Categories
Entertainment Obituaries

Thomas Kinkade: Murdered by the Illuminati?

This is a surreal study of temporal space. The houses are rendered on a winter night, their windows glowing with a warm light while smoke billows from chimneys on snowy rooftops. Meanwhile, the outside world appears to be an evening in spring, as flowers bloom and the creek runs full. Also, people in this world are buried in their front yards.

Thomas Kinkade, famed “painter of light,” died on Friday under mysterious circumstances at the age of 54. Early reports from a police autopsy have told a bizarre story: Kinkade died from a polonium 210 poisoning, which is an extremely potent poison lethal in incredibly small doses.

Analysts suggest that only a very well-connected and powerful entity could possibly have access to such a rare poison, prompting a spat of wild speculation. This automatically narrows the field of suspects to governments and supergovernmental organizations such as the Illuminati. But why would the Illuminati have an interest in killing off Thomas Kinkade?

It’s a well-known fact that the vast majority of the Illuminati’s wealth is invested in timeless works of art, and a large proportion of their annual income is derived from copyright claims and the sale of art memorabilia such as posters. By providing such overly popular images, Kinkade actually undercut the Illuminati in the same way Michael Jackson did. Artistic success is a zero-sum game and the Illuminati is always undercut by emerging popular artists.

Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Kobain, Jim Morrison, and Amy Winehouse all died at the age of 27, but Kinkade’s age of death was exactly twice that at 54. Why does the Illuminati work only in intervals of 27? Expert numerologist Angstrom H. Troubadour explained the numeric aspect of this ritual is very important to the Illuminati, and said, “Artistic cleansing is especially significant to their theories about advancing society towards their mystical anti-Christian agenda.”

Categories
Hate Trolling

The four stages of the Internet Rejection Cycle

Fawning

Usually it all starts with a sickly transparent appeal for the acceptance and affection of a group by a complete outsider. Often the fawning stage is baldly disguised as self-deprecation, but more often it begins as a contrived yet frank attempt to become part of a group. The endorphin rush of acceptance accompanies the act of fawning rather than the acceptance itself.

Denial

Suffering from the contradictory feelings of total rejection and overwhelming delusional acceptance, the rejected outsider’s ego snaps and he or she inevitably posts jocular comments under many different names, always usurping the identities of those who refuse to validate his or her fawning. This is a sad attempt at “play” from an outsider in complete denial of the obvious rejection. I have seen this stage last for months, and the number of handles used by the same individual, “Geo,” reached a record of 63 different “identities.” This list is incomplete, however, and dates from July of 2011. Since then, “Geo” has repeatedly continued through this cycle and added countless nicks to his trophy case of shame.

Aggression

Having finally reconciled the rejection, the subject goes on the attack. The most common statement is something like, “I used to like your group, but you’ve gone way downhill recently.” This stage may also last for months, and often the use of transparent alternate identities will persist, even though the repetitive and absurd comments follow an all-too-easily recognized pattern.

Ragequit

The famously obvious Ragequit is often extremely dramatic, but always entirely meaningless. Sometimes it’s really just a part of the aggression stage and it doesn’t necessarily signify a reset in the cycle. Often saying absurd things like “I’m quitting the Internet” or “I’m never visiting this website again,” the rejected person might even try to portray their rage as a quiet and sad admission to the failure of their fawning, only to revert back to the fawning stage within a few days. (Or a single day in THIS case)

I recently posted a very long work to the secretive and prickly SubGenius newsgroup at the suggestion of a SubGenius friend. Many supporters and detractors of Anonymous found this work a valuable analysis of the stagnant discourse plaguing the nascent Anarchic movement, and much of it was obviously inspired or borrowed from the Book of the SubGenius. Some SubGenii, however, immediately identified this as an act of fawning, and set to the same kind of public shaming I’ve dealt out to “Geo” for the past year. My ironic wit immediately engaged in a rapid-fire parody of the vicious cycle of rejection, but this “Satire and Parody fan club” seemed to have succumbed to dementia and failed to recognize the sarcasm. Sadly, I am now trapped in this cycle and any move will be interpreted as one of the four stages of Internet rejection.

“Keep telling yourself that, pinkboy.” ~ Rev. Ivan Stang

Categories
Hate

Barrett Brown’s Project Persona Management

Human being or computer simulation?

From a cramped cgi apartment littered with nothing but Ayn Rand, Barrett Brown orchestrates the downfall of oppressive regimes with Project PM, short for Persona Management. Using a highly sophisticated array of thousands of fake online identities, Brown’s project destabilizes government and foments rebellion across the Middle East.

While closely working with Aaron Barr, Brown was able to remove all the good stuff from the HBGary leak, which explains the lack of evidence about rampant corruption. The government is the only entity with pockets deep enough to pull off such an elaborate plot, and it follows that Brown is ultimately under their pay.

Brown’s close association with Sabu immediately raised questions among his supporters within Anonymous. Thousands of Twitter accounts unfollowed him out of pure suspicion. @Anonymously27 said, “There’s no reason to ever trust Barrett Brown ever again. If he’s not been turned, everyone around him has.”

Experts agree, Barrett Brown was actually never turned by the FBI. He’s always worked for them.