Whenever I read prominent writers in the DR or listen to podcasts such as Caribbean rhythms, I can't help but notice how frequently people talk about meeting people they know in real life. However, based on personal observation, it appears that most connections on the internet never leave the virtual world. Most online "dissidents" restrict themselves to simply producing and consuming digital content, without reaching out to people like them or doing any activities in the real world with others. I understand why facefagging is frowned upon, but it is scientific consensus that offline relationships are much deeper that online relationships by a variety of different metrics.
I can't help but feel like I'm missing out on the "deeper" side of the movement by not personally connecting with people who share similar goals and interests. I am wondering if anyone here has experience with developing personal connections with other DR figures and if anyone has insight on how to do this.
It’s doable and has been done, you need to arrange a place to meet up, who you want to meet with, and you will have to provide identifying information on yourself.
One way to go about is to arrange private meet ups, that are between two or three people. At most five. That are not publicly announced.
I've always wanted to meet some mutuals from twitter, and many of my twitter mutuals have met eachother irl, but it's just never happened yet for me
Might be projecting here, but I imagine many posters are very introverted and/or kind of socially retarded so that might be a big barrier, not to mention people are posting from all over the world and ending up in the vicinity of one of your online friends may take quite the coincidence, and most people aren't good enough friends purely through online interaction to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars in order to travel to meet some fellow anon
What would be the benefit of meeting online friends, offline?
The reading you do is already deeper than "offline relationships" in the everyday world.
Any post of sufficient length is open to unlimited interpretation, and those interpretations are open to their own interpretations, and so on. Each book, each essay, each post informs the other. New experience provides an inexhaustible store for re-interpretation.
The written word is essentially ambiguous.
In conversation, the tone, facial expressions, posture and hand gestures concretize what would be fluid. What residue of ambiguity remains, can be removed by the pertinent question or prompt correction.
Already this post is more interesting than any conversation that has ever taken place on the planet.
if i were to do this, I would look into the cryptography stuff that would allow creation of say 30 fresh platform-independent pseudonyms where each one corresponds to a person and their accounts, but nobody can tell which account goes to which fresh pseudonym. idk if this particular use case is implemented but it would be related to ring signatures if it is. Then, you can meet up with some of the bearers of these new identities without anyone involved getting doxxed to specific account by infiltrators. Would be more effective with more accounts, especially if some trick could provide plausible deniability. Doesn't work that well if you have already of semi-doxxed yourself within the set of people involved through your apparent connection to a "RhodeIslandIrishSexOffender666" account. Any apparent clues to your identity that are weak in the general population of internet users may become strictly identifying in combination with the set of people.
Infiltrators could try doxxing people to the set of people involved, but that is much harder to display and communicate to people. "We think that your neighbor is... gigachad777, or maybe shivahitler, but he could be any of these 300 people... why are you closing the door? I'm not done yet" Probably would be enough to get you fired anyway in most cases. One could recruit accounts presenting themselves as normiecons etc to take part as a sort of digital meat shield to make the bulk of pseudonymous accounts involved more defensible. This would proportionally reduce the chances of meeting someone known to be based off the internet, so the advantage is only in the lower fractions to muddy the waters.
Might be most effective choosing a variety of dissident-adjacent accounts that are themselves not directly connected so any normies (who probably wind up meeting with a couple cunning amarnese) will advocate openly for their normiecon honor through their independent digital and social networks, de-duplicating the work of grassroots propaganda where it would otherwise overlap.
I have met many off of X in my time ... you have to be pretty deep into it though, making sacrifices, and you can't be scared of getting "doxxed" (this only matters if you're famous anyway ... no one will care about you if you are a small account and nobody in real life). Fundamentally if you don't live close to someone, meeting them in person hardly matters because 99% of the interaction will be online anyway. So the real question is, how do you meet based high IQ people close to where you live?
I have only found one who claimed to be such a person ... it was an e-girl, as they are called. But it seemed Sr. Nicholas J. Fuentes was indeed correct about that kind, because she seemed to have a personality disorder ... ultimately she had no pairbonding capacity, and her closest friends were normies, a huge indicator someone isn't really based. To this day she vaguely hates on blacks while mostly talking about women's issues and the kids she will have 10 years from now when she is 35 and ready on X.com. Many such cases!
I wish I could find someone like what she pretended to be in real life ... the key purpose of this is for sex, because you can't have sex online. I would take a woman or an eromenos or both... But I have nowhere to meet based high IQ people in real life, the dating apps are endless spam. Fat people. Brown people. Low IQ people. Normies. Liberals. Any of these is a deal-breaker and all are at least one.
Scientific fact: the highest trait-correlations in couples are politics and IQ. Basedness and high IQness in other words. Perhaps someone should make a dating app that allowed one to filter by these traits?
(10-10-2023, 08:23 PM)GymChad Wrote: Perhaps someone should make a dating app that allowed one to filter by these traits?
Be careful what you wish for.
[Image:
https://uploads.dailydot.com/2022/09/the...1&fit=crop]
University of Wikipedia, class of 2023, summa cum laude in all the articles of the "Nazi Germany" expandobox
There is an aspect of basedness that is so objective that you shouldn't seek to find it itself in other people but merely the root potential for it to develop, then nurture it with an enhancing environment. Say you make friends with aryan gigachad but he is all like spergy about talking ancap stuff like muh NAP every moment but is 0% a cuckold even inside the frame of his mind virus principles. 90% of this type of ideology only sticks around because it is fun to be a broken record with occasional new riffs when you find a new aspect of central banking zogworld that you can intellectually obliterate. Get him off the general topic for as long as you can and he'll stop using it as a crutch to make his thoughts rhyme. Once he has a second wife in a small town he will determine to reform his principles or find a way operate within them to keep his investment safe. But what can't be fixed? Being lazy or dumb. Those are hard limits.
