The Case of Turd Ferguson

Turd, formerly known as “contra-Nietzsche”, is an interesting case study.
The subject is suffering from depression, repression, self-loathing, and sexual masochism.

Turd is a joker, a classic internet troll. He is characterized by the fool archetype.

The fool or joker archetype is inherently self-castrating in nature.
In his foolishness, which is a violence towards his pride and honour, he is able to be what he is: a joker.
The fool not only mocks others, he mocks himself - a sort of masochism to his own identity.
Is it no wonder, then, that Turd is so heavily against Aryanism? A philosophy which, by its very nature, is about
taking pride in ones past or self? Turd is a blonde-haired Caucasian.

The joker archetype is bi-polar also, not necessarily in the clinical sense.
I suppose it would be better to say that the joker is of a dual-nature.
His very smile, laughter, and frivolity is a mask, a compensation for his inner distress, despair, and melancholia.

Laughter is the best medicine

Turd furguson likes to spend his time trolling online, because it’s an escape from the profound sadness he feels within himself, something
that surfaces especially when he is bored. He wanders from place to place, like a vagabond. He does not take life seriously, much less himself,
which consequently leads to his wandering about, from job to job, place to place. He does not take anything seriously. Life is a cosmic joke to him.
He finds things easily amusing, because existence itself is a comedy.

Due to his repressive nature, he may not even be fully aware of just how depressed he truly is. Instead of facing the sadness head on, which would require a
seriousness and intensity of which his character lacks, he chooses to scoff away any sense of sadness that begins to immediately surface.

Now, speaking more on his repressed sexual identity, Turd is a repressed homosexual and sexual masochist.
If you have read his posts consistently, his choice of words betray this.

“Academic anal play, fingers crawling up rear, cock on cock swordplay…”

He projects his own fears and repression unto others and it manifests clearly in his writing.

He has mentioned someone named Yukio Mishima numerous times.
For those who don’t know, Yukio Mishima was a homosexual and sexual masochist.
Not surprising that he has a predilection for this guy.

Turd used to be in the military. He was naturally drawn to the essentially all-male milieu, which had an aura of discipline and punish (a compliment to
his extreme sexual masochism).

Turd likes to be dominated by militaristic, authoritative men, something ultimately emanating from his profound sense of self-loathing.
It’s a sort of mockery to his gender identity, a way to punish himself; he takes on the role of a female.

The joker archetype, as prior mentioned, is self-castrating in nature, which leads to all sorts of effeminate behavior.
It’s seen in the gesticulations, the infantile behavior, the sexuality, and so on.

In his mockery of self, his violence towards self, he turns away from his own self, scoffs at it.

Turd will always be running away from his own shadows. His laughter will echo throughout the
corridors of his own mind. His comedy is his narcotic, his escape from the tenebrous swamp of despair.

Oh, shit, now you’ve done it…

He must have really hurt your feelings for you to make this thread.

You’ve broken me spiritually and emotionally, with your spot on analysis.

Trixie, get in here and rub salt on this open wound of mine!

Eric, I think you’re a bit like when butters from southpark went out dressed up and professor chaos trying to cause havoc all over the place. He would do things like switch up orders in the window at a restaurant so that people would get the wrong food. The point is, I think that you think you’re able to have some kind of effect on others through the silly things that you say, and I think that when you say them, in your mind it’s like you’ve dropped a bomb, but in reality no one gives the slightest fuck about the shit that an emotionally immature, unstable fairy on the internet says about them. I can see you there smugly thinking that you’ve made a dent in turd’s psyche, and knowing what I know about the 2 of you, that’s hilarious. 90 percent of what you’re perceiving in the weird social interactions that you’re getting yourself into is only in your mind. You’re imagining that you’re more important than you are. You are a drama queen. Not a lot more advanced that my friend’s 14 year old sister. You should go to counseling. Now go and sit at the kid’s table.

This is old news. I explained the Turd Ferguson months ago around the last time he left. You are reading too deep erik and your critique is so formulaic it ought to be cliche. Repressing this and projecting that, yada yada. Aren’t and don’t we all.

There is no more significance to his campaign against Nietzscheans than that of the fact that on a forum, Nietzscheans tend to be those males who espouse radically masculine, atheistic, elitist philosophies. All males want and want to be these things, but a more cleverer male would do this: he would be these things without being these things. Here’s how.

