Guest Post: Addressing a Weak Attempt at Sewing Hatred and Division in the OVC/GVC

ExpandedMind

 

Greetings, Gentle Readers. Today, GrumpyVamp is pleased to bring you a guest post by Blacklight. This post is a response to and rebuttal of the manifesto presented in our previous post The “Med” Sang Menace. GrumpyVamp was impressed with how thorough and well-researched Blacklight’s post was and Grumpy hopes our Gentle Readers will take some of their valuable time to read and carefully consider the points made in it.

However, GrumpyVamp would be remiss if Grumpy didn’t offer you, Gentle Reader, a warning: Long post is LONG. This is not the sort of post you can skim quickly. This is the sort of post that requires you to set aside a block of time to contemplate it in order to do it justice. There are also a fair number of citations that ambitious readers may want to look up for further research.

GrumpyVamp is also aware that one of the co-authors of the manifesto, Jamie, has publicly apologized for her role in this debacle. However, other sources inform GrumpyVamp that her behavior since then appears disingenuous and insincere as she has not apologized for the content of the document or for the attempt to undermine the authority of the Red Cellar admin team on their private Discord server, only that the document was revealed before it could be sufficiently whitewashed. Is she sorry she was involved in writing it and for the hurt she caused, or only that she got caught at it? It remains to be seen whether or not she is truly remorseful or merely attempting to cover her backside. GrumpyVamp suspects the latter, but will reserve Grumpy’s opinion for the time being. Ms. Jamie’s actions will absolve or condemn her in due time.

Want to submit a guest post to GrumpyVamp? Visit our contributor guidelines page. And now, without further ado, GrumpyVamp yields the floor to Blacklight.


Addressing a Weak Attempt at Sewing Hatred and Division in the OVC/GVC

A response to: “Addressing the Internal Infrastructure, within ‘The Red Cellar’ for the Support of Sangs: Reflections, Discussion and Future of the med-sang movement.”

Blacklight
2018

This paper is written to address divisive behavior and the use of pseudo-intellectualism and pseudo-science in an effort to cause unnecessary infighting and hurt those with different beliefs. As is known, the VC has long seen heated disagreements between psi-vampires and sanguinarians/med-sangs, mostly for superficial reasoning or disagreements in personal belief. And although much of the conflict has passed, there are some individuals in the community who wish to reopen old wounds and harm others for blatantly asinine reasoning.

Spooky, Jamie and an unnamed editor have attempted to create an outline for (what can hardly be called) a ‘paper’ titled “Addressing the Internal Infrastructure, within ‘The Red Cellar’ for the Support of Sangs: Reflections, Discussion and Future of the med-sang movement.” It is little more than a loose collection of disordered thoughts for an imaginary ‘manifesto’ that seeks to discredit and harm both psi-vampires, otherkin and therians. To avoid the potential harm even this imaginary ‘paper’ might create, this disordered mess of an outline will be thoroughly refuted and taken to task. As we, the community, have a moral obligation to squash this divisive nonsense as soon as it rears its ugly head time and time again.

Quotations will be pulled directly from the outline and addressed with bullet point arguments.

Quote: “Everyone needs to sit down. I am the torch lighter..”

1. This is exactly where damaging behavior in our community starts. Too many individuals aggrandize themselves as some kind of bloodied martyr. They lie to themselves that they are starting a movement “for the good of all”. Which should be a red flag if we’ve ever seen one. Such twisted perceptions have resulted in real damage and loss in our world, outside of these communities. Really, it is nothing more than a crusade against individuals they disagree with by someone who has a savior-complex. What the authors seem to want is “revolution” and many ethicists have weighed in that revolution generally harms all and isn’t justifiable if there are civil means of resolving disputes. It is clear civil means are not what is desired here. (It’s really a joke to call this little game a revolution.)

