Psychic Warfare Department

A Study on the Human Condition and other Horrors

Many ask "How can we make money stop influencing elections?" Many solutions have been proposed. None of them will work. The real answer is much simpler:

You can't.

In the end, one or the other must go. In the end, one or the other will go. There is no viable third alternative. All orbits decay on a long enough timeline. Eventually every society trying to balance those two opposing goals (and let's not kid ourselves, they are in opposition) will have to cross that event horizon, and will end up on one side of that that proverbial fence or the other: a socialist democracy or plutocratic oligarchy.

It's pretty clear which side the USA is going to end up on. But there is some justice coming: Once our real ruling class is finished with their goals, all of those politicians who helped them achieve it will no longer be needed and kicked to the curb. Those who thought they could ride the coattails of success will find themselves nothing more that another bunch of loose ends. Someday the descendants of congressmen, advertisers, con-men and the rest of society's self-professed "winners" - those who have deluded themselves into thinking that they're going to be part of the club - will end up miserable sustenance farmers just like the rest of us.

Myth Busted
Back during my stint at WCCC there was a large framed poster on one of the walls honoring Coleman Young. It contained a long list of his accomplishments, and upon reading it I laughed out loud. A faculty member asked me what I was laughing about. I pointed to a particular passage and read it out loud to him.

" 'Many claim that if he hadn't been black he could have been president.' I think our current president would claim otherwise."

When I came back to class the next week the poster had been replaced.

Husk (new slang definition by me): A person whom, having no discernible personality or real beliefs of their own, adopts a persona based entirely on a tribal identity in order to win the approval of that tribe. Unlike true zealots, however, the husk does not truly believe in their cause. Rather, they only believe in the perpetual one-way flow of praise and attention towards themselves. Because of this, the deliberately seek out confrontation & drama just so that they can digitally record and publish these situations for the approval of their adopted tribe. The life of a husk has nothing to do with belief, dedication, or sacrifice but rather only the illusion of these things in order to farm popularity from social media outlets. They serve no other purpose.

Full Circle
Libertarian Guy: "The government is hopelessly corrupt and that's why we need to get rid of it!"
Other Guy: "Why is it corrupt?"
Libertarian Guy: "Because rich people keep bribing the politicians."
Other Guy: "And what are the political ideals of those rich people who are bribing the politicians?"
Libertarian Guy: "Uh..."
Other Guy: "See, you're not the answer to the problem. You're the cause of it."

Pre-Truth Society
Today I will dismantle a buzz-phrase that's become quite popular lately: "Post-Factual Reality" and it's variants. First, that particular phrase is an oxymoron, and you don't need to be a philosophy major to realize that. Other versions include "Post-Truth Society" among others, and that's the version I'm going to use for the purpose of this piece.

As you probably already know this buzz-phrase has to do with all the garbage, lies and bullshit that's been propagated by the internet media over the last decade or so. While other news outlets have also fallen to this behavior, the internet media in particular is by far the best example, and it's easy to see why: The economic model supports this behavior.

In the old fashioned world of print media, advertisers, who were beholden to their patron companies, had to be careful about which print media they published in lest they end up on the wrong side of public view for their target demographic. This concern has vanished in the internet media domain, and the new model doesn't give a flying fuck about reputation. Rather it is only interested in getting read by anyone (another sign of a decaying economy: desperation) and to that effect is only concerned with one thing: Clicks. Lots and lots of clicks. What's worse is that "click-through" revenue models (those where payment was only made for advertisements that viewers actually clicked on to know more) have given way to simple "saturation bombardment" revenue models that just try to fill web pages with as many advertisements as possible. Either way, however, the result is the same, just to different degrees. That result is that clicks > content. In fact, clicks are now all that matters. Content? No one cares. Truth was a type of content, and that's why truth is gone, now. All that matters is that you clicked on the page and the ads got loaded into your browser. Why is irrelevant. They make just as much money with a five-minute copy paste of Twitter quotes as they would from spending a week doing in-depth investigative journalism. Why work for a living when you don't have to?

This is the real reason why deceptive marketing is the only kind left on the internet. This is why YouTube is filled with misleading thumbnails and titles that have nothing to do with the video itself. This is why the internet is filled with "Top 10" lists and outrage-bait headlines. This is why it's nothing but bullshit, because somewhere along the way a marketing group/algorithm realized that actual journalism/good content required time & effort while creating bullshit was a zero effort game. Think about how many "news articles" today are nothing more than a list of stuff the writer pulled off Twitter? They couldn't even be bothered to get up from their desk - they literally just got paid for checking their Twitter feed.

And so long as they keep getting paid for that it's never going to stop. Complain all you want, America, but until you stop clicking on the bullshit it's never going to go away. Until real, honest news starts getting more clicks than garbage then garbage is going to win. It's really that simple: Market dynamics. Look, the internet has become automated. It shows you what you want to see. It's up to you to tell it that you want to see the truth for a change. It's up to you to tell it that you want real content and not another "Top 10 Cutest Kittens" rehash.

Now that I've completely derailed myself, allow me to get back on track. I assert that we are not a "Post-Truth Society," rather we are a "Pre-Truth Society." You don't need to do much studying of world history to realize that, either. Look up how Greenland and Iceland got their names. Ask any Native American about the track record for honesty & integrity of Europeans. Dig into the history of jingoism and "The Yellow Press." The fact is that, historically speaking, honesty was the exclusive luxury of tyrants, because only those in a position of absolute power could afford it. Dishonesty in the media goes back to invention of the written word, as any atheist can tell you. Governments maintain power through lies simply because it's cheaper than standing armies. Advertising and capitalism in general all pretty much require dishonesty to even function in the first place. Don't think for one moment that the press/news is above that, either.

Yet we think that, or we'd like to think that, they have some sense of integrity, right? Well, they did - for a very brief period of time (in the grand scheme of things). Starting around the Vietnam War and ending around the invention of Fox News, there was a period of about roughly 40 years where the US journalistic media actually had a commitment to tell the truth. Of course it was also a different world back then. Only three major networks, but each was a monolith, and the money & effort they could bring to compete with each other was equally monolithic. No internet and no instant access meant that news pieces took time to compile no matter what, so the incentive to be the first gave room to being the most accurate as well. No partisan algorithms means that people couldn't filter out the truth and just feed themselves a comfortable diet of bullshit unless they wanted to live in a bunker with a tinfoil hat. Like the giant insects of the dinosaur age, honest news & journalistic integrity existed only because the conditions at the time made it possible. Likewise, once those conditions ceased to be so did the creatures that lived in them.

So that's what we really had, folks - a 40 year bubble of relative honesty in the 5000+ year human history of endless bullshit. The proverbial drop in the bucket and it only matters to some of us because we just happened to be around at the time to experience it. The younger generations that grew up after this period of grace ended have never even seen honest journalism. How can they expected to miss something that they've never experienced in the first place? Skip ahead another generation and the barrage of lies & bullshit are even more constant. Is it any surprise, then, that it is from this latest generation that we're seeing the ever growing phenomenon of completely fake outrage-events designed just to draw attention to themselves? By this I mean the people who false-flag everything from beatings to harassment of all kinds and, by the way, both sides of the partisan fence have been caught doing this. To that generation there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. To them creating fake news isn't a sin because all the news was fake to begin with. What's one more turd in the septic tank, and besides, isn't that what the septic tank is for? Of course this is fine by them, why wouldn't it be? They've never know anything else. Just like with the corporate/government surveillance, just like not caring about the war that has, if you're 16 or under, been going on literally since the day you were born. Think about that for a few minutes.

In the end, we are not a "post-truth society" at all. Rather we are a "pre-truth society." We are a society that, on the whole, never knew truth to begin with. There was that one, tiny, 40 year chunk where we experimented with the truth, but that's all it was - an experiment. Some of us remember that experiment and miss it, but we're in the minority and as age, entropy and death does it's job that minority is going to shrink away to nothing. Eventually we will go back to the status quo of human existence: All bullshit, all the time, forever.

So why do I still believe in honesty? See "tyrants" above. To be honest is to speak from a position of power. The weak lie to hide their weakness. A person who is honest is a person who is unafraid. Honesty shows confidence & strength. What's not to like about that?