In targeting a Nietzschean, Turd inadvertently takes the noteriety and presence the Nietzschean is trying to gain at the forum by having a stronger more forceful presence. What readers notice when they are watching an exchange between Turd and a Nietzschean is that the whole thing becomes a mockery charade or comic parody of the Nietzschean in question. Demeaning and insulting but playfully bohemian. Schadenfreud might be a good term for this.

Now I don’t mean to say in any of this that Turd is right and the Nietzscheans wrong, or vice versa, because in the overall analysis it is not the logistics a reader of Turd Ferguson is concerned with, but style. Maybe two out of ten readers of his posts actually read the links he provides, while the other eight don’t care whether or not he’s correct or what he believes… they are occupied completely by the reading itself. The movement, the device, the images, the humor (especially). All these things compose the style that is so satisfying for the reader, creating a different literal environment where being right or wrong is irrelevant.

He is simply in more cases than not a better writer… I mean a better conglomerate of all the dimensions of a writer that make the writer interesting.

Now it is probably no coincidence that the ‘white knight’ archetype is working here too… not because this is intentionally enacted by Turd, but because it is a necessary result of the elements involved; virtuous catholic intellectual knight of valor defeats gay barbarian heathen Nietzschean sophists.

You also see constant references to his military experience. This is no coincidence. Wouldn’t a Nietzschean love to be a soldier… what better symbol for masculinity than being a soldier.

Some of the more cleverer aspects to the character of the Turd Ferguson, and why he is such a formidable presence in the circle of posters that have history with him.

… and your conclusions about his usual comic style are wrong as well. It is not because he is nervous, and the comic element in his writing is not a distraction from some internal emotional problem he suffers. He is a genuine comic… the kind who’s playfulness is the greatest expression of strength and being at ease with one’s opponent: what you take seriously I’ll not only defeat, but do so so easily I can’t possibly be serious about it. This is the effect.

He is what Nietzsche would call a noble rascal, I’m sure. In Turd the nuances that are generally associated with weakness of character are for Turd, signs of strength and power. How so you ask. Well, because he can afford to be this way. By this I mean that the Turd is not the comic because he cannot be otherwise… which would make one only a rascal. He is intelligent and intellectual enough to add this element to his character without it defining him completely or detracting from his ability to be serious when necessary.

Well, if Turd was a homosexual, it would explain is obssession with poop, as poop is in the anus. My theory is that he is trans-sexual…ie. unconsciously attracted to chicks with dicks, which fills him with rage and confusion because he is not that homosexual and this causes him mental jarring, fear, that he must immediately block out of his mind because he fears he may become too fond of it. The same psychology is present in women, many women are inherently evil…thus they are easily “triggered”, and run away from disturbing things. The reason for this is simple, disturbing things will easily infect their mind, overrun them, dominate them, and activate their dormant evil side, similar to Turd’s dormant (trans-sexual) side and nature.

as for the Joker theory, Turd is a joker, but the Joker in batman seems to have a different psychology than the one you provided. Joker (in Batman) seems to be a mockery of the joker archetype itself, like it is a mockery of a mockery, like he is aware of what he is, saying “I am a clown who’s always smiling, but deep down I am really unhappy.” The Joker (in batman) is a mockery of a mockery, he knows he is a freak, he knows he is a joker, he is a joker of a joker…whereas Turd doesn’t seem to be aware of what a freak he is, he is only a single level joker, he doesn’t have the Pinkie Pie characteristic of breaking the fourth wall or violating physics, therefore he will never be that funny, he will only be belly laugh funny, never laugh out loud funny. Turd, I’m sorry to say, is a failure at his own game.

From my understanding of Nietzsche’s philosophy, I would now be expected to enslave Zoots for his praise, and beat him for my pleasure, for such praise would be a form of contemptable will-to-power, acknowledging himself as inferior while trying to be superior or something like that… Nietzsche wasn’t very good at psychology, so I’m going to pass on all that, merely note it for those a year or two back who kept insisting I was a closet Nietzschean. Continue your praise of me Zoots, I insist.