Refs:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/revolution/#SomeMajoFiguViewMoraRevo

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/papa.12021

2. If people looked at themselves realistically, without grandiose over-inflated egos, they would recognize that all individuals have something valuable to contribute to the community at large. Med-sangs, psi-vampires, otherkin and therians may not all get along, but we all have something of value to contribute. Especially to one another. We all engage in discourse. We present different viewpoints. Being able to civilly engage with different views is how we all grow and learn. Recognition of dignity, equality and cooperation across differences of belief, being and culture is necessary to foster growth, self-awareness, and a healthy community. It doesn’t matter whether we are spiritual, atheists, believe in spiritual or psychological causes. Time and time again reality has shown that growth of people happens by encountering beliefs other than their own in a civil environment. Tolerance of differences is an essential step before you can have any civil dialogue. The content of the document clearly represents the opposite of this fact.

Refs:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ903804.pdf

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2568&context=dissertations

Quote: “This document is to be allowed to be spread to the GVC, please remove any content that is in italics (that is not a famous quote). Not all content will be received well and the creators of this document do not wish to have the Therians, Otherkin, Mystics and Energy Manipulating Witches having alarming issues with their storytelling identities. There is not enough certified therapists on staff in the GVC to assist in the crisis this document could potentially create”

1. The author here directly admits that they have intentions to harm others. They are attempting to cover themselves through a plea to remove incriminating opinions which serve as evidence to their internalized hatred and bigotry. The italicized sections represent notes to themselves and are a glaring indicator as to how warped their perceptions are. The so-called ‘paper’ is being written with intent to invalidate and harm those who hold different beliefs than said author. The obvious method behind it is to spread misinformation about otherkin. The second part of the plan is to invalidate psi-vampires and attempt to further faction the med-sang community, and other parts of this community, who are a valuable part of the whole VC.

2. Now, it is hilarious that they use the phrase “storytelling identities.” It has been shown in contemporary research that ALL identities are narrative in structure: they are autobiographical. In fact, the whole paper is self-contradictory. Shocker. Personality psychology, which is based upon how levels of narrative identity form is a part of The Big Five personality theory. A theory which the author is not qualified to put to use, nor does their explanation of the theory demonstrate more than a layman’s understanding of psychology which can be found on Wikipedia. All identities are narrative in structure, including the martyr-complex present in the document. It is incredibly hilarious too that they constantly refer to the Big Five throughout the outline, not realizing that it means that all med-sang identities are also ‘storytelling’, because all identities are narrative within human psychology. In fact, having a coherent ‘life-story’ is shown to be the foundations of well-being, and so all identities in the VC, whether spiritual, psychological, nonhuman, religious, etc. do good for the individuals in helping them to understand their lives.

Refs:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x

http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0003-066X.48.1.26

https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/ni.9.1.05bae

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00273.x

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721413475622?journalCode=cdpa

3. What is also amusing in this is that they seem to think otherkin and therians are some kind of pseudo-scientific storytelling, as if their subjective experience is somehow superior. Actually, more scientific literature by researchers has been written on otherkin and therians than the med-sang community. This literature unanimously concludes that these identities are healthy and not delusions, and there is support for the identity in a broad range of fields, from psychology, philosophy, critical theory, social theory and others. They inform the individual’s lives and help them understand themselves. Dr. Kathy Gerbasi, a social psychologist, is currently conducting research with Dr. Elizabeth Fein to study otherkin and therians including collaboration with members themselves. One of many groups focused on exploration the notion of the non-human experiences.

Refs:

https://www.furscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Furscience-Furbook-First-5.pdf pp62-65, 78-79, 111-116

https://furscience.com/publications/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15283488.2014.891999

https://www.animalsandsociety.org/society-animals/therianthropy-wellbeing-schizotypyand-autism-in-individuals-who-self-identify-as-non-human/

https://publications.lakeforest.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=seniortheses

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nr.2013.16.3.7?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.academia.edu/26751121/_To_be_human_nonetheless_remains_a_decision_Deciding_to_be_Human_in_Contemporary_Critical_Political_Theory_Contemporary_Political_Theory_

https://www.academia.edu/24718674/Doctors_Herding_Cats_The_Misadventures_of_Modern_Medicine_and_Psychology_with_NonHuman_Identities

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMEkuOW5pjs

http://theweek.com/articles/552648/meet-peoplewho-dont-identify-human

Dr. Jan Dirk Blom in the above writes:

“As regards the existence of [otherkin] communities, online or otherwise, where like-minded people join each other to exchange experiences and ideas on their affinity with animal or supernatural identities, I can only say that we cannot have enough of those groups,” he wrote.

