Enough with the Dystopia, idiots


 

APaul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2mazing how everything seems to be about dystopia. In the days when people believed there was going to be a future, “compulsory ugliness” wasn’t particularly popular. Now it seems to be the only working vision of the  future.

Dystopia is arguably the most anti-motivational of all themes. It is also anti-survival, anti-happiness, and anti-human. Dystopia is basically a form of stupidity, turned in to media product. It’s useless. In many cases, it’s basically an obscenity in the true sense of the word.

Who needs dystopia? Do you want to wake up tomorrow morning surrounded by total failure? Exactly how interested in a landscape full of disasters can you be?

Dystopia fundamentals

Worse, dystopia has become a cliché. It’s exactly the sort of thing that you feel you don’t have to take seriously simply because it is a cliché. So when dystopia happens, you’re just as likely to think it’s some sort of movie set as anything else.

Paul Wallis books, sydney media jam

The 21st century Stone Age can be creatively counteracted. Creating solutions, creating better options, you name it; this is the way out of the sewer. Interestingly most sociopaths fear creativity, because it adds unknown elements to their environment.

Dystopia is also related to dysfunction. They are inseparable, and dysfunction, surprisingly enough, causes dystopia. Dysfunction simply means that things don’t work properly, like “dysfunctional families”, dysfunctional societies and other supposedly hilarious things. Well chuckle, chuckle.

Imagine providing people with all the information they need to screw up everything. That’s what this dystopian crap is actually doing. No thinking required; all you have to do is follow the Easy Bake recipe for whatever catastrophe you’d like to happen. What could possibly go wrong?

Being anti-future is basically a form of regression. This means obstructing constructive ideas, propaganda against any kind of progressive thought, and as we have discovered recently, ignoring experts and anybody else who has the slightest idea what they’re talking about.

Brilliant, isn’t it? In the days when people believed there was a future, despite a real threat of nuclear war, that future was going to be terrific. Now, the future is going to be a collection of bean counting exercises, criminals, endlessly more ridiculous politicians and their psychoses, and that’s about it.

The reason for this is pretty straightforward. Dysfunction produces dysfunction. A dysfunctional society produces incompetent people, hideous situations that never need to happen, and incredibly verbose justifications for total human failure. What else could it produce?

Abolishing dystopia

Levels of expectation for the future have become so low, and stress levels so high, that thinking about the future isn’t really an option. This means nobody takes the long view on any subject, forward planning never looks more than a couple of years ahead, and life modelling is practically impossible.

What an achievement. You overpaid gerbils must be very proud. To go from unrestrained progress and genuine improvement in quality of life to this load of substandard garbage in just a couple of generations. What do you get, a medal? A dog biscuit? Peer approval in some useless meeting somewhere? Easily pleased, aren’t you?

Dystopia, like one of its hideous and equally necrotic relatives, conformity, is death. Even the dystopian idea is acceptance of failure. Abolishing dystopia would be easy enough. To have a decent future, you don’t have to have a sugar sweet theme, or some sort of fizzy rhetoric. All you need is a brain. See if you can find one somewhere, and do that instead.

www.sydneymediajam.com

Note: Thanks to WordPress idiosyncrasies and the scheisskinder who design these platforms, the original of this blog went missing. Add to this the fact that my ISP can’t be bothered updating PHP to update the blog, and you get the picture.  I’ve had more than enough of you morons. 

An overdue bit of praise for French band Wildpath


 

 

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2Wildpath are called “orchestral thrash”, “symphonic power”, etc. and these are hardly adequate descriptions. This is one of the most genuinely interesting bands I’ve heard in years.

Tired beyond words of idea-less, cookie cutter rock bands as much as I loathe rap and 50 year old plodding wave forms, I accidentally found Wildpath on YouTube. A prog-rock fan since forever, the no-think version of rock has long since been obsolete for me, and I suddenly found myself listening to a real ideas band. I now work out to some of this band’s songs, and listen to them just about every day.

However, let’s leave my epiphanies aside for a minute. This band does nothing the easy way. Their arrangements and songs are poised, very tight, and highly charged. They typically put multiple lines in to every song, and usually add a few layers where required to build a good, interesting mix of ideas.

That’s hard work, particularly for a band which isn’t doing simple, hook-driven stuff. Sounds to me like everyone in the band gets an effective word in, because the sheer scope of some of these arrangement is much more demanding than most bands would bother trying, let alone doing.