Trixie… your deep insight to homosexual psychology, that’s Gays are attracted to Poop, should be written as a medical hypothesis, and read out loud at a gay pride parade by you, dressed in your drag, microfoam, podium… the whole works. I’m sure it will receive a fine reception in the media. I can’t wait to see the college debates “Gays, are they just attracted to Poop? Do they hoard it in bags under their pillow?”

And it’s the Trickster Archetype, sometimes the Jester, not the Joker Archetype. You may be using the joker from the comics, but if your going to slap archetype to his name, you need to be aware of the Jungian concept. It is indeed descended (for Jung) from both Schopenhauer’s concept, as well as Nietzsche’s concept culturally, and it is indeed a aspect of my personality type… not because I was influenced by any of the mentioned, or they bought it into existence… it dramatically predated Nietzscheans, and even some if the most cherished practices of “Satanists” borrow heavily from earlier Cynic and Christian traditions using it (Christians do it better, I gotta blame the Protestant reformation for losing this aspect. Protestants point at works like “In Praise of Folly” and claim the author was a Protestant, even though he kept saying he was a Catholic. Its a idiotic practice in philosophy to drag the unwilling into your fold as the Archetype of your movementmovement, it reduces the perception of the strength and variability of your opponents your typing to differentiate from).

This link is for you Trixie, study it:
schoolworkhelper.net/carl-jungs- … trickster/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickster

The question arises for Zoots, how can I switch between being a Trickster and out if it, in terms of areas of the mind, and why do people respond so well to this? I’m talking about biology, does it fit Nietzsche’s scheme at all, has WTP based biology mostly been chucked out the window, or is there some basis, and what is it in my case to be exact?

I know the answer of course, but I’m interested in seeing you try to resolve it on a anatomical level. I know it will take a while, consider this the pain of corrective punishment.

I did not know this about him.

That’s more like it!

So, all I have to do now is to hope and to pray that no one here finally decides to pin me down.

Well, either that or help me to.

By the way, no one does this shit better than zoot. Agreed?

Agreed.

And turd, I’m no nietzschean. I’m a zootian, and if I agree with fritz it’s incidental.

These ‘The Case of’ threads are part observation and mostly speculation, and an excuse to slander the recipient of such threads - I will be locking them all up if posters are just using them to slander the thread recipient.

Make sure you use the US definition if slander, or else you can be sued for slander yourself Magsj. Our case law doesn’t match Britians, but we can sue you for injuries in ways our first amendment rights don’t allow in reverse. The server is in DC, but your under English law. Doesn’t mean you can enforce British laws on others. Libel would be the better term to use anyway. If be very hard to convict anyone given the current philosophical traditions, everyone so far has pointed to Nietzsche, Zizek, etc. Some studies, however wobbly exist. We can moderate ourselves, it’s been done since the dawn of philosophy this way.

I can give you some Socratic dialogues where people are more or less trash talking Socrates to arrive to the conclusion he talks of babble and is full of shit.

Honestly, there isn’t a era this hasn’t been done. However bad this or the other threads seem, it’s nothing compared to what the Skeptics did to the Stoics… caused one he’ll of a scandel in antiquity when they pointed out the early Stoics technically advocated a state based on homosexual rape and pedophilia… it lead to positive changes, philosophers no longer rape little boys. It was quite promenant in the beginning. They tried to amend the official editions of early Stoic works, but enough evidence remains of it as rather obvious.

We all use anonymous names here… I even know Cezars name, don’t use it (in full at least). Mine could be found in five minutes. Its the equivalent of Anna O but by accident… and the courts already ruled Libel for cases of losing imaginary, unquantifiable internet money is a no-go. Honestly, even if you could get a judge to accept the case, ignoring significant protections for critique and satire, it would be sent to small claims court… sum lost, if ever quantifiable objectively, would be shamefully small given most of us couldn’t sell any works for a appreciable amount. Arguments that we’re locked up remain unresolved, blame can be pushed on the offending moderator instead of the expected defendant, given he wasn’t allowed to modify his statements, retract, assert apologies, etc. Its one of the nasty side effects of claiming to own other peoples copyrighted material and then denying them access to it when they otherwise naturally should have a right to modify or continue their speech. Magsj and Carleas becomes legally liable for their wrongful obstruction. Even more wrong in a philosophical setting… casual debates aren’t rules by rules of order, but the dictates of diverse customs that have grown thru the centuries in dialectic tit for tat.