“Human experience and behaviour is so diverse, and only so little of it tends to be presented as ‘normal’ in the media, that communities such as these should be embraced and encouraged by us all.”

Quote: “Psi’s will be referred to as Energy Manipulating Witches, or EMW’s. Otherkin will also be used as Species Dysphoria.”

1. First, a culture or group of people should be referred to by their own designation. Calling Psi’s “EMW’s” or otherkin “Species Dysphoria” is some real divisive bullshit, as if calling it will make it so, when the best they can do is some Wikipedia hack-job of pseudo-science. Referring to people by their self-label is literally step one to intercultural communication and not being a douche-bag. It also is a necessary form of respect in healthy forms of communication with the intent of sharing culture, ideas and beliefs.

Refs:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17475750701737181

https://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/61851

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17475750701737181

2. Species dysphoria is not yet recognized by the wider scientific community, so this is not an accurate label. Dr. Gerbasi, like many others, have observed and documented it. And not all otherkin experience dysphoria. PubMed Health defines dysphoria as “a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction…it can also mean someone that is not comfortable in their current body, particularly in cases of gender dysphoria.” But most otherkin are quite comfortable in their bodies, living human lives, or they find healthy ways of coping. It is blatantly false to label otherkin as “Species Dysphoric” when it is a condition, a trait (not an illness) of only some otherkin. As well, dysphoric experiences are had by a wide range of individuals for a multitude of reasons, not just those within the OC.

Refs:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0024720/

https://www.bustle.com/p/the-world-health-organization-will-no-longer-classify-gender-dysphoria-as-a-mental-illness-9557139

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender-is-no-longer-a-diagnosis/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gxxpvf.23?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

Quote: “It also need to be noted the Altruism is a philosophy thoroughly analyzed by Ayn Rand, that is strongly believed and proven to not to exist in humans.”

1. This is probably the most hilarious sentence in the whole ‘outline’. First of all, Ayn Rand is widely known in the academic community as a hyper-capitalist hack, who fronted a self-contradictory philosophy called “egoism” which extolled “the virtue of selfishness”. It has been utterly destroyed time and time again by nearly everyone working in ethics and psychology. In fact, people who read Ayn Rand are the subject of some studies in the psychology of selfishness. Her logic is terrible and self-refuting to the point that philosophers don’t even take her seriously. She is considered the pseudo-philosopher of radical extremist groups such as neo-nazis and anarcho-capitalists, not exactly something you would want to align yourself with.

Refs:

http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/the-system-that-wasnt-there-ayn-rands-failed-philosophy-and-why-it-matters/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/good-thinking/201602/what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously

https://www.iep.utm.edu/rand/#H4

https://www.salon.com/2014/12/15/one_nation_under_galt_how_ayn_rands_toxic_philosophy_permanently_transformed_america_partner/

https://newrepublic.com/article/69239/wealthcare-0

2. Actually, altruism is scientifically proven in not just humans but other animals too. It’s such a basic and universally accepted fact in the scientific community that it is pretty hilarious for someone even to claim that it doesn’t exist. Maybe it doesn’t exist for a pair of people trying to tear a community apart and cause irreparable harm for no reason.

Refs (altruism in humans):

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264247774_The_Evolution_of_Altruism_in_Humans

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/altruism-in-humans-9780195341065?cc=us&lang=en&

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513802001575

Refs (altruism in other animals):

https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/041612.html

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

https://owlcation.com/stem/Altruism-10-Examples-of-Wild-Animals-Caring-For-Their-Own

https://www.livescience.com/19987-altruism-animals-varies-based-environment.html

http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-june-2016/necessity-kindness-altruism-animals-and-beyond.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237123215_Altruism_in_human_and_non-human_animals

3. Altruism is not “a philosophy.” They apparently seem to think that all ‘isms’ are philosophy. (I guess onanism is a philosophy then because it sure strikes me as the author’s philosophy.) Altruism is a concept in biology. It is also a basic practice of decent people. Here is an author who claims altruism doesn’t exist, and yet they simultaneously claim to want to improve the med-sang community from the bottom of their (empty) heart. How impressively self-contradictory! I don’t think anyone who extols the monstrous selfishness of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and claims altruism doesn’t exist can even remotely have the best interests of anyone but themselves in mind. Furthering the notion that this ‘paper’ exists for a singular purpose. And that is to incite conflict in the greater community.