The band, similarly, doesn’t do the flashy, easy stuff:

  • The first and very striking thing I noticed was that the current singer, Marjolaine Bernard, tends to sing the more difficult options. That’s pretty gutsy for any female rock singer. Female singers are typically under far more pressure to “present” than male rock singers. She has a good strong middle range, and could take it easy with that range. She doesn’t. She sings in a much more difficult choral range which usually only choirboys can hit. It’s not easy to sing, and can stuff up with a single misplaced note.  She does it flawlessly, and creates a single entity with these vocals, making them stand out. Pretty good for anyone who also has that melodic but powerful Sonja Kristina-like edge to her voice.
  • They’re technical realists, in many ways, and you simply don’t hear musical doodling or “noise babble”, just good, coherent, thoughtful pieces of music. I get the impression that “tech” isn’t the awe-inspiring thing for Wildpath as it is for some other bands who should know better. The benefit for listeners is a total lack of tedium, which many rock and particularly metal bands should learn from, preferably ASAP.
  • They’re unpredictable. From The Raven to When Legends Come Back To Life, Crystallized and Ice Rose, something is always happening. Not since Curved Air in its maniacal mode, peak-era Cream and cool era Traffic have I been able to say that about any band with any degree of conviction. (I really do have to like any band which will stick in a bit of gritty 12 bar in to what is basically an orchestral arrangement, and do it well, on the song Crystallized. Status Quo, eat your hearts out.)
  • The guitar is hard and often powerful, but you’re not listening to “shit, we need another meaningless, endless, solo here” with these guys . If anything, the guitar is usually a bit understated and sometimes downright taciturn, very odd for a supposedly “metal” band. Having said which, it works, too. More is not better, and this is proof. (About time some guitarists realized that the “solo is me” stuff is really just a growing phase, a sort of musical puberty, nothing like the whole story)
  • The bass is sometimes tough, but always consistent, tensile, and fast. No “quaint” bass stuff here, the bass is always on the same page as the songs, never lazy or taking the dumb. thudding options. Seriously, bass can do so much more than just use up a lot of signal and woofer time. You’d think someone would have noticed that by now, and Wildpath obviously have.
  • Keyboards are pretty much anything and everything, and they sometimes sail off on interesting journeys. Generally, the keyboards add weight, scope and melodic range. It should also be noted that keyboard players often have the unenviable task of “playing along” with underachieving bits and pieces thrown in, a problem Wildpath obviously doesn’t have.
  • The drums are surprisingly polite for a band which can do rampaging full power and do it well. Drummers all have their own preferences, as well as style, and if Wildpath doesn’t bang/crash as much as other bands, the drums deliver some real structure and range in these sometimes complex arrangements.
  • Creatively, they have a lot of depth. The acoustic arrangements of their better known songs are real rethinks, and work well. Not many bands can rethink themselves, a good character reference.
  • Musical and commercial context: The world doesn’t need yet another bit of packaging pretending to play music. The great bands are all DIY, and Wildpath is a bit overqualified in that respect. Good luck to them for doing things their way, and it’s easy to see. Musically they have an excellent standalone presence.Don’t tell them how to be themselves, and there shouldn’t be any problems.
  • Mixes are very good, if open to a few very minor, trivial nitpicking issues in some cases. To my taste, (and my taste is no guide to anything), a bit more emphasis on some parts of arrangements would be a good move.
  • Criticism, such as it is: I’d just like to see them be a bit more emphatic with some of their great lines, melodies, and hooks. This is the ultra–fiddly option, it’s time consuming and often irritating to do finicky mixes, and if they’re not doing that, I do get it. It’s just that I also hear so many choices in their stuff. (This is technically like saying the Mona Lisa should be more colourful, and about as useful, but I’m sitting here barracking for this band, and wishing for more, not less.)

To synopsize:

I’d love to see this band take off and fly as they do so often and so well. They have real off the scale moments, flying free, and I’d like to see them do that as much as possible. They have nothing to learn from the hackneyed “metal” environment, and are so far above the standard modern rock band in so many ways it’s ridiculous.

I don’t know what they’re doing currently, which I hope is an indicator of another album. They release tracks spasmodically, so it’s hard to tell, but with any luck….

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

Site still long overdue a full makeover, but also have this damn spam thing to manage. 

Are Creative Arts Supporting Oppression?


 

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2You’d think that the arts were purely humanistic, purely idealistic, or purely devoted to human wellbeing. Not necessarily so, in practice. Unintentionally or otherwise, the arts may provide the breeding grounds for oppression.

I’ve spent a lot of time criticising the sciences for not seeing the possible risks of new technologies and not creating safeguards for potentially high risk technologies. I think it’s only fair that I should also criticise my own line of work, for exactly the same reason.

Basic premise of creative arts supporting oppression

The problem is that whatever is put into a human mind can become a monster. Creative media of all kinds are fully plugged into human consciousness as never before. I’m not talking about visual propaganda, media propaganda, or other banal, mediocre forms of the arts. I’m talking about ideas. Creative arts, by nature, are based on a range of ideas, half arse or otherwise. Some of these ideas include direct depictions of ideologies, mentalities, insanities, and other human hobbies.

There is a long-standing theory in media psychology which is basically “monkey see, monkey do”. This means essentially that people will imitate anything and everything. Unfortunately, that also includes oppression.

If you take a look at the oppressive regimes in history, you will see that they all have direct antecedent dating back thousands of years. Even the Inquisition wasn’t a particularly original idea, it was based on ancient forms of oppression. The Holocaust, in turn, was based on ideas of racism, systematic oppression, and above all, a highly efficient, murderous method of controlling the public. Media was used as a primary form of control, involving all the arts in some form, from Wagner to posters and slogans.

Where do these ideas come from? Some of them come from history, but a lot of creative art is actually based on history and historical themes. George Orwell’s Animal Farm was based on actual history at the time, incorporating the rise of oligarchies and other obscenities in supposedly socialist states.

Orwell can be accused of nothing more than factual reporting, but Animal Farm is a particularly good example of mentalities. If you have also read The Gulag Archipelago, you may see some unsettling parallels between the two books. The problem is that one book was fiction, and the other was facts, and they have so much in common.

The psychological effects of creative media can be extremely powerful. They are even more powerful when aimed at semiliterate or illiterate people. For example, the whole idea of Western society as it is now is based largely on historical clichés. The society which produced those clichés no longer exists, but the stench lingers. Humanity is now habituated to what was really a series of depictions of daily life, originally intended to be fiction, but now turned into hideous fact.

The immortal Celts in EnglandOkay, so much for the basics. The question is whether or not a dramatic depiction of something or someone actively encourages oppression. On the same basis as “monkey see monkey do”, how many people have been inspired to become history’s leading bastards by creative media? How many people have wittingly or unwittingly written books which have become how-to manuals for oppression? How many musicians have created theme songs for tyrants?

Visual arts, in particular, are front and centre at the moment in terms of propaganda value. Whether it’s memes, photo shopped images, or “fake news” imagery, the visual arts are currently the heavy lifters for propaganda of all kinds. Some of it is intentional, some of it is unintentional, but the likely ramifications could be anything.

The problem is that they created that are now essentially carrying and supporting various types of oppression. This cannot be considered to be a harmless process. Actively supporting prejudice, injustice, and in some cases downright insanity doesn’t help anybody.

When criticising the sciences, I simply said that providing proven nut cases with advanced technologies isn’t and couldn’t be a good idea. The theory is that you can simply not provide the science to these raving lunatics. That may be more than a bit optimistic, but you can also see why that would be a good working solution.

In the case of the arts, the situation is a bit more complex. You can’t tell artists to stop producing art, any more than you can tell scientists to stop producing science. Unlike science, however, the arts are very portable, very easy to produce in any quantity in any form, and easily adapted to just about any situation. Arguably, the creative arts can potentially do much more damage to humanity than science.

Consider some of the all-too-familiar stereotypes of media:

  • The criminal genius
  • The mad scientist
  • The archetypal tyrant, real or imaginary
  • The criminal businessman
  • The fanatic(s) of all kinds
  • The psychotic manager
  • The basic sleazebag
  • The serial killer

It’s quite a list, but you can see how familiar all these characters are in real life. The question is, how many of these morons would have considered becoming these people without a bit of encouragement from creative media? Will they have had the slightest idea how to become what they became?

Answer those questions, and you will solve the problem of creative arts supporting oppression. Until then, be careful what you create, because it may come walking through the door one day.

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

When insanity was interesting and useful


 

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2Readers please note: This is a long one. Haul up a few psychoses and something else nice to eat or drink, and settle in. Anyone living today could be forgiven for thinking insanity is just boring. In its modern form, it is. It’s usually a tangle of human issues, packaged by the psych sector in to various sorts of smug categorization, medicated, and otherwise largely ignored.

Modern insanity, in fact, leaves a lot to be desired. It’s not as interesting as it was, and it’s almost invariably related to the most banal, easily classified, types. It’s the modern equivalent of a cold, just longer lasting and occasionally fatal.

Insanity itself can equally easily be categorized in to anything which doesn’t have a rationale acceptable to others. All human thought has some sort of rationale, however unlikely, but in the case of insanity, you have to convince someone else that your rationale is acceptable, not to you, but to them.

3D flooring, picture of bed above blue sky and clouds

Source: Beddinginn.com In the past, this perspective would have been considered insane. Now it’s decor. interesting how sanity becomes dated, but insanity doesn’t, isn’t it?

In fact, insanity is having a hard time even being noticed in this society. Having forced itself in to the current repulsive environment it now inhabits, humanity is too “busy” to notice, or care, that it’s insane.  All this activity, being busy to the point of being clearly futile on any objective or personal basis, is how it happened.

Instead of dreaming of a better world, humans now visualize whole classes of mediocrities and clichés to which they aspire. Instead of being a genius, a leader in great things, or even a contributor to something worthwhile, you can now aspire to pay your phone bill, or something equally majestic. Instead of inventing a cure for anything, including yourself, you can hope one day to buy a new phone.

If you go insane, part of the problem will be that you’re not obsessed with these rationales. Why don’t you want to be some anonymous moron in a series of interminable Instagram photos?

You pervert, you.

Why aren’t you fixated on:

  • Cars and other things you can kill yourself with
  • Expensive things, however hideous and utterly pointless
  • Sex, however fictional
  • Appliances, however lethal
  • Fake financial schemes to support a delusion of wealth
  • Admiring criminals and other parasites
  • Wishing you were a serial killer being interviewed by a vegetable
  • Identifying with a high fructose street culture you know nothing about
  • Power over others, however uninteresting those others may be

If you’re not 2000% committed to aspiring to these things, you’re insane, in this society. Every single useless, anti-human idiocy is now compulsory as part of a rationale.

