TiktokUser
Luminary
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2024
- Posts
- 4,664
- Reputation
- 8,351
The specific building he targeted was Aylo, the operator of the world’s most popular porn sites, including Pornhub, Brazzers, etc. In his manifesto, he apparently ranted extensively about pornography, and stressed that someone needed to take action against the problem.
The shootout quite ]occurred at the doorstep of Aylo’s offices. Fired shots from the window of his hotel room directly across the street into Aylo’s headquarters. Initial reports described a man shooting from a hotel window.
He then likely left the hotel, attempting to access Aylo’s offices, only to come face to face with responding officers. A violent gunfight ensued, during which he killed one Muslim Officer, while a female cop (jfl) accidentally opened fire on a civilian, whose name was
Rabbi Michael Moshe Mizrahi. Photos down below to pay respects
Now I've read the first three chapters of his manifesto, roughly 20 pages out of 101. Based on what I’ve seen so far, his core positioning can be summarized as strongly anti-feminist, anti-capitalist, anti-porn, anti-mass migration, pro-communist, and pro-monogamy.
He advocates a return to what he calls “true monogamy,” exactly how he proposes to achieve this restoration? don't know, he might likely elaborates on it in later chapters. The manifesto opens with a detailed discussion of taxonomy and sexual dimorphism between men and women. Surprisingly, he cites sources for nearly every claim he makes.
He proceeds further to talk about how the western world as back as the 1950s was intentionally filled with vulgarity and degeneracy. This cultural decline, in his view, manifested in the degradation of music, the broader erosion of traditional culture, and ultimately the effective abolition of true monogamy As he puts it:
Now, if anyone is more curious about his manifesto in particular, you can simply read his full manifesto down below in the spoiler. Or, if you just want a summary of the paragraphs I’ve read so far, I’ve provided both below in the spoiler.
Now just to be clear if there's any feds reading this thread. I do NOT condone nor promote any of the actions Seth Scott Hatfield took. Like ALL of my other threads, this one is purely educational in nature or a satirical parody of the character I am portraying on this forum. Thank you.
@Gargantuan @downwardgrowth23 @Atra @Matrix88 @polarpop
The shootout quite ]occurred at the doorstep of Aylo’s offices. Fired shots from the window of his hotel room directly across the street into Aylo’s headquarters. Initial reports described a man shooting from a hotel window.
He then likely left the hotel, attempting to access Aylo’s offices, only to come face to face with responding officers. A violent gunfight ensued, during which he killed one Muslim Officer, while a female cop (jfl) accidentally opened fire on a civilian, whose name was
Rabbi Michael Moshe Mizrahi. Photos down below to pay respects

Now I've read the first three chapters of his manifesto, roughly 20 pages out of 101. Based on what I’ve seen so far, his core positioning can be summarized as strongly anti-feminist, anti-capitalist, anti-porn, anti-mass migration, pro-communist, and pro-monogamy.
He advocates a return to what he calls “true monogamy,” exactly how he proposes to achieve this restoration? don't know, he might likely elaborates on it in later chapters. The manifesto opens with a detailed discussion of taxonomy and sexual dimorphism between men and women. Surprisingly, he cites sources for nearly every claim he makes.
He proceeds further to talk about how the western world as back as the 1950s was intentionally filled with vulgarity and degeneracy. This cultural decline, in his view, manifested in the degradation of music, the broader erosion of traditional culture, and ultimately the effective abolition of true monogamy As he puts it:
It is immensely more profitable to inculcate and propagate a consumeristic monoculture within society than it is to maintain more simplistic and traditional cultural practices.
It was and is characterized by the spread of unhealthy and commodified food;the propagation of increasingly vulgar and degenerate commercialized music;and the replacement of more gentle, traditional, and localized cultural practices with new commodified practices based heavily upon the inordinate idolization of so-called celebrities, be they actresses, musicians, sports stars, or what have you.
There is indeed one change that was made, which was more striking, and more socially and culturally consequential than perhaps all of the others; and this change itself was the abandoning of any and all societal aspects which had served the function of maintaining monogamy. Once this occurred, the hypergamy state came to prevail in the west, and this catastrophic change, as we may expect, was made towards the goal of bourgeois profit.