Quote: “When to be a Social Justice Warrior and When not to be.“

1. There seems to be this idea that ‘social justice’ is a horrific concept and is used, often, in a derogatory manner as if the term only exists to give a spotlight to the attention seekers and extremists with which we are all familiar. This is not the case and highlights a clear lack of understanding in the author. Social justice, which was originally a Catholic term coined in the 1840s, is a very important concept in the study of politics and ethics. It is not just an agenda of a certain political party in the U.S. Social justice issues range from land rights of Indigenous peoples, sexual abuse, sexism, workplace discrimination, religious persecution, economic disparity, workplace opportunities, racial discrimination, among others. The author presents this terminology in your typical internet-user fashion, showing that their understanding of the framework behind this is severely lacking. Their use of “SJW” is not only inappropriate but a testament to their inability to seriously host a discussion on this, or any, topic. They shouldn’t be using it as an argument against the behavior of other individuals in the VC. The author completely dismisses the necessity for exploration of Social Justice. Go figure. Social Justice in reality is a non-partisan issue dealing with ethics and law. Law-making and enforcement constantly involve Social Justice scholars, concepts and professional consultants. To present the notion in such a fashion unequivocally shows the sheer level of misunderstanding peddled by this would be ‘do-gooder’. Theories on Justice involve Social Justice, as in all theories of Law. If anyone partaking in this discussion wishes to have a clearer understand of what “Social Justice” actually means, consider picking up A Theory of Justice by John Rawls and Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick.

Refs:

https://americanhumanist.org/key-issues/social-justice/

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/social-justice-not-what-you-think-it

https://www.iep.utm.edu/dist-jus/

Quote: “At this point you might be inclined to pull out your social justice angel sword and create a new orifice into random on their body of text. Careful now, when you do this, you have just become what you hold in contempt, and just as guilty.”

1. Well, actually, formal discussions on Social Justice involve a high level of scholarship, discipline, and civil debate. Social Justice is a sensitive topic in academia and its application in law requires a keen understanding of political philosophy, legality, and statistical information concerning demographics, distribution, and sources of inequality and inequity. Furthermore, such commentary like this displays a lack of maturity. Perhaps, the greatest irony in all of this is that, if the author actually had a shred of decency and were actually engaged in this project with the interest of the ‘good of others’, they would be engaged in Social Justice.

Quote: “Words like Canuck and Woo are designed to designate inferiority. But owning the words people can reclaim the power that was intended initially be taken from them. “

Quote: “Psi’s will be referred to as Energy Manipulating Witches, or EMW’s. Otherkin will also be used as Species Dysphoria.”

1. Reclamation of terms in Social Justice discourse always involves a powerless or disenfranchised group reclaiming a discriminatory insult as a positive social identifier. A good example of this is how the Gay community reclaimed the term “gay,” which used to be derogatory slang. Another example is the word “queer,” which is now even a respectable field of academic studies called Queer Theory. Reclamation of terms is NEVER used to harm others. It is only ever a positive means by which a previously suppressed group can develop self-acceptance and recover from harm.

2. What the author is urging us to do is extremely unethical. They want to “reclaim” identity terms as insults so that they can denigrate and put down others. In other words, they want terms like “otherkin” or “psi-vampire” to designate “an inferior person” by definition. This is an attempt to dehumanize these groups, a ploy to “reclaim” positive terms as something negative. This would be the equivalent to a homophobe attempting to reclaim the word “Gay” as a means of controlling the narrative of people who self-identify with “Gay.” The author also is urging “reclaiming” the power of derogatory insults such as “Canuck” and “Woo” to put others down. How they can claim to be “doing good” by this is absolute lunacy. Their entire motivation is clearly to embolden prejudice and to rob people of meaningful and positive identifiers in order to harm them at a psychological level.

