a reply to: olaru12
Im not sure when it started, but I started to become aware of it about 20 years ago. I was an environmentalist, hardcore nature enthusiast, felt we
could solve world hunger, completely reshape "poverty" beneficially, animal welfare advocate, etc.
It should be said that my ideals havent changed one. single. iota.
However, I noticed a concept becoming more pervasive; the only path "forward" on these issues was supporting the correct people/organizations. Once
they were in power, then
we could start actually working on problems.
I was not a fan of this. Still am not.
So, we began to see that peoples ideals, many altruistic, started to shift from actual results to simply putting specific types of people/groups in
power. People/groups that said
all the right things, but the so-called solutions were ALL based in dependency, market domination, and setting
things up so that they would receive funds to "fight" the very problems they create in perpetuity.
I believe this disconnect is at the core of what followed. It was no longer about anything based in reality, but feelgood marketing. And if you didnt
like that, then you must be [insert buzzword here].
All marketing, all of it. Its just the the "product" here is a technocratic global state of dependency, sold under the guise of benevolence and
demonizing anyone who disagrees as the enemy.
That sets the context for social media. People who were mentally ill in a variety of ways could now have their voice heard worldwide. The people who
would be dismissed as "one of those crazy people online" could, all of a sudden, actually affect change and coalesce into larger social groups.
Running alongside this is the fact that social media was designed to be addictive. Not just habit forming, but literally chemically addictive.
What gets the most shares & engagements? Essentially anything that invokes strong emotions. Due to our psychology though, the negative interactions
naturally get more traction, attention, and long-lasting effects.
Over time, this created a situation where, just like any addict, the "high" from sharing wasnt enough. So, things just kept amping up and it was
continuously bolstered by the aforementioned feelgood marketing. It slowly morphed into what was perceived as a genuinely righteous battle. Not one
that was concerned with anything like actually helping people, but essentially defending corporate identity as if it was one's own heart, mind, and
What eventually coalesced is that individuals who were most susceptible to manipulation and feeling "wronged," were ready-made consumers of
corporate-political identity. From trans issues to racism, its *all* setup to create diehard consumers in perpetuity. The more disconnected from
"reality," the more devoted they become to the corporate-political sphere.
During this time, traditional corporate media was dying. Sites like twitter delivered near instant news with nigh omnipresent coverage. The most
extreme emotional content began to actually drive the news cycle, instead of the other way around, and corporate media got on board to remain
relevant. They became part of the addictive feedback loop of dopamine hits and extreme emotions.
Enter 2020 and The Virus.
A year where fear became defined as virtue. Through constant media exposure and lies, along with the ever-present catalyst of social media and
corporate identity masquerading as altruism & justice, anything and anyone that disagreed with fear as virtue was identified as "the enemy."
Good news became right wing, regardless of veracity. The tolerance of the addictive chemicals ramped up more than ever, embedding the behavior even
further. The more arbitrary, the better, as people will follow the addiction before anything else.
This process led to substantial confusion, anger, and levels of cognitive dissonance only seen in random one-off folie a plusieurs in history.
When Floyd happened, it gave an outlet for all of these emotions in people that thrive on the most extreme emotions possible, in a year where fear
became virtue. At a certain point, technological interaction isnt providing enough of a "high," and it starts spilling over into "real life." And now,
there is an excuse to do so under the same premises as always.
In other words, corporate identity now could be manipulated into real life action. No actual solutions or hard questions or anything, just behavior
that is perceived as right and just.. that actually only serves the corporate-political SOP of creating perpetual funding & control by creating the
problems "everyone" believes they will solve.
The coverage, news, and internet censorship became more and more arbitrary, divergent from reality, and serving the corporate-political identity.
I cant say much about the traditional "right," other than they have pretty much been relegated to being reactionary to this corporate-political
identity. Im not sure that the more traditional conservatives know how to address any of this, outside of demanding things go back to normal or
eventually violence and open conflict. I believe this is why we have seen such restraint; they know that once that line is truly
isnt any going back. I believe that keeping the discussion framed as either "normal now!" or open conflict is absolutely intentional, as they will
both be ineffective courses of action.
R; Folks with traditonal mental illness make the most loyal customers, if they can be convinced that the corporate-political apparatus is the only
one on their side and that anyone who questions that corporate identity is "evil." There is no motivation to actually help them, and every incentive
to make them worse. Less traditional mental illness (i.e. this novel addiction that has emerged) serves the same purpose and is handled in the same