The Crisis Of Social Terrorism, Cont.

Social terror will remain an unfortunate part of our landscape into the foreseeable future.

“Mizzy:” Harmless prankster, or social terrorist?

Andrew Branca, an attorney who specializes in defending clients in self-defense cases, has an excellent YouTube channel titled “Law of Self Defense. This channel is a must-see if you intend on using violence to defend yourself, your family, and property, or are otherwise interested in the topic.

In one of his more recent videos, Branca talks about the troubling trend of people, frequently young men, engaging in cruel and dangerous pranks, often for social media traffic. He highlights an incident where someone pretends like he’s pouring gasoline on an unwitting victim’s vehicle, threatening to set it aflame, going as far as chasing after the victim. It doesn’t take a college degree to see how dangerous this prank is and how any reasonable person would feel threatened.

Watch:

The most important part of this video, however, starts at 5:25, where he explains that your fate ultimately comes down to prosecutors - political figures - who interpret the law the way it’s supposed to be interpreted, to say nothing of juries who may or may not be sympathetic to your plight:

It’s blackpilling, but the facts have become mostly irrelevant. At the risk of oversimplifying it, if they want to charge you with a crime, they will. All they need is to build a plausible case against you and boom, you’re on your way to facing a grand jury. The terms “aggressor” and “victim” are no longer legal terms, but political terms. Your racial and sexual identity are on the table for determining what role you played in the incident and what your responsibilities were. Sure, there’s nothing in writing that says this is how these cases are supposed to be handled, but real-world practice reveals patterns.

Consider this story from the Wall Street Journal. Written in the wake of the death of Jordan Neely and the arrest of Daniel Penny, who attempted to restrain him on a New York City subway, it’s behind a paywall, but Peter Moskos shared the most important parts of the story on Twitter:

This wasn’t a case of social terrorism, but the point is, who you are and who your victim is often decisive in how the system regards your case. You could commit an utterly heinous crime, like murdering a child, and you won’t be held accountable for it. However, if you step up and defend yourself and your fellow citizens like Daniel Penny did on that subway train, you better find yourself a good lawyer because you’re not going to get away with it.

Worse, in my view, is the idea that aggressors and victims have the same moral standing. Sure, the legal system adjudicating morality is always risky business. But as I’ve explained before, when the law isn’t moored to any higher morality, it becomes an oppressive, soulless system that fails to fulfill it’s obligation: keep order and protect the innocent. I’m a strong believer that there’s no justice to be had in the legal system, but when the regime is more concerned by you doing what they feel to be their job (a job they won’t do, anyway) than they are about what was done to you, that’s a fundamentally unjust system where oppression happens twice - first by the criminal, then by the state. Then again, this is anarcho-tyranny, so what do you expect?

Going back to the issue of pranking, which as you might’ve noticed, I categorize under the broader phenomenon of social terrorism, there’s no protection from this. Some acts, like pretending to torch someone’s property, are blatantly illegal and can be prosecuted under the broad concept of “criminal mischief,” but if you cannot use force to defend yourself in response to such acts, your only recourse is to be victimized in some fashion.

As Andrew Branca explains, there are many situations where using force, even deadly force, would be fully justified in response to a prank, but it doesn’t matter if you have no confidence the authorities will uphold your right to defense your person and your property, even from a threat which ultimately turned out to be false. Controlling the actions of the law-abiding is very much the objective, so that fear of prosecution, to say nothing of the fear of violence, forces people to withdraw, stand idly by, and defer to the authorities, who ultimately do nothing.

It’s demoralizing, but if the objective is to stay alive, maybe that’s all we can really do. Social terrorism isn’t something any one person can solve; it’s going to involve a full-throated effort by state and society to recognize the problem exists and to attack it with the full force of arms - figuratively and literally - and crush it. Yes, that involves violence. Unless would-be social terrorists understand that a perceived threat is still a threat and that threats are answered with violence, there’s no incentive for them to quit. Unless parents and other members of the community insist on better behavior out of not just their children, but from others, and a culture of upholding a meager standard of behavior is established, social terrorism will continue. As you might’ve noticed, we’re drifting further and further away from the kind of society I’ve just described. Social terror will remain an unfortunate part of our landscape into the foreseeable future.

Many have noted the role social media has played in fomenting social terror. It has certainly exacerbated it, but it isn’t it’s cause. What fuels social terror isn’t just lust for fame, but desire to harm. We just have that many sociopaths lurking among us. Whatever their motivation, they find that harming others serves a purpose for them, filling needs that cannot be satisfied by other means. But we shouldn’t be interested in “root causes.” Not only is there no justification for any of it, their justifications never had merit in the first place. It’s a threat that needs to be dealt with, but until our culture and politics recognizes it as a problem in need of a solution, little will change.

In Britain, there’s a big story going on concerning a social media prankster named “Mizzy.” He’s created quite the buzz not only with his antics, but also the way society has reacted to him. The reason 18-year-old Mizzy, whose real name is Bacari-Bronze O’Garro, has drawn so much attention, despite being just one of many pranksters in the market, is how his pranks push the boundaries of cruelty and danger.

