I mean, yes. But the question is, could the technology have been achieved without the liberalization that accompanied it? And can the technology exist without having a liberalizing effect?
Yarvin knows that this is a major question, and he’s written about it a lot. He believes that yes, both things are possible. I’m not persuaded because there should be some major limiting factor to stop the technology (including of the medical kind) from being all about extreme self-indulgence.
Xtianity no different —
The YOUTUBE clip: Brandon Gill SHUTS UP unhinged Jasmine Crockett after her woke tirade crosses the line, depicts tuma cognitive warfare.
In this context, the Brandon Gill–Jasmine Crockett exchange isn’t just political drama—it’s an orchestrated moment of cognitive warfare. It bypasses policy debate and instead targets identity, emotion, and tribal loyalty. Whether orchestrated or simply exploited after the fact, it contributes to a larger system of psychological manipulation in the infosphere.
The exchange, especially when edited for conflict, activates the amygdala—The amygdala is a small, almond-shaped cluster of nuclei located deep within the temporal lobes of the brain. It is part of the limbic system and plays a crucial role in processing emotions, particularly those related to fear, pleasure, and aggression. The amygdala is involved in the formation of emotional memories and helps to regulate responses to emotional stimuli. It also interacts with other brain regions to influence behavior and decision-making based on emotional experiences—engaging fear, anger, and pleasure centers more than rational analysis. This is neurological capture: inflaming emotional circuits to override deliberative cognition, keeping the brain in “us vs. them” mode.
The incident is cast as a metaphor for larger ideological battles: conservatism vs. progressivism, order vs. disruption, “truth” vs. “wokeness.” It conditions viewers to see political discourse as a zero-sum spectacle, aligning them with a cultural narrative beyond just policy.
The audience for this clip is clearly targeted: politically engaged individuals on the right who are fatigued by “woke” rhetoric. The language, editing, and dissemination aim to reinforce existing biases and trigger dopamine-rewarding outrage or schadenfreude—a German term that refers to the feeling of pleasure or satisfaction that one experiences from witnessing the misfortunes of others. It combines the words “Schaden,” meaning harm or damage, and “Freude,” meaning joy. This emotion can arise in various contexts, such as when someone feels happy about a rival’s failure or when they find humor in another person’s embarrassing situation.
The clip’s virality is no accident. It is tailored for shareability—short, emotionally charged, adversarial. Social platforms algorithmically favor such content, turning it into a weaponized meme that deepens echo chambers and reduces nuanced discourse to winner/loser binaries.
By elevating one lawmaker as a symbol of order and the other as chaos, this exchange becomes a tool to rally supporters and demoralize opponents. It sends an implicit message: “Our side dominates; theirs is irrational.” This plays on tribal loyalty, a cornerstone of PSYOPS.
The viral framing—“Brandon Gill SHUTS UP unhinged Jasmine Crockett”—is a classic example of selective narrative construction. The title primes viewers with a judgment (“unhinged”) and a victor (“shuts up”), shaping perception before any facts are absorbed. This is cognitive framing designed to elicit emotional reactions, especially among partisan audiences.
While various frameworks exist to understand cognitive warfare, one perspective outlines six key facets that collectively target neurological and psychological processes:
The deliberate dissemination of false or misleading information to confuse, mislead, or influence target audiences. This includes tactics like spreading fake news, deepfakes, and conspiracy theories to erode trust in institutions and factual information.
Strategic campaigns designed to influence the emotions, motives, and objective reasoning of individuals or groups. These operations aim to alter perceptions and behaviors to align with specific objectives.
Utilizing platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to amplify divisive narratives, suppress dissenting opinions, and create echo chambers. This facet leverages algorithms and bots to manipulate public discourse and sentiment.
Employing data analytics and machine learning to identify cognitive vulnerabilities and tailor messages that can influence decision-making processes. This includes personalized propaganda and predictive behavior modeling.
Emerging technologies that interact directly with the human nervous system, such as brain-computer interfaces and neurostimulation techniques. These tools have the potential to alter cognitive functions and behaviors, raising ethical and security concerns.
Shaping cultural narratives and ideological frameworks to align with specific agendas. This includes influencing education, media, and public discourse to gradually shift societal values and beliefs.
LikeLike
Here’s a classic example of Xtian new testament propaganda. Which I bring to support the previous statement: “Xtianity no different”.
Would respond to Government banning the Xtian bible trash like this: Another example of Xtian gospels revisionist history and replace theology avoda zarah.
Luke 18:1–8 … what a load of absolute bull shit. This propaganda frames its conclusions of “neither feared God nor respected man”, without offering a shred of actual evidence to support its claim. This claim aimed to direct the readers to assuming that this judge to be unrighteous. “Hear what the unrighteous judge says”. The concluding verse 8 therefore jumps to a religious revisionist history and supports the unproven existence of “the Son of Man comes” which has absolutely no connection what so ever with the Case of a Judge who righteously ruled with justice!
The other leg of this false logic syllogism: “alway lpray and not lose heart”. Equally not related nor in anywise proven by the slander propaganda made upon a righteous judge who fairly compensated a widow who suffered damages from some other Jew.
LikeLike
I’m with you on this, Clarissa. We are where we are because of technology. Technology has made many previously impossible things possible which are actually destroying us and a world that took centuries of efforts to create, the aim of which was to transform the jungle we come from into a civilisation for which we need to be shaped.
However, because technology satisfies human instincts, huge numbers of people are not only unaware of what it is doing, but even blind to its dehumanising effects. They only see that certain basic, primordial human needs and desires are being sated thanks to technology, which is all that matters to them.
I’m surprised that Yarvin seems unable to grasp this.
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment