Non-Monetized Together #svalien


When you’re as privileged as I am, taking any political side is evil.

I can’t blame struggling people for getting involved because politics impacts their lives. Yet a political effort can only thrive when the masses are cruelly manipulated by leaders who are themselves too privileged to feel threatened by political developments.

Imagine if I decided to be active in competitive politics. I couldn’t dare let my followers lose interest in political engagement, so I would have to always ALWAYS create the narrative of an enemy plotting against my political team. I would promise my followers prosperity if we defeat this enemy, but then if we do, I come up with a new enemy for my victims to worry about. Works every time.

You can also read this article at

Who would support a political movement that doesn’t convince them that their lives are at stake? If I don’t get my followers to feel this way, they may no longer feel that they need to rely on the false hope of my political movement to survive! Never mind that I’m too privileged to feel threatened by my side’s political enemies!

I would also need to make sure that my subjects have a narrow, ignorant, prejudiced understanding of these enemies. If my team becomes too open-minded, they may question my authority! They may come up with ideas that benefit them more than they benefit me!

But maybe I don’t want to brainwash my followers into a lifelong state of fear and paranoia. Maybe I care less about ordinary people having my political views and care more about these people making innovations in the way their political orientation views the world. Since I can make the decision to neither treat people cruelly nor hoard my privileges, I won’t get involved with the political sphere.

Instead, I decided to create an online space that functions as an alternative to politics. Where ordinary people can temporarily retreat from their oppressed mindset as political follower, share productive ideas using honest two-way dialogue, and work towards solutions regardless of whether top brass will approve. This context is called “The Context That Isn’t Limited In The Same Way As The Political Context” or #svalien. It applies to everywhere on Nonmonetized Together.

With this context, I can use my privilege to make an online space in which I can give other people that privilege! As long as you don’t use political tactics, you and I will have equal say in how this community functions. If you try political techniques in Nonmonetized Together, they will flop just as hard as #svalien techniques would in the political arena, not because of free-speech restrictions, but just because our social values are so different. Make sure to return to using political tactics once you return to the political sphere as #svalien tactics won’t work so well there.

In this article, I will collect some recent tweets from politicians and political figures, remove them from the politicized context they come from, and place them in this more open context, so the readers can have an open discussion about what these tweets have to say. Make sure to put the number associated with the tweet in front of your comment so people know what you’re responding to.

Tweet 1: “When the ISIS terrorist attack happened in Moscow, the BBC first reported it as a “terror attack” but then edited it to “attack”.


Instead of owning up to the double standards of their reporting of Hamas terror on Oct 7th, they’re downplaying ISIS atrocities.” – @ArchRose90.

This could be an especially productive discussion point for a website such as Medium since a good chunk of this article’s viewers pay careful attention on how they word their posts. It’s good to hear their perspectives.

Tweet 2: “Thankfully the Western world has long progressed past the idea of castrating and torturing criminal suspects. I hate the ISIS terrorist too but if you want to live in a society where the police can cut off your penis if you are merely suspected of a crime I can’t help you.” – @DrewPavlou (along with a screenshot of a post from @violetcity_ saying “But it was totally okay for him to murder innocent people? His ear is more important than the 133 lives he and the rest took? Gfy He’s lucky that they didn’t cut his penis off”)

What’s a response that addresses @violetcity_’s point in a productive way instead of going on a phallic sidetrack?

Tweet 3: “Some of the excrement that carried out the Moscow attack. They massacred over 100 people. I hope the Russian authorities torture them to death 💀” – @GoldingBF (along with a photo caption of them in holding)

I’m including this one as a challenge for you commenters. Do you have what it takes to have a clear head while talking about such an emotionally charged comment? Could you ensure it becomes a conversation in which everyone benefits? If so, congratulations!

Tweet 4: “MAGA this is you. Accept it or not, your children will learn in history class how Donald Trump was a traitor, a rapist, a criminal… I can go on and on. And you’re gonna have to explain to your children how you aided and abetted him.


This is an inescapable reality. #DonPoorleone” – @petee224.

I want to open this comment up so it applies to people who don’t believe that history teachers are infallible (should be all of you). In the near future, who do you think will be the most trustworthy (or least untrustworthy) source that will look back on Trump and inform the public, “he’s a traitor, a rapist, a criminal!” Who do you think will be the most trustworthy (or least untrustworthy) source that will disagree? Make sure to answer both questions. If you still think the answer is “history teachers,” that’s fine, then feel free to answer the question as @petee224 asked. Once you answer both questions, take the evidence from your side and hold it up against the scrutiny of the most trustworthy source on the opposing side! This way, you can put up a strong defense for your point instead of just dunking on easy targets. Remember what I said about how political figures benefit by showing only the worst of the other side! You don’t have to do that Nonmonetized Together. There’s also the possibility that this challenge will result in you changing your mind. Or you may change the minds of others. Or at least learn things you wouldn’t have learned otherwise. All great outcomes.

I understand that “The Context That Isn’t Limited In The Same Way As The Political Context” will be an unfamiliar experience for many of you, so don’t feel insecure if you make a mistake. A lot of people will. I will be patient and we can always restart the discussion over from the beginning if you accidentally slip into the mindset of the oppressed person.

If you want to learn more about this new context, you can read the linked article below. I hope Nonmonetized Together brings some exciting new intellectual opportunities and experiments for you! If you want to take advantage of the Internet’s untapped potential for mental empowerment, you’ve came to the right place.

#Freedom #Power #ISIS #News #Terrorism


I would like to present the people with the greatest-rising association with the word “terrorist,” every year from 2005-2023, according to Google Trends. Some of these examples demonstrate the demonization of different identity groups by society over time as well as the wide variety of cases the term “terrorist” is used for.

The names in this article are based on worldwide data, not country-specific data. I know data may vary depending on country, but I think basing it on worldwide data can show us the enemy of the country that was the most powerful at the time.

In 2005, the face of terrorism was Volkswagen.

In 2006, the face of terrorism was Zinedine Zidane.                                     

In 2007, the face of terrorism was Achmed the Dead Terrorist.

In 2008, the face of terrorism was Bill Ayers.

In 2009, the face of terrorism was the Taliban.

In 2010, the face of terrorism was Carlos the Jackal.

In 2011, the face of terrorism was Osama bin Laden.

In 2012, the face of terrorism was Anna Hazare.

In 2013, the face of terrorism was Dzhokar A Tsarnaev.

In 2014, the face of terrorism was the Islamic State.

In 2015, the faces of terrorism were Christian terrorists.

In 2016, the face of terrorism was Black Lives Matter.

In 2017, the faces of terrorism were anti-fascists.

In 2018, the faces of terrorism were Islamic terrorists.

In 2019, the face of terrorism as the United States Coast Guard.

In 2020, the faces of terrorism were the U.S. State Department List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

In 2021, the face of terrorism was the Taliban.

In 2022, the face of terrorism was state-sponsored terrorism.

In 2023, the face of terrorism was Hamas.

I knew it! Social media is depersonalizing how we view each other! From 2014 onward, the enemy has been organizations, while from 2005-2013, it has been mostly individuals. Honestly, I enjoyed it more back then, when people understood that there was variation within groups.

Can you make out any other patterns from the data?

#Terrorism #GoogleTrends #Media #Representation #Culture

You can also view this article at