"One loves ultimately one's desires, not the thing desired" - Nietzsche
Ever notice how, in general, the bigger an erection someone gets over the American flag the lower the accuracy of their knowledge of American history?

Options Menu.
I had a weird idea for a movie. Take your classic horror/action monster elimination movie them. This is a huge theme, by the way, an encompasses everything from "Alien" to "Friday the 13th." The trope is simple: One monster/villain, a gaggle of victims, and slowly killing them off one at a time until there is only one or two left before the showdown where they turn the tables and beat the monster. Oh, and if you make the victims and monsters into the same people you get "Hunger Games." Seriously, this trope is damn near everywhere.

Next assemble your cast of a dozen victims and throw them into your setting with your monster. Let's say it's a SciFi setting, because I'm most familiar with that particular flavor of this genre. Get a big cast, say 12+ expendable pawns, for this movie.

Now the idea here is two things: That you're going to go direct to DVD, so the budget doesn't have to be very high. That's important because of what we're going to do next. The second is that DVDs are a waste of space. The amount of data that a DVD can hold is usually more than 100x more than the size of the film, depending on the format codec. So we're going to use that by actually making three films at once.

Sequels? Not at all! Rather, three different versions of the same movie. You know, like they did with "Clue" only applied to a horror format. Hey, I didn't say this was an entirely original idea. But to make it more interesting, each time we're going to change the monster too. Only the crew, the ship, and the place they're investigating stays the same each time. The creature changes and so does the ending and the short list of who actually survives gets changed up in each version.

So let's say in the first you do the classic "Alien" formula of one sneaky critter the pops out of shadows and picks everyone off, one by one, until the last, say, two survivors manage to escape back to their ship, with a twist ending that the creature hid some eggs in their cargo bay or something. In the second version the same twelve crew arrive at the same station to discover that they're been some kind of outbreak from an experiment gone wrong, and we're doing the "Dead Space" thing where the inhabitants have turned into a horde of monster/zombie things. The whole thing becomes a big chase scene back to their ship and the deaths are quick and in rapid succession. Also, one person makes it and it's a different person as last time. Then you do that third incarnation where it seems like there's no monster at all, only a natural disaster (reactor leak? asteroid strike?) that has wiped out the station, but as they go on they realize it was a computer virus sent by a rival company to kill everyone on board - and now they're the one's on board. This time three people make it out alive, and again it's a different set of three.

This actually wouldn't be that much more expensive to do, since you're just reusing the same actors (whom you're already paying), the same sets, and the same film crew over & over. It's getting all that stuff assembled into one place that's your biggest expense, and that's already done. Then you pack them all together onto a single DVD and sell it. The novelty value alone should ensure decent sales and get you plenty of free publicity.

Look it up your own damn self.
Santa's laughter mocks the poor, it's Christmas time again
You hear it in the songs of joy promoting fiscal gain
You see it in the credit cards that flutter down the drain, cos
Santa's laughter mocks the poor, and here it comes again

Santa's laughter mocks the poor, it echoes in the night
A nagging sound that makes you wonder if you got it right
Everybody lies awake and thinks there's more to life, but
Santa's laughter mocks the poor, and you're to blame tonight

Santa, we love you
Santa, don't you care?
Why do you ignore us Santa?
At this time of year

Santa's laughter mocks the poor, a liability
That taunts you every time you turn on one of your TVs
Or choose the leather option, or a nice Moroccan tea oh
Santa's laughter mocks the poor across the seven seas

Santa's laughter mocks the poor, the catchiest of songs
If everybody else is singing it, it can't be wrong
You hear it in the news reports of panic in Hong Kong
Santa's laughter mocks the poor, you've known it all along

Santa's laughter mocks the poor, they just don't have the clout
To make a difference in the way society's turned out
Share out all the money in the world - we'd soon run out, oh
Santa's laughter mocks the poor, of that there is no doubt

If it quacks like a duck...
Spend, oh, ten minutes watching:

1) A televangelist.
2) A "motivational speaker."
3) A get-rich-quick con artist.

Tell me if you can discern any real difference between the three.

(no subject)


Log in