The Natalie Harp Loyalty Test

It really is as simple as that.  Being instructed to not talk about Natalie Harp is just another item in a long grocery list of things that require unyielding devotion to a personality cult instead of exercising some remaining brain cells.  It’s a test that superficially can easily be passed, just wait a few days until nobody else is talking about Natalie Harp and you will blend in along with everyone else.  Cults do love themselves some blending in.

This particular coordinated counterattack was kind of rushed.  And whether by accident or design that makes it stand out as being odd and unnatural.  Which is paradoxically not unnatural as the Trump loyalty test is a signature move.  Follow a simple directive today, when I ask you to do something insane later I know I can rely on you.  Loyalty testing is normalized as a distraction technique.

One of the top comments on a Bluesky Natalie Harp search is this:

And I’m feeling in a generous mood since this was my technique in my previous post.  (Which was made before that Bluesky comment.)  Finding an excuse to post the name as many times as possible, awfully immature and childish.  Nobody, even someone as hungry for attention as Natalie’s deserves that.  I’ve thought of a lot of good reasons to let it go, move on, and repent from the error of my ways and remove myself from the eternal doom loop of polarized criticism and snark.

It would be a shame if the Streisand Effect got renamed the Harp Effect.  Barbara sort of brought that infamy on herself.  Natalie’s case is by association from someone else instructing us to not pay attention.  Two totally different things.

It would be a shame if enshittification got renamed ennattification.  Just because someone else likes money above quality of product and services surrounding them.

Those annoying co-workers who ride the coattails of the most obvious office politicking/sabotaging low life?  It would be a shame if “riding the coattails” got replaced by “plucking the Harp strings”.

Having to insist that you also like the same type of women that Trump likes?  It would be a shame if that gets referred to as “getting Natalie wood”.

——————————————————————-

Passing the loyalty test is much less intellectually taxing than spending the effort in researching what the fuss is all about.  Getting eyes on the post (and following it up by a donation request) is far more effective than the order of magnitude of increased effort to understand the real issues behind the hubbub.  Underneath the pettiness are some important topics.  Topics such as genuine concern if there’s a national security intelligence risk at play here.  The loyalty test is a cheap short circuit.  Those that pass the loyalty test actually fail the loyalty test.  The failure is understanding the why you're supposed to talk or not to talk about something.  The failure to comprehend why you’re

Harping on

the same topic over and over again.