For example:

I bought an expensive car to improve my sex life and have a place to plug in my appliances. I then started a fake securities scam to help me meet criminals and become a serial killer who identifies with two dimensional media-created street thugs and has power over bores.

Inspiring, isn’t it? Those two sentences would have you classified as being far too sane to be worth talking to, ever again. You lucky sod.

That said – What happens when you suddenly find yourself mentally more than four years old, and need to have a life, or something? Modern insanity, alas, has no answers. It’s too shallow.

It may be able to turn you in to a gibbering lunatic, but it’s not too helpful otherwise. It may be able to deliver a sort of intellectual squalor that even a modern politician would envy, but it can’t be interesting on any level. It’s simply too samey.

To clarify:

What’s the point of being a homicidal maniac, if it’s just another day at the office, wading around with the chainsaw, as usual? Even being a pathological liar, profitable as it is, can get dull, and very unchallenging.

Worse, you can’t even generate much self-respect from all this internal psycho-laundering of your emotions and thoughts. This type of insanity goes nowhere but from A-B. C is unlikely, and the rest of the alphabet is quite out of the question because the modern form of insanity is so limiting. You need a better type of insanity, preferably the traditional type.

Please be aware: You may be forced in to hypocrisy, that lowest of pseudo-life modes, simply to convince yourself that your insanity is worth having. At this point, you’re doing all the work, and the insanity is just being lazy. That’s not where you want to be, is it?

Traditional insanity

Insanity, you say? Here’s a pretty good analysis.

First, a bit of background – Traditional insanity, unlike the modern form, wasn’t restricted to standardized formats. You could be considered, and actually be, insane, on any subject. Actual raving madness wasn’t too popular, but you could be pleasantly mad and tolerated simply because you talked about something other than sex, money, and other people.

This kept people’s vocabularies nice and moist, and allowed them to pretend they understood things. Then they could go back to their caves and laugh about those stupid wheel things and why making fire shouldn’t be invented.

In the 20th century, talking about other subjects was also qualified and supported by the fact that nobody had a clue what you were talking about, or why you were talking about it. It was a matter of personal pride to be as pig-ignorant as possible, while continuing to be classified as a vertebrate.

Suburban Instant Senility allowed people to admit they knew nothing about anything, too, which made life so much easier for everyone. Feeling secure in your ignorance, and being able to prove it so easily, enabled much of the 20th century’s most endearing atrocities.

Hence World War 1, World War 2, Vietnam, Korea, The Cultural Revolution, and a virtual horde of utterly futile world leaders who by rights should have been fed to the ants. This wasn’t insanity, in its pure form. It was stupidity, insanity’s most famous hanger-on, at work behind the scenes.

Stupidity, however, is also insanity’s most prolific hanger-on. Stupidity breeds stupidity. For instance, it’s only relatively recently that total ignoramuses have actually been able to accuse everyone else of being insane. Understanding of anything is now considered a crime, and proven idiots are permitted to talk about things they know nothing about.

OK, enough background. Assuming you’ve lived through the narrative to this point, you can now finally be put to rest and told the truth about old-style traditional insanity. Isn’t that nice?

Traditional insanity involved:

Actual intelligence: One of the most tedious hacks said about genius is that people were “either brilliant or mad”. Why not be both? In fact, how could you avoid it? Why in the name of freshly incinerated pedants would you want to be brilliant and dull as modern media or some other cultural handicap? Traditional insanity was rarely conducted to the extent of any degree of inconvenience to oneself.

Reassuringly vague: Unlike the drab, murderously verbose thesauri of modern nutters, traditionally insane people didn’t have fixed issues. They would ponder about places in the garden, for example, which they assigned totally different spectra of meaning and relevance. Their “spirit world” didn’t come with a lot of expensive merchandise, either.

Insightful: Traditional madness, oddly enough given the people who recorded it, would have flashes of real, accurate insight. These insights were often respected as actual intellectual achievements, like Archimedes, etc. Seems the ancients weren’t all that fussed about insanity, if whatever it discovered worked. Yes, that does mean that it was also interesting, in severe contrast to the trundling logic of modern “insanity”.

Beautiful: You can call modern insanity anything, but you certainly can’t call it beautiful. It’s typically trite, very narrow focused, and usually pretty forgettable. In the past, visionaries may have been insane, but had far superior aesthetics. (Actually, you have to question whether the word “beautiful” has any possible relationship at all with insanity.)

Quick: One of the most unforgivable issues with calling anyone insane is the failure to note how fast and how complex some “insane” thinking can be. It’s a matter of opinion whether you can be insane and so mentally thorough at the same time. Theoretically, and only according to his contemporary underachieving plodders in his discipline, Tesla was insane, but look how well his brief life anticipated so much future technology. (In fact, the Tesla mythos is a good indicator of the start of the practice of calling anyone who contests current norms as insane, and precious little good that thinking has ever done anyone.)

Out of the frames of reference: Traditional madness routinely goes outside all the boxes. It may refer to things nobody has ever even considered, or tried to define before. This is far too big a subject to address in adequate depth here, but just read a few bios, and watch the “insane” at work on ideas. They never put limits on themselves, and chased their ideas as far as they could go. Some might call it courage, others might call it honest intelligence.