Refs:

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/homosexual-community-reclaiming-queer-as-political-statement/article_6e6da7eb-203a-5af0-8efa-17ca473643e4.html

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/bodenhausen/reapp.pdf

https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/2017/8/02/21-words-queer-community-has-reclaimed-and-some-we-havent#media-gallery-media-0

Quote: “Know what you are supporting in detail. As well as understand those that are in need of redirection from the story-telling they have created for comfort or out of need for an identity.“

1. The words, “Know what you are supporting in detail” represent the degree of dissonant thought and utter detachment from the irony of the original content. Nothing presented in the original paper surpassed basic layman understanding, and several concepts have been misused in an attempted strawman of the VC. The author’s own identity falls under their own terminology.

Quote: “Before I get deep into this section. Redirection is a beautiful, but scary thing that unequivocally cures Species Dysphoria colloquially known as Otherkin.“

1. There is no scientifically known “disease” called “Species Dysphoria” and it doesn’t need a “cure.” This is, quite frankly, disgusting. Not only is the author masquerading as a psychologist diagnosing a cure with an amateurish grade school discussion of psychological theories, they are arguing that their “reclamation” of identity terms insults is somehow going to “cure,” “Species Dysphoria.” That is the most vainglorious dickery that every oppressive asshole proclaims, “Oh, maybe if I insult and dehumanize people more, it will cure them of their differences from me.”

2. Again, many otherkin are not dysphoric. And “otherkin” and “therians” are the terms for this community. It is not a “colloquialism.” It is the terminology. Some half-assed, self-aggrandizing, piece of shit who can’t even formulate a coherent sentence doesn’t get to decide what these terms mean. It is pathetic that they even thought to try.

Quote: “If the fictional identity is allowed to develop, like a cancer becomes malignant, and spreads, so does this harmful identity, moving from storytelling, to a socially impactful mode of story-promoting. They will being to promote part of their self-perceived identity through applying or finding ideniting element that they see as tangible in the physical body and surroundings. “

1. Here is more pseudo-psychology from the wannabe armchair shrink with delusions of grandeur. Let me rephrase what they just said. They author just called psi-vampires and otherkin “a cancer.” Let’s forget about the fact that they called it a “fictional identity” when the only fantasy here is that the author was ever going to achieve anything by this except burying themselves.

2. Here is something to consider, how is it that the author, who is assumed to be a med-sang, has any more evidence that their identity is not a fiction? By the unproven psychological theories they are ham-fistedly flailing, their own identity is, by definition, a constructed fiction. A means to explain away symptoms and experiences in an effort to promote a comfortable narrative for the sake of their own psychological well-being. What studies have been conducted on this in psychology? What scientific evidence does the author have? Otherkin, whom the author is claiming are “fictional identities,” are actually being studied by real scientists right now, not bigots playing dress-up doctor. Let’s list a few: Dr. Kathy Gerbasi, Dr. Elizabeth Fein, Courtney Plante, Stephen Reysen, Sharon Roberts, Dr. Helen Clegg, Elizabeth C. Roxburgh, Timothy Grivell, Mario Cintron, Rosalyn M Collings, Pê Feijó, to name a few.

Quote: “A good example of this is if you think of all of the members of TRC as organs inside a body. Should the mind, No.1, decide to eat unhealthily, the organs have to contend with the malnutrition that was consumed without their consent. The junk Food in this case are the EMW’s or any other irrational outcast. Considering there are precious few places for sangs to communicate. This makes the flesh walls of this imaginary body a prison. The organs (members) cannot just simply transplant themself into another, more healthy body.“

1. So, let me just say this frankly. The author here is using language that the Nazis borrowed from Plato’s “Republic” and Aristotle’s “Politics” in order to justify fascism. I fucking kid you not.

Aristotle writes, “Hence we see that is the nature and office of a slave; he who is by nature not his own but another’s man, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to be another’s man who, being a human being, is also a possession…” (Aristotle, Politics, 1254b) “For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave.” (Aristotle, Politics, 1252ab)

So, what Aristotle is arguing is that ‘the head should rule the body,’ which he uses to justify inequality and slavery, that there are those who are only bodies and those who are only heads. Fascists argue that the autocrat is a center of the strength of the people who are the autocrat’s body. The autocrat is considered the ‘mind’ or the ‘head’ of the political body.