I merely think Zoots should be banned forever for trying to praise me. I almost look respectable after those posts, it’s not right.

The case of the Joker cont.

The poop man wishes to draw attention to me by bringing up his “trickster” reference made up by ancient psychologist, Carl Jung. His goal, is a play on words, to make me feel uncomfortable about myself. I believe the second article he made was made by a trickster, because it lists the 4 different types of internet trolling, as if trolling was a serious thing, as if there was a official empirical strategic category to each kind of trolling.

I think his article is very harsh. Tricksters are not parricidal, that is more so the Might is Right (Erik) archetype, ie. the greek guy with a weird voice after he stabs him with a sword, talking about enshrouding the land in perpetual war and blight. Villains which have this voice are Kylo Ren and The Guy from No Country From Old Men. If you hear someone with this voice, watch out, because they are most definitely evil, want to enshroud the land in perpetual war and blight, and believe in Might is Right values.

Now the Joker is a little bit different than Erik’s description of the classical fool card he posted in the original post. The Joker (from Batman) is not actually a fool, but the wisest one in the group, for example Lex Luthor often asks for his advice on how to get a job done. When his advice is ignored, the damage is often catastrophic, the Joker often formulates happenenings way in advance. He is usually one step ahead of Batman, batman is kind of a toy to him, playing his game, and the only reason he loses is because he has no real desire to win, or to kill Batman, basically he has no real objective, because he views winning as meaningless, the real entertainment is the spectacle of it all, seeing how long it takes Batman to solve the puzzle. Pinkie Pie character is similar to this, for example in Parasprite Polka, the city is infested by Parasprite parasites, and she is asked for her advice on how to fix the situation. She says…“Give it some tuba” and walks away. Being Pinkie Pie, noone takes her seriously, and the town perishes. Pinkie knew this would happen well in advance, that is why she gave such absurd advice, knowing that noone would take the time to understand it and take her seriously. She enjoyed watching the town be destroyed, and only at the very end, when the ruler Celestia comes near, does she bother to take the time and give them proper advice, explaining that it is the sound waves from the tuba that dispel the insects. She is smoke and mirrors, her bubbly happy persona is all a facade, she smiles all the time so she doesn’t fall into her depressed and psychotic alter ego shown in Party of One. There are a few more episodes that show that, for instance when the bullying of Zecora begins, Pinkie Pie makes a song about it, encouraging others to join in the racism against Zecora. She is basically manipulating lesser minded people to engage in a pagan zeitgeist for her own entertainment. She pretends to be so foolish that she is immune to suspicion, like Jar Jar Binks (see Jar Jar Binks Sith Lord theory.) However, her intellect is comparable to Twilight and evidence of this slips out, such as her setup of Gilda at the birthday party, and also, in that same episode, her ability to create heavier than air flight machines out of scrap metal, which was trashed and destroyed by Gilda. … She played it off as “cool”, so she could setup Gilda at the party and have her revenge, having everyone believe it was not a setup. Due to her own mental boredom, she often plays elaborate pranks on the other ponies, such as the castle episode where she traps everyone in a castle and threatens them for her own amusement.

The underlying psychology at play is “You all are so stupid, I am going to play the fool because none of you are worthy of being taken seriously.” There is also a bit of a Nihilism psychology, that “Nothing really matters, might as well enjoy myself.” So there is a disregard of social norms, because society itself is seen as foolish and meaningless, therefore their norms are to be ejected. Turd does not employ this full psychology, therefore he nothing more than a village idiot, not a high level Joker. A high level Joker would be Q from Star Trek. High level Jokers have self-dignity in their image, whereas Turd is self-defacing…naming himself after poop? They are also more self-aware, fourth wall breaking, aware of their own absurd psychology, jokers of jokers, whereas Turd tries to come off as the everyday guy, in conflict with the village idiot image he is trying to portray. There is no flow there, it seems conflicted. He is also not feminine enough to pull off the role. For example, transsexuals who don’t hate women are seen as primary fools, because the majority of women hate them, yet they are oblivious to this and call themselves feminists. Similar to this trope are socially awkward males who never had girlfriends, yet fight for feminism. Transsexuals who are misogynists, ie. transsexuals who hate women, are not primary fools, they are jokers of jokers.