One of the reasons for this article is that over the years I’ve done a lot of advisory work. My routine advice now is “Go mad. It saves time.”

How and why do I give this advice, you ask, perched on your throne of dazzling gems and innuendo?

Easy.

Going visibly insane gives you an excuse to do whatever you want to do without much interference from others. They’ll leave you in peace when they realise they’re hopelessly out of their depth anyway, and your insanity will be their built-in excuse.

  1. Going insane according to others drastically improves your ability to communicate with those who have also decided they no longer want to communicate with this “world”, i.e., real thinkers.
  2. People don’t argue with the insane. You’ll be spared any amount of thunderous ignorance and slow thinking.
  3. The lingering, respected image of traditional insanity means that you’ll always have that threat of possibly being right to throw at people.
  4. It’s so much more fun than waiting to go happily insane and missing out on all your options.

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

Still waiting to resolve issues with hacker before updating site, sorry. 

Joys of a sociopathic society


 

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2“Sociopathic” basically means antisocial. What price, then, a society which is antisocial? There must have been societies in the past which turned against themselves, but it’s a matter of opinion whether any society has ever been as totally opposed to itself, and its own best interests, as this.

Comparing this society to the postwar society of the past, which if nothing else was glad the war was over, and looking forward to some peace, is a truly bizarre experience. The comparison is grotesque:

  1. Belief in a good future: In the 50s and 60s, everything was going to be wonderful by the year 2000.
  2. A firm belief in the rights of everybody, which sparked the basic tenets of civil rights, feminism, environmentalism and a much more inclusive society.
  3. Much stronger criticism and social inputs of the general public, largely through drastically improved education. These inputs acted as a further reinforcement, if somewhat patchy, to basic democracy.
  4. Excellent general health, brought about by science, research, and a properly equipped health sector with sane cost structures for treatments and medical management.
  5. Genuine prosperity, economic growth, and continuously improving standards of living.
  6. Improved opportunities for everybody, simply because the society was functioning well, despite the distractions.
  7. A relatively harmless crime environment, perhaps nasty, but not prevalent.
  8. Lower levels of corruption, caused by better management and proper oversight.

You’ll notice that this view of the society doesn’t include events and factors like the Cold War, political assassinations, etc. Those issues were very important, but the society as a whole was healthy enough to fight them and deal with them to the point they didn’t impede social wellbeing.

OK, so how did society become sociopathic?

Brave New World is about a stagnant,, class-based society which does nothing and goes nowhere. You may be an Alpha, but that’s compared to idiots. This is about as sociopathic as any society needs to be.

As far as I can tell, from extensive reading of history from Ssuma Chien and Herodotus to contemporary history, the sociopathic element is always present in all societies. Its influence comes and goes, according to historical events, social groupings, and in many cases economic factors.

Sociopathic elements are generally not very influential in healthy societies, which can resist and even negate their influences effectively. The sociopaths are sidelined by crises, major forms of social and technological progress, and new ideas of all kinds. In crises, the competent take over, so the sociopaths and their irrational behaviours are irrelevant to managing these issues. Social progress simply bulldozes the sociopaths, who usually don’t know how to interpret, let alone manage, that progress. Technological progress, particularly fast progress, requires learning, and the sociopaths can’t interfere until they’ve learned how.

Economically, however, the story is a bit different. The sociopaths, like everyone else in the society, benefit from prosperity. The problem is that as they accumulate wealth, they also accumulate economic power. In what can only be called an unkind habit of history, this is when the sociopaths arise as a factor in derailing societies.

The sociopathic idiom

Sociopaths are unusual in a way which also tends to bring them together. Unlike normal people, they effectively build sociopathic social structures, like societies for the dismantling of societies, as political parties. If this seems a bit unimaginative, not to say misanthropic, that’s what sociopathy is all about.

The logic is strange enough:

  • There’s a “we” who are superior to everyone else. This is what might be called bogus child psychology, rewarding oneself with a fake, promotional image. Most liars, con men, and politicians are very good at it.
  • Devaluing everyone else adds status to the sociopaths, who tend to be underachievers on just about every personal and professional level, and need to compensate.
  • Doing actual injury to others in any range of forms proves power and status, reinforcing the “we are superior” motif and adding more compensation.
  • Because politics is largely fictional in terms of everything including its own ideologies, fiction becomes a tool for advancement. Enemies are fabricated, for example, to create threats which the sociopaths then “cure” by more extreme forms of political position.
  • Other rewards, notably money, and lots of it, also follow, proving the rightness and moral virtues of being sociopathic.

These are the basics. The problem with sociopathic behaviour is that it never seems to reduce in scale. The next move must be more dramatic, more rewarding to the ego, and of course profitable. New enemies are fabricated, new issues become proof of the sociopaths’ infallibility, etc.