Here’s a video showing just how far Mizzy goes. If you don’t want to watch, an example of what he became infamous for are videos where he walks into people’s homes uninvited:

Jason Okundaye wrote in The Guardian:

Looking back on it, it almost seems as if this escalation in videos was built into the system: illicit bike rides aren’t enough to sustain the internet’s attention, you have to up your prank game and really force people to watch. Now bewildered and angry people across Britain have been understandably left with a series of questions. Namely: who is Mizzy and what does he want?

Hmm. A “systemic” explanation. Where have we heard that before?

Having established Mizzy’s conduct as “abhorrent,” Okundaye attempts to rationalize it:

It’s true that Mizzy is an adult but he is very young, which is worth bearing in mind. At the same time, we should be wary of how we portray him. What both responses fail to take into account is that Mizzy has recognised that, in a competitive market, there is a high demand for content that really aggravates other people – the kids call it “cloutrage”. By pursuing this – in an amoral, algorithmic universe that rewards anything that garners attention – he is engaging in a twisted form of online entrepreneurship. One that could return serious profits through the development of a cult following and core audience.

Okundaye isn’t wrong - modern society, especially pop culture, does reward irresponsible behavior. Again, it’s not the reason why these things happen. To say so means all young people Mizzy’s age are susceptible to the same behavior, but that’s false. These aren’t acts of momentary exuberance, but the expression of something much deeper. The same way a person doesn’t go from being a law-abiding citizen to a cold-blooded murderer in a day, nobody goes from being a good, if mischievous, kid to walking into strangers’ homes uninvited.

Or pretending to hijack a train:

https://twitter.com/CatchUpFeed/status/1662793718087417856

Is stealing a Jew’s hat and making fun of them, an act certain to be characterized as antisemitic if it’d been done by anyone else, just a matter of immaturity? Or again, is there something deeper going on?

https://twitter.com/GoldingBF/status/1664594894315220992

It all makes what Okundaye says here baffling:

The reactions have tended to fall into two camps. There seems to be a new story about him every day – each an excuse for people on the internet to shout about how he has not faced enough consequences. But there are also a few welfare-minded folks on social media who view Mizzy as someone more in need of a social worker than a judge.

“An excuse?” Thus far, Mizzy has been fined and issued a community behavior order, which he promptly violated. If the consequences aren’t changing his behavior, they’re obviously insufficient. The idea a softer approach (which, to be fair, isn’t necessarily Okundaye’s position) is more appropriate ignores the fact he’s doing this because he wants to, not because he’s underserved in some fashion. It’s undeniably deliberate and even Okundaye seems to agree:

What Mizzy has also done is exploit the distinctly British irritation and discomfort with any type of antisocial behaviour by teenagers – he knows exactly what it is that riles British people.

In other words, Mizzy knows exactly what he’s doing. Which means he isn’t quite the child Okundaye attempts to characterize him as. Sure, his brain may not be developed to the point where he understands that mistreating others warrants his own mistreatment, but a society that doesn’t uphold a certain standard of behavior for all is a society which devolves into barbarism and savagery. We’re seeing that process play out in Britain, the U.S., and the broader West.

Many have noted that giving Mizzy media exposure plays into his hands by giving him what he wants. While I agree, I also believe his behavior needs to be exposed. Not enough people are alert to the danger of social terrorism and the only way to make people aware is to shine the spotlight on the problem. I think we can also all agree that Mizzy is going to keep doing what he’s doing, regardless of how much or how little media exposure he gets. In fact, the lack of notoriety could make him even more desperate for fame and potentially push him over the edge. It might not be the worst thing for society in the long run, but he’s also proven that he’s willing to hurt others in the process.

Media exposure may also be the only way Mizzy gets any serious push-back, since the law seems insufficient to do anything about him. The tough-guy faded away in an instant when he realized not everyone was willing to play by his rules:

https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1665088385466384385

Many came to his defense, claiming he was unfairly treated, but really - do you think a sociopath who bullies and terrorizes was treated unfairly just because he received a harsh admonishment?

I’m not here to engage in social commentary and I’ve probably drifted off course here. Social terror is here to stay, we can’t really stop it - not now, anyway - yet we must learn to live with it. But how? How do we live with something so awful?

First, remember that terrorism in general is a low-probability event. The vast majority of us will live out our lives fortunate enough to not become victims of terrorism. As I type this, I can’t help but think of the thousands of my fellow countrymen who died at the World Trade Center on 9/11, not knowing until it happened their lives would end the way they did. Still, you can’t beat the numbers. Terrorism is terrible, but it’s just not something that’s going to happen to most of us. We should be grateful.

However, we should still be aware that it could happen to us. Not because we might be able to stop it from happening as a result, but because we’d be quicker to recognize what’s happening when it does and react appropriately sooner. The fact that today’s pranksters are recording themselves or being recorded as they carry out their acts means you might be able to spot them from a distance.