What DC comic is Joker taking advice from Lex Luther?

Can you tie down these literary character types to biographies of real people for comparison? Your technique of a literary comparison isn’t unknown, but there is eventually a attempt to tie in personality traits with actual people.

And I would love to be Q, but I have no Jean Luc Picard here to do it with. Most I can hope full is a mass Nietzsche an assault on me so I can reinact The Battle of Wolf 359 as I plow through them in utter destruction. I’ve only played a holding game so far, and never really push so far on multiple fronts. I haven’t taken the offensive yet.

I would need one far more refined and ratified, yet holding to Nietzsche an ideals, to do Q. And it’s true, I do hold back many aspects of my personality, I always save some for a rainy day on each forum.

Thanks Turd but I always keep an eye on threads, and the end result of slander is libel… though it hasn’t come to that.

Oh how easy one turns on the other… generally speaking.

Reading comprehension. I said it was the other way around.

Actual people are too basic to. They have carbon copy personalities these days.

Trixie, the two characters are from very different comic worlds. Joker never really is involved with the Superman world, or vice versa, save in special edition comics. So, vice versa doesnt matter.

And the whole point is to get to actual people… psychological processes exist in actual people, however boring, however exciting. You can use literary characters, but if you dont start showing how it fits into actual psychological theory, your literary device is made up fantasy, like in how Procopius used to make up wild bullshit about Empress Theodora.

What Procopius did qualifies as Libel and Slander. He took it too far, and it was all wild gossip, not even trying to make it reasonable or factual. She didn’t actually ride around on a broomstick, we know this… but peasants might not.

However, he was part of a legitimate tradition… Tacitus, Seutonius, Arrian, Malalas, Zozimus…

Take Seutonius, his lives of the 12 Caesars… like Tacitus, he didn’t much like the Emperors. He willingly accepted every absurd rumor going about Rome about Emperor Tiberius’ conduct… but Emperor Tiberius more or less was in voluntary isolation on Capri… Sejanus was his chief minister, clearly aiming to replace Tiberius… nobody doubts this. However… everything bad written about Tiberius got out during Sejanus’ primiership. How… unexplainable. Seutonius at least claims to of made the effort to interview old maids at the palace on Capri to confirm the stories… so under modetn concept of law, couldn’t be charged with libel. He showed he “did his research” and collected the stories, trying to construct a biography.

Now, I’ve personally have been hitting Seutoniys hard, he clearly made some of it up, or at least wasn’t scrupulous.

When you produce a biography of someone, it has to be written in fact… you need to be prepared to show how you reasonably believe someone did each and everything you proposed, by proof or reasonably strong logic. I can do this, but I at the same time know I must.

A biography is both history as well as psychology. When you present a abstracted idea of psychology from pure literature, you need to show how that fits in with similar men from biographies… or show operationally in the mind your theory of what is actually occurring.

The reason why is, they need to be able to analyse it, to see the nature of the criticism and satire if present, if not, to understand what is being said. We possess legal immunities (yes we do Magsj) for pointing this out. Its constitutionally guaranteed… but it still effects the individual. If they can’t detect a reasonable point, argument, or position, you can lose your claim to immunity in a civil suit. So you really gotta try to make your psychological theories fit the boring, mundane human brain, when using real people. Biographies work, biological hypothosis, etc. Something your peers can use to deconstruct.

That is the legal hurdle we all have to pass. If the thread is locked prematurely, the moderator and site owner is a legitimate target for a lawsuit, because this site prohibits legitimate further clarification within the thread on a answer and reply basis… allowing you to make retractions and clarifications, despite the site being set up to allow for it. Its based on a bad legal theory Carleas cooked up, claiming he owns the copyright to what you write, and he can do whatever he wants with your posts. He has some rights, but his claim to copyright ownership is bullshit… but if anyone has a claim against anyone else, lawsuit has to be aimed at the copyright owner.

When a newspaper writes something wrong, the author isn’t sued, it’s the newspaper. Carleas is trying to upsurp his ownership of our writings, so he is the target. However… because his “contract” is almost certainly unenforceable in a court, your going to be held liable in a second suit.