You may well ask:

  • Don’t they see the mistakes? Even the word “mistake” undermines the theory of superiority, which is out of the question.
  • Don’t they see the damage? It wouldn’t matter if they did. The sociopaths exist in a thematic bubble, in which damage is their weapon against their enemies.
  • Why are sociopathic societies always authoritarian? Because the authoritarian structure gives the sociopaths added status. You can be Grand Marshal of the Sewers, for example. The fact that authoritarian societies are invariably sociopathic and invariably fail, usually miserably and at horrendous human cost, isn’t an issue, either.
  • What’s the prognosis for a sociopathic society? Failure, caused by total incompetence. Failing to understand real issues, and lacking even the basic skills to deal with issues, the sociopathic society cannot manage the issues at all. Every move, without exception, will be the wrong move, until collapse.
  • What happens to people in a sociopathic society? Nothing good, for sure. A range of negatives, from difficulties simply living to a virtual horror story of oppression, neglect, and in many cases, drastically increased risks through various mechanisms of sociopathic societies, from fight clubs to stormtroopers, death squads, etc.

From my days working in the employment sector, as sociopathic an environment as you could ever wish to see

All these patterns are pretty well known, but not usually considered as being what they are, sociopathic. History and contemporary thinking often make the basic mistake of believing sociopaths to be rational, or assessing them on a rational basis. They aren’t, and can’t be rational, on any level, because the personal and group psychoses simply can’t permit rational thinking.

Rational thought, in fact, is the antithesis, of sociopathic logic. Where you may see a future, the sociopaths see an enemy, quite literally a gun pointed at them, and firing. Where you find something interesting, they find it a threat. Even logic, a skill sociopaths invariably lack, particularly multi-step logic, is a danger to them. Other people are enemies by definition. The logic of the sociopath is to fight these other people, and do as much damage as possible.

So – Are sociopathic societies insane?

 

Only to the extent that the sociopaths can penetrate it, and there is a limit. A huge irony of sociopathic societies is that the sociopaths exclude themselves from the real society. They need nominal enemies and fictional foes to vanquish. The reward system is so primitive it can’t function otherwise.

Paul Wallis books, sydney media jam

The 21st century Stone Age can be creatively counteracted. Creating solutions, creating better options, you name it; this is the way out of the sewer. Interestingly most sociopaths fear creativity, because it adds unknown elements to their environment.

Remember that sanity is a very convenient, easily misused and abused, term. It’s nothing if not untrustworthy, in many cases. One of the less well defined expressions of a human state of mind, it presumes a rationale. Sociopaths do have a rationale, irrational as it may be to others. Their logic, based on their mindset and perceptions as sane logic is supposed to be, is sane, according to their values. You see why sanity is such a mixed blessing as a description of any human behaviour.

The fact that their sanity rarely if ever has anything at all to do with objective reality, of course, isn’t an issue for them. Like Humpty Dumpty, everything means what they say it means, and if an omelette is the result, it proves them right. Everything, in fact, proves them right. Call that sanity?

Sociopathic societies destroy themselves, usually completely. The good news is that sociopathic societies are inevitably replaced by a non-sociopathic cleanup crew. The behaviours which caused the problems can’t be used to clean them up. The problem is that the totally unnecessary digressions from social advancement which sociopaths cause can go on for decades. It’s an expensive hobby humanity should learn to avoid.

 

www.sydneymediajam.com

Sorry site updates yet again on hiatus, due to problems with a hacker and various related issues. 

The only working future choice is progressive


 

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2The only future option is progressive. If the insane, outdated, stale, toxic political policies of today prove anything at all, it’s that they’ve had their day long ago. They’re obsolete, unworkable, and regressive at best, and genocidally suicidal at worst.

The society of the future simply cannot have the mindset of the past. The ideas of 1958 and 2018 were formed in totally different environments.

The pedant-clogged, dysfunctional “thinking” of hack policies is its own most appropriate tombstone.

Goodbye politics, progressive societies don’t need you

Politics itself is proving itself obsolete beyond redemption in so many ways. Who needs a herd of largely talentless gravy train riders, spruiking last century’s myths, literally at the expense of billions of people? The whole idea of politics needs to be reinvented as representation only, not the right to destroy lives, start wars, actively and deliberately encourage global hate, and contaminate the planet.

For an example of a progressive perspective – If the ridiculous, downright fraudulent social  “choices”  sold by politics now causing so much total grief to humanity are invariably, and uselessly, polarized, the solutions can only be depolarized. Polarization causes nothing but social dysfunction; that’s no sudden revelation. This is the general ethos of progressive thinking. Find problem, fix problem, move on to next problem. When problem solving, start with this obscene, useless polarization, and you’ll prevent problems for millennia to come.

(How, you ask? By using basic mediation and negotiation techniques. Find the common ground. Meet essential needs, and nobody has anything to bitch about. Then eliminate the remaining, much less important, sticking points. Simply by meeting needs, you’ll pre-defuse the polarized detonators. You’ll also make your fixes much more credible to both sides.)

Progressive vs problems basics

The new solutions have to be progressive, simply to keep up with the problems, and hopefully anticipate them and prevent future problems. Going backwards therefore helps nobody. It never has. It simply reinstates the problems of the past, while failing utterly to address the issues of the present or future. In many cases, it even fails to comprehend the present, let alone the future.

