart and changes for the better still come into being despite the incredible nature of some of the debates we sometimes end up audience to on the internet or from our television screens.

So why does this figure recur and enter so many doors into the human consciousness? Jung argues the trickster is our primitive ‘shadow’, the antithesis of civilisation, a primal entity which antagonises against order[3]. And, it is this shadow that we must never forget though our want of civilisation paradoxically wills us to try.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the rise of political correctness across the west, a direct result of our loss of sight of our equalising shadow, the trickster. Remarkably Jung foretold this also in his discussion of the role of trickster in society:

‘The disastrous idea that everything comes to the human psyche from the outside a ‘tabula rasa’ (blank slate) is responsible for the erroneous belief that under normal circumstances the individual is in perfect order. He then looks to the state for salvation, and makes society pay for his inefficiency. He thinks the meaning of existence would be discovered if food and clothing were delivered to him gratis on his own doorstep or if everybody possessed an automobile. Such are the puerilities that rise up in place of an unconscious shadow and keep it unconscious’[4].

So the trickster comes to serve as a reminder of our core subconscious shadow, a force of chaos and instability which is a part of all of us, but that our consciousness will suppress and resist in the pursuit of civilisation.

But, given this necessity of push and pull, the shadow against the light, the light isn’t always good. In fact, when the light shines everywhere and the shadow disappears, we are left blind to our ugly side, but not enlightened or excised of it. As Jung predicts, we look out at a world lit up, anticipating that the shadows lurk outside and can be found, but we forget that the shadow is in us, and we cannot find him always without, but always within.

So, we hate our trickster trolls for their obfuscation, their trickery and ugliness. An era of political correctness asks us to excise the entities which will act against civility by censor and seizure of rights to speak for fear of offence, but if that is the state then why has the internet troll become a mythology of the internet, inextricably tied to it, enshrined forever? The further we punish trickster into hiding, the greater our need is for his presence. The internet troll no better embodies an age of civilisation gone too far. We need trolls more than we have ever needed them, but perhaps if we recognise how trickster impedes us from within, we will not continue to push him into hiding, only to make him stronger.

 

Bibliography

Jung, C. G. n.d. The Archetypes And The Collective Unconscious. 255 – 267

Got an idea? Want to write for us? Contact us!