There us a learning curve to philosophy, especially psychological concepts. Though the law doesn’t accept ignorance of the law as a excuse, I’ve given you fair warning. I’m very accepting of being used myself as a Guinea Pig, for as many cases of Turd Ferguson you can come up with, it’s very important to writing good philosophy to be able to develop the skill set to analyse the motivations of a philosopher, behind the theory, to explain the theory. This forum isn’t too different from a classroom in this regard. A lot of mistakes by default will be made.

Its important for people to distance themselves from reading their “cases”… it’s the first time many guts on this forum have undertaken this level of critique. If they say something wrong, correct them. Is it potentially painful and embarrassing? Hopefully… it’s sorta the point, we’ve been doing it this way for a few thousand years, it’s one of the fastest ways to lock theories in combat. A lot it point on the line, seems threatening. Thats philosophy. If your looking for peace and mysticism, go build a grass hut hermitage in the forest. Otherwise, be prepared for others to openly challenge you and your ideas. You will find oftentimes, they get stuff wrong in their discussions, you can correct them.

The current equivalency to this process is Zizek and Chomsky knocking heads, criticizing and bad mouthing one another. We as a society don’t moderate it (hint magsj) so they constantly adjust their explanations of one another, this will go on for months to years longer. It clarifies their philosophical positions, and their way of clarifying each attack and defence keeps them in the protected, constitutional clear.

It would be deeply wrong if Google or YouTube suddenly shut down one side of the debate because Chomsky or Zizek got sand in their clit and didn’t like what the other was saying, and cried for big brother to put a end to it.

Its only when your blantedly lying, for arguing in pure fantasy that it becomes wrong. Literary characters can be used, but it has to become concrete eventually, as soon as you plausably can. You can lodge unlimited, upsetting criticism of a person and their ideas. You can link their actions up to Satire, such as explaining how Magsj is a member of the necromongers, or I am this transsexual AI your claiming I am, but a sembalance to reality is expected if it is a large work. 100 posts on a subject is equivelent to a large work. A single political drawling bordering on surrealism is up to infinate interpretation, and is not.

If I’m not around in the future, you Trixie, will have to point this out to the new guys. I was taught it, and I’m teaching you. You get to teach it next. I recommend growing a thicker skin, your going to be a natural target, especially since you start so much yourself. Its the feelers, quick to taking pain from comments, you gotta baby a bit… no, they gave absolutely no rights or protections to preserving their self image in philosophy, but you don’t gave to utterly destroy them all at once either. Ethically, you do it piecemeal, to the degree they can accept it, digest it, and grow. I wouldn’t collapse their whole world around them, even though I can… I see no benefits to them in the long term making them go fetal position. Your completely allowed to, but I recommend in good faith to the traditions of the best in philosophy, don’t. Let them regain their balance and bearings a bit. Somebody like me can take it a lot harder than I’ve been given it. I could of hit Erik much harder, or Cazar, even Sauwelios, but I meter it out over time, back off, give them breathing room, time to adapt, reformulate, etc. Why? It gives them time to redevelop their ideas, their sense of me, makes potentially for a better second round. Its how I approach things on a personal level.

theguardian.com/commentisfre … -ding-dong

One of a billion links to Chomsky vs Zizek. Strongly recommend Magsj watch some of their videos. A few of the forum members may be doing this mainstream within a few decades, best to get the bugs out now, learn the limits and the ropes now. And seriously, you shut down a thread too soon, and what is written is misconstrued, Magsj and Carleas is who gets sued from how they control this site, and Carleas false claim to copyright holdings of everyone’s writings (he so doesn’t own my words, I’ve pointed this out so many times, No has, Highland waters has… fucking period, but hey, he wants to claim it, there are repercussions).

The two worlds intermix. There are 3 movies where Joker and Lexi team up. admittedly, the super man character does jump the shark of the serious batman atmosphere with his laser beam his and time warping abilities.

The burden of proof does not lie on me, to link you to real world characters. I said you weren’t Joker. I said you weren’t anything, really. The burden of proof lies on Erik.

I can see why you want this to be scientific, however the only data source we have to pick from and wade trough are hipsters. These days there are only 3 or so characters, hipsters, yuppies, homeless people, or hoodrats. They are all the same, and then there are australian people, who are nature lovers. There aren’t really that many "characters’ to pick from in real life like their used to. The wild west gave us billie the kid, nowadays all we have are junkies who rob the corner store. Where are the real characters to base our psychology from?