Paul Wallis books, sydney media jam

The 21st century Stone Age can be creatively counteracted. Creating solutions, creating better options, you name it; this is the way out of the sewer.

Traditions can come and go, but the ultimate functional human tradition is survival. Progressive thinking is also the natural antidote to a serious, systemic issue in current history for that reason. The only available choice for human survival is to bring in new methods, new perspectives, and new, idiot-proof working social dynamics.

Proper, expert global governance could clean up the global mess, fix health, and end poverty, and do it without anyone being disenfranchised, let alone persecuted or oppressed. Anything humanity needs is perfectly possible, but not with this hideous disease of regressive thinking attached to it. Like anything which is nothing but a liability, regressionism must go. It’s no longer “democratic” or inclusive, even in theory any more at government level. Socially, it’s worse.  Well past expiry date, and due for the scrap heap before World War 1, society must be rebooted as a useful, positive environmental force for humanity.

I’m currently working on a book called Social Capitalism, which is an attempt to create a view of working options for a truly progressive, inclusive, sane, society. The future may not fully understand the level of total insanity now running this world, but hopefully, it’ll understand the cure.

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

 

The commercial stupidity of the carbon sector


 

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2The bizarre spectacle of stupid old guys bleating about climate, pollution, and everything else caused directly by the carbon sector is getting even older and dumber. Commercially, we’re now at the level of pure idiocy, combined with business pig ignorance.

What most of these alleged people don’t seem to know is that carbon can be made a lot more valuable in any other use than as fuel.

 

None of this revolting situation would have happened, if carbon was used more productively.

Carbon science isn’t exactly new. There are carbon polymers which can be tailored to just about any purpose. Buckminster Fullerene, the “wonder lubricant”, is a case in point. As raw carbon, oil or coal, that carbon is worth $X. As the Buckminster Fullerene, “Bucky Balls”, polymer, it’s worth millions a day to the patent owners, distributors and users. The same applies to just about all the non-fuel applications of carbon.

Graphene, the newer frontier in polymers, is a similar high value polymer, better than plastics, and open to more development. The rise of 3D printing using polymers and other materials has also changed the economic landscape for “advanced carbon” technologies. If you can print an 800 square feet house for $5000 cost to the end user, what would the value be to materials suppliers, given the gigantic demand?

A little pep talk for the carbon sector (Not PG)

Listen, you ultimate fucking morons:

  • Your entire output is being devalued by your addiction to fuels.
  • There are no excuses whatsoever for not upvaluing your own products to advanced carbon technologies, or is that idea too “nerdy” for you?
  • You’re making $X a barrel or ton when you could be making $X000. Yes, you really are that stupid, and you insist on proving it.
  • Your sector is run by absurd geriatrics who know nothing but money and have no plans at all for going forward. That’s not even debatable any more. Why the hell are you tolerating this situation? It’s your future which is being obliterated by this senility.
  • Obsolete industries, technologies and materials have only one future – The scrapheap. Your stock owners don’t have to stick around just to lose their money. Equities are vulnerable, and will become more so.
  • Advanced carbon products can solve pollution and other problems created by old carbon products. Membrane tech, etc. could clean up the world, literally atom by atom. See any future, or money, in that? If you don’t, get back in your M&Ms box.
  • Carbon can be repurposed for anything and turned in to top quality products with excellent commercial values, notably high-end technologies of all kinds. …And you’re still pissing about with fuels? Why, in the name of cute little spreadsheets, are you bothering with this crap?
  • The possibilities of advanced carbon technologies are almost literally limitless. Materials science is moving so far and so fast that those left behind have no chance of catching up. That’s particularly the case if you refuse to advance your own technologies to capitalize on new opportunities. The carbon sector is notorious for its lack of innovation, regressive inclinations and total refusal to face facts of any kind. That’s always been commercial suicide, since the Bronze Age.

These are just the basics. Trillions of dollars are at risk by failure to move forward, in commercial terms. Carbon fuel technologies will be fossils themselves soon enough, regardless of politics or the Tooth Fairy in DC.

Take your pick: Oblivion, with massive financial losses, or a future. It’s that simple, and there’s no middle ground. Now get off your arses and get it happening.

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

Internet of Things  – Crappy Cash Cow Rising


 

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2The Internet of Things will be Christmas for the hardware guys. Give them credit, promoting garbage is their real strong suit. The Internet of Things isn’t even remotely necessary. Existing tech can do all of it, with very minor modifications. It’ll be an excuse to add some Duh-level software, and call it smart, much like smart phones. This will be crap incarnate, as everyone knows. What’s interesting is the way it’s being sold.

Think about it. Do you actually need a fridge that can tell you need milk, or an oven that can tell you it needs cleaning? How about a washing machine that can analyse your washing and tell you that you might have rabies? Of course not. Yet the Internet of Things is being sold like sliced bread, as if you can’t live without it.

The processes and the selling process, are based on perception.
Tech is good, right? Sometimes, sure, but hardly always. New is good, right? Occasionally, at best. Tech comes and goes. Sometimes you’re glad to see the back of it. The Internet of Things, however, is about to be rammed down your throat as a must-have.