As I’ve said before, if someone wants to make you a target, they will. But due to its inherent ambiguity, it’s difficult to respond to a prankster without escalating the situation. Acquiescing isn’t an option either. At least, you couldn’t expect a reasonable individual to do so. So what do you do?

Here’s what I said a few months ago on the topic of “mid-level violence:”

How do you deal with this kind of predator? All I can offer is, if you ever find yourself in a situation like that, stay calm above all else. This is the most difficult thing to do, yet it’s the most important thing you can do. Often, a situation spirals out of control because emotions spiral out of control. Recognize what’s happening, accept it’s happening, be firm, and if an opportunity presents itself, walk away. This is the best possible outcome; if they continue to pursue and provoke you after you’ve made it clear you’re not interested in playing games, now they’re really crossing a line and engaging in borderline criminality.

I’ll add that if the prankster refuses to back off, issue a clear warning: You’re now a threat to me, I’ll defend myself. You’re expressing that you’re not interested in being their victim in a non-escalatory manner. Telling someone to stop their behavior might be more direct, but by acknowledging your harasser as a threat, you hand them a dilemma - they either prove you right, or they prove you wrong. If they’re smart, they’ll prove you wrong. As I explained in that same post, if someone really wants to hurt you, they will, no matter what you say. Be serious, stand tall, and be ready to back up those words. Fear is an understandable reaction, but try your best not to show it. Bullies can sense fear and prey upon it.

Stick to your script. Do not let social terrorists sucker you into debates, answering stupid questions, or attempts at bargaining. Don’t get into a shouting match or lose your temper - this is the reaction they’re gunning for. The calmer you remain, the more uninterested they’ll become: why isn’t this fool taking my bait?

Finally, understand that no matter what happens, dealing with a social terrorist is going to be an excruciating, mentally taxing experience. Regardless of how it concludes, you may end up feeling embarrassed and shamed over it. This is normal. Nobody likes losing face, but nothing will force you to lose face quicker than to overreact and losing your cool. Like most criminals, social terrorists are willing to risk a lot, even their own lives, to boost their clicks and egos. Remember the price they’re willing to pay and don’t give them what they want. This is a mental battle more than anything else.

None of these answers are satisfying, but if you learn nothing else, remember this: your life is worth more than theirs, so act like it. Don’t do anything that’d increase your risk of harm or even death. If you can remove yourself from the situation, just do it without a second thought. Secure your belongings and property. As they say in Colombia, “Don’t give papaya.” None of this advice acts as a guarantee, but as I explained earlier, it’s ultimately up to society and state to prevent social terrorism. Until they do, just make it through the encounter intact.

Have any of you been victims of social terrorism? What are some good techniques for dealing with it? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

UPDATE: As always, subscriber “Reckoning” shares thoughtful observations:

A few random comments:

1. Some people seem to think that there is some sort of right to say it’s a prank and that the criminal law doesn’t apply. While traditionally there was some latitude for, say, students running a clever prank, there is no wit here and no social value. It is up to the law to make an example of the perpetrators and stop them.

2. The easiest thing to do would be for YouTube to ban the accounts of those involved. Striking that they are more interested in banning “misinformation” and insults to those in power than genuinely antisocial and criminal behaviour. Hopefully one of the victims sues YouTube and wins.

Fortunately, Mizzy’s TikTok and YouTube accounts have been terminated. Unfortunately, this doesn’t exclude him from the media landscape completely. The fact he’s achieved such notoriety means he can ride the wave of infamy for a while. He does have his supporters and, unfortunately, there exists a market for figures like him.

More:

3. Let’s face it, there is an element of hostility to many of these youths terrorizing and (in their view) humiliating law-abiding citizens.

4. The justice system coddles and gives endless indulgence to its usual suspects. Many people don’t realize that the state is just laying in wait for regular citizens and will treat them worse than the criminal element. See the novel Bonfire of the Vanities.

I’d put it differently. The state doesn’t necessarily treat regular citizens worse, but it doesn’t distinguish between “law-abiding” and non-law-abiding, either. Again, the law views you and criminals on the same legal and moral level. You can obey the law your whole life, but that one moment you catch the state sideways, you cannot expect to be treated any differently from a lifelong criminal.

If it seems like regular citizens are treated worse, it’s because regular citizens have more to lose. You cannot hold someone accountable unless there’s something for them to lose as a consequence.

Finally:

5. A criminal defence attorney once advised me that justice system delivers decisions, not justice. So basically you have to avoid it if at all possible.

It doesn’t even matter what the final outcome is. There’s a saying that goes, the process is the punishment. For criminals, the process is part of their life’s routine. For the rest of us, the process is a costly, torturous affair that strips us of everything - our dignity, our privacy, our reputation. If the state manages to make an example of a citizen who dares to step outside their cage and discourage others from doing the same, then punishing them is just icing on the cake. It’s always easier to enforce the law with people who are willing to go along with it.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!