Plato takes this up specifically and refers to the ‘political body’ as an extension of the ruler, the organs that make up the dictator or king’s body.

Plato writes, “…we say that he [the menial laborer] should be the slave of that best person who has the divine ruler within himself. It is not to harm the slave that we say he should be ruled…but because it is better for everyone to be ruled by a divine and wise ruler–preferably one that is his own and that he has inside himself; otherwise one imposed on him from outside, so that we may all be alike…because we are all captained by the same thing.” (Plato, Republic, 590d)

Here Plato is arguing that the citizen and laborer should be a voluntary slave to the State, to the “divine ruler,” who is an autocrat at the top of the state, ‘the head’. Plato seeks uniformity, that “we may all be alike” through complete submission to the will of the authority.

It is not hard to see why the Nazis liked Plato, and why talking about “all of the members of TRC as organs inside a body” is textbook fascism. Here is a quote from Benito Mussolini himself in “Doctrine of Fascism”:

“The Fascist State, as a higher and more powerful expression of personality, is a force, but a spiritual one. It sums up all the manifestations of the moral and intellectual life of man. Its function cannot therefore be limited to those of enforcing order and keeping the peace, as the liberal doctrine had it…The Fascist State is an inwardly accepted standard and rule of conduct, a discipline of the whole person; it permeates the will no less than the intellect. It stands for a principle which becomes the central motive of man…” (Mussolini, “Doctrine of Fascism”)

The entirety of “Doctrine of Fascism” is about the submission of individuals as organs within the body of the State to its head. It sees all deviations from this submission, all deviations and differences from this “code,” as a disease.

The author has already compared psi-vampires and otherkin to a “cancer” that grows within the community.

The author has already claimed to want to cure this “cancer” through suppression by reclaiming authority and power over others and forcing their submission through derogatory terms.

The author has already confessed to be against Social Justice, which is the foundation of liberal democratic society, which Mussolini also directly opposes within the quote.

The author has now compared TRC to a body of the State. They are arguing that psi-vampires, otherkin, “and any other irrational outcast” (they might as well use the fascist term “degenerates,” I know they want to deep down), are all diseases of the body politic. This is not even ambiguously fascist rhetoric. It is actually fascist. The author is literally, not figuratively, using a fascist’s justification for ‘purging’ and ‘purifying’ the sang community and TRC of otherkin and psi-vampires.

Refs:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/03/plato-hitler-totalitarianism/

Conclusion

When all’s said and done and the dust has settled, their document provides nothing positive to the med-sang movement or the VC as a whole. There was not much in the original document that was honestly worth tackling. As much as I would have liked to go on tearing them a new one for far longer, the majority of it simply quantifies to nothing more than utter gibberish. The inane ramblings of an individual who is riddled with contempt, who is rotten to the core, and who seeks nothing more than some pseudo-authoritarian state in which they have perfect control over who does and does not enter their little bubble of ridiculousness.

Whatever constructive points of discussion this ‘paper’ might have possessed has been lost to the overwhelming stink of vitriol and bigotry. Where this might have been an opportunity to discuss relevant issues within the VC, it has been warped into borderline fascist rhetoric. Whatever grounds it might have had for justification has fallen through to the author’s own misguided hatred, self-loathing, irrational mental hodgepodge and infantile babble. Had this document been completed, it would have been nothing more than a failed attempt to drive a stake through the heart of the VC and to promote infighting among individuals who should be building one another up.

The VC is stronger and better than this. If we are to have discourse on relevant topics as it effects the VC, we must have them with the intent to benefit the VC and its inhabitants as a whole rather than do harm. This discourse should be left to those who want to genuinely benefit the community rather than mold it to pure insanity. Let this ‘manifesto’ be a testament, and warning, to the dangers that lurk among us daily. That no matter how much we strive to support and benefit each other, there will always be those that desire the opposite of community integrity and well-being.