In the cheap and nasty world of hardware, engineers might get a look in, but it’s mainly sales at consumer level. Think of all the crap you’ve ever bought which failed almost immediately or simply didn’t live up to expectations on any level. Now apply that to every possible type of basic tech you have.

Internet of Things = Insecure

The “connectivity factor” is another load of bull. Creating multiple security risks where you currently have none is also apparently essential. In all the years I’ve been watching the Internet of Things emerging from the butthole of mediocrity which is promoting it, nobody has EVER addressed this issue in any degree of depth, if at all. It’s being ignored, entirely.  It’s a familiar pattern. Just about every expert has said the Internet of Things is a huge risk, therefore nothing is being done about it.

What to expect from the Internet of Things

Expect this:

  • Constant malfunctions. Either hardware, software, or both, the plague will descend like a void warranty Woodstock on the public.
  • Shoddy software, hardware, and connections. This is normal. New tech teething usually takes about 5-10 years.
  • Overpriced and ridiculous. You get something which can measure mould in a fridge. It uses a chemical particle detector, which means if it’s not calibrated properly, it can shut down your fridge.
  • The mystic ability of onboard software to interfere with normal operations. (Like a dysfunctional sound file that won’t let you close Windows, for example. The operating processes dictate, and the processes in the Internet of Things will be truly half-ass at best.
  • Your wardrobe will deliver a display, a lecture on how to wash your clothes, and SFA of any practical value.
  • No opt-out options. When you buy an Internet of Things gizmo, you won’t be able to avoid the features. It’s not like a car, where you can take or leave certain features. You get the crap whether you want it or not. The Internet of Things should be optional, but what fun would that be for the Internet of Things shills, if they can’t gouge you for something?

The economics of the Internet of Things

The good news? You’ll stop being such a materialist, (you awful person, you) after buying these things and fixing them has sent you broke. The trouble with cash cow tech is that nobody ever wonders how people will pay for them, pay for fixing them, or pay for new tech that actually works after having been incinerated a few times.

Paul Wallis books, sydney media jam

The 21st century Stone Age can be creatively counteracted. Creating solutions, creating better options, you name it; this is the way out of the sewer.

Better still, you can have some more stress to go with your techno-menagerie. Imagine trying to figure out whether your automatic ordering fridge (A fridge that can spend your money for you is a selling point, if you’re an idiot) has been helping launder money around the world. You can simply be ripped off by anyone with a few minutes to spend doing so.

More subtly, you can be ripped off for years by micro transactions milking your account, linked to anything from taxes to service charges and simply adding a bit more. These micro transactions actually predate the internet, robbing a few dollars or cents here or there, and with a world full of connected gadgets, you’re talking billions of dollars per second.

Won’t the other end of the transactions do something, you ask, from your sparkly new hand-dug burrow under a main road? No. They’re only responsible for their own due fees, charges, etc. They can happily dump any problems on you, because they’re not parties to any illegal transaction. You’d have to prove they had any liability. Cute, huh?

Parasites, rejoice! The Internet of Things hath come!

So for everyone but consumers, the Internet of Things will be wonderful. You can be happily sold more expensive crap in the sure knowledge that yet another type of tech will create a lot more problems with no solutions.

Things you might want to ask your wonderful, wise Internet of Things salesperson:

  1. Will the new Internet of Things alarm clock which also provides medical advice be able to help with euthanasia?
  2. Can your handy new clothes dryer/auditor/priest provide spiritual salvation, or at least a few good excuses?
  3. Can your dishwasher help to spread more diseases, and keep those nice guys in Big Pharma out of jail?
  4. Can your toaster oven incubate more politicians?
  5. How many ways can your new Domestic Gestalt of Things help with sending you broke?
  6. How many relationship problems can you have with a new dining table which also provides help with toxic waste foods selection?
  7. Is it possible to buy a connected chair which also does electrocutions while preventing you from watching anything?

I’m having nothing to do with the Internet of Things until someone can prove to me it’s not a total liability and total waste of time and money from inception.

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

No, this isn’t empowerment -Yet

 


 

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2The theory and practice of female empowerment doesn’t seem to have travelled far, at least, not yet. It’s still a word, not a fact. Having basic rights isn’t empowerment. Getting the odd, grudging bit of recognition of an issue isn’t empowerment. Not getting raped, abused, or harassed isn’t empowerment. Sprinkling a few women, out of billions of women, in better jobs isn’t empowerment.

 

 

Tokenism isn’t success. It’s certainly not empowerment, or empowering. It’s a dog biscuit. Arguing about equal pay, for example, which the law says you should have anyway, hasn’t yet resulted in that happening. Empowerment is about results, not talk.

Defining “empowerment”

Neo feminism may be better at raising issues than old feminism, but it’s downright lousy at delivering lethal punches. The scum are still around.  #metoo did get somewhere, but nowhere near far enough.

If you define empowerment as:

  • The power to achieve goals
  • Actual power to manage life problems
  • Actual power to take positive action
  • Standalone power to defend your rights
  • Actual power to deliver security and freedom from fear

…. How far has the empowerment come? Not very. The problems remain, in all their inglorious squalor. So-called men and their bizarre behaviours are still the