In regard to the communist world it is the case that little or none of the rampant degeneration of the west occurred there; and monogamy, along with traditional cultural customs, were maintained rather consistently. But the bourgeois class gained a shocking victory with the collapse of the Soviet Union, along with all of the other European communist nations that once existed.
Now, if anyone is more curious about his manifesto in particular, you can simply read his full manifesto down below in the spoiler. Or, if you just want a summary of the paragraphs I’ve read so far, I’ve provided both below in the spoiler.
Now just to be clear if there's any feds reading this thread. I do NOT condone nor promote any of the actions Seth Scott Hatfield took. Like ALL of my other threads, this one is purely educational in nature or a satirical parody of the character I am portraying on this forum. Thank you.
On the other hand, all the healthy females also seek to reproduce, but their biological imperative is to reproduce with only a select group of males, and with great regard to their attractiveness. In this we see that the biological imperatives of the two sexes are contradictory, as they cannot both be fulfilled at the same time, and this phenomenon I call the contradiction of the imperatives.
Ultimately [women] could no longer indulge in the excessive fulfillment of their biological imperative as they once did back in the pre-civilization times. Now, they found themselves Legalistically bound to just one common man, while those rare few males whom the females most strongly desired to copulate with were either far away and rather inaccessible in their palaces, or themselves were engaging in monogamy.
By hypergamy I do not mean the traditional definition of that word, which pertains to women marrying into wealthy families; but rather I mean something like the opposite of monogamy, normally a phenomenon in which females simply copulate as they please with a plethora of attractive males, as opposed to monogamy, in which the same females would be bound legalistically and culturally to just one male.
By hypergamy state I mean any civilization or civilized nation in which hypergamy has become the dominant mode of intimacy. Thus, both modern western civilization itself, and individual nations such as the United States, Canada, etcetera can all be defined as hypergamy states.
All this is to say that capitalism as a system was not a creation of the common man; or more specifically, the monogamous male farmers and labourers of feudal times, but rather capitalism was the creation of a smaller and more privileged male clique, who had very different interests than the workers and peasants around them.16 It is crucial that any readers who are men of proletarian background understand that capitalism was not created for them, and as a system it was never designed with their interests, or the interests of people like them, in mind.
Back while monogamy was still very firmly in place, it was a reality that the majority of the female population–which itself comprised about half of the entire human population–was generally cut off from bourgeois exploitation, as they remained in their homes, performing household tasks and raising children with their husbands. Since such an arrangement was obviously highly unprofitable for the bourgeois class, feminism was allowed to flourish, and was directly promoted, while bourgeois businessmen gladly allowed women to enter the workforce, 23 24 and thereby to contribute in massive numbers to the expansion of the power of bourgeois industries; and also to obtain their own salaries, with which they could consume countless products and stimulate the economy further.
The 1950s, though so commonly idealized by conservatives today, was in actuality a time of rampant substance abuse, infidelities, and general degeneracy in the west as compared with previous times. It was in that decade that the rapid growth and proliferation of a new degenerative capitalist monoculture occurred. This monoculture was the direct predecessor of the one which still dominates excessively in the western world today, and still indeed finds itself spreading to new corners of the earth. It was and is characterized by the spread of unhealthy and commodified food; the propagation of increasingly vulgar and degenerate commercialized music; and the replacement of more gentle, traditional, and localized cultural practices with new commodified practices based heavily upon the inordinate idolization of so-called celebrities, be they actresses, musicians, sports stars, or what have you.
Having then obtained the means of generating their own salaries, and with traditional culture now being replaced by high capitalist monoculture, women simply no longer wanted, or even needed common men as much as they once did; and monogamy thereby plummeted in frequency, with women overwhelmingly preferring to work for corporations while earning money and engaging in hypergamy, as opposed to working for common husbands, who did not pay them money, and who expected monogamy.
It was during these times that divorce rates in western nations first started to skyrocket, while birthrates plummeted accordingly, and both of these phenomena were the direct result of the economic autonomy that the female population had gained. The simple reason that they largely preferred to be hypergamous while working for corporations, as opposed to being monogamous while working for a husband, is because the path of corporate concubinage was more in accordance with their biological imperative.
The hypergamy state in its fullness had emerged, and this hypergamy state is what we in the west are now living in. Its characteristic feature is an intense and appallingly unequal distribution of intimacy within the human population; and this disparity, along with other features of the hypergamy state and their effects on humans, will be examined by us with careful attention in the following chapter.
In previous times, before monogamy had been instituted, this large class of males was usually subjected to an existence full of harshness and brutality. Their short lives were comprised largely of serving small communities which did not benefit them very much; or more specifically, they were serving the females who themselves were all only breeding with a few of the males, evidently those males that were the most strong and attractive, and held leading roles in the primitive hunter-gatherer societies.
Once monogamy had been instituted, the broad class of common males10 found themselves far better off than they had been, for under monogamy, they no longer had to spend their lives in miserable loneliness and savage brutality still widespread. Seeing this, the bourgeois class proceeded to prop up several conservative figureheads (e.g. Reagan and Thatcher), who claimed to be supporters of the common man. These figureheads then won elections by large margins, much to the rejoicing of males across the west. The problem for these males though was that the people who they had voted in were indeed mere figureheads; and when it came to actually fixing the problems that the common men wished to have fixed, the only solutions that these figureheads offered were things along the lines of more privatization, more emphasis on ‘individual responsibility’,26 and more tax cuts for the rich; essentially things which all suspiciously only benefitted the bourgeois class, and not the common man, while these also were things which actually increased the speed and severity of the downfall of monogamy in western countries. Thusly monogamy in the west did not make a sudden comeback in the 1980s, but continued to decline ever more steeply.
it is now actually the case that in high capitalist societies– i.e. in the societies of the western world– monogamy is no longer prevalent at all; and as a result we find present a vastly unequal distribution of intimacy amongst the human populations of those nations, a skewed inequality not so unlike that which existed in primitive times, in that we find most of the females only copulating with a tiny fractional group of the males
Firstly, liberalism and capitalism operate under the assumption that all humans are created equal. This assumption is blatantly and demonstrably false,18 but the bourgeois class needs people to believe in it, for when it is widely accepted to be true, it is consequentially inferred by people generally that any problem which occurs in society is not the result of tangible inherent problems in the societal order itself; but of some personal autonomous choice of laziness or otherwise on the part of the person or people suffering from any given problem, as since they supposedly started out with the exact same setup as the successful people, it follows that they must have received their misfortunes by deliberate choice.
remember, capitalism was never designed towards the benefit of the common male of the working class, or of the whole of society at all; but rather, it was designed by the bourgeois class towards their own benefit. During the world wars of the twentieth century (and the interwar period), while capitalism was increasing in its technological advancements, the stability of western bourgeois dominance was threatened greatly by the rise of communism, a system which directly attacked the power of the bourgeois class, and improved the lot of the proletarian male.
After the chaos of the world wars came to an end however, the international communist movement was still not as powerful as the western capitalist world; and the western bourgeois class, which had been increasingly gaining power for much time–and had just defeated its National Socialist enemies–suddenly found itself in an outrageously prosperous and triumphant position, being absolutely free to restructure western society to their own wishes, namely towards the goal of increasing their profit and power.
It is more profitable to produce and sell good-tasting but unhealthy food than it is to produce and sell healthy food, which is more costly to produce, and is less enticing to a great portion of consumers. It is more profitable to promote and sell newfangled and ‘exciting’ musical genres to people than it is to promote and sell classical music, which has far less of an appeal to potential consumers generally. It is immensely more profitable to inculcate and propagate a consumeristic monoculture within society than it is to maintain more simplistic and traditional cultural practices.
Since birthrates had plummeted, the bourgeois class needed a way to keep the population of western nations growing; and also to obtain more cheap labour, as the populations of western nations were growing more and more used to relatively luxurious conditions, and therefore were becoming less and less willing to work excessively low-paying jobs. Of course, the bourgeois class was not about to bring back monogamy in order to lift the birthrates back up–as that would mean ending an incredibly profitable arrangement–so instead, they opted for the cheaper solution, which was to begin the practice of merely importing continual and ceaseless waves of immigrants from the global south into western countries, drawing from a wide range of populations
and so it was that the now ubiquitous global south-derived migration waves into the west began at the same time that the hypergamy state was becoming dominant, all because the insatiably greedy bourgeois class found it to be far more profitable to simply import cheap labour while allowing rampant hypergamy to go on, than to promote monogamy while paying white couples enough money to have healthy families.
@Gargantuan @downwardgrowth23 @Atra @Matrix88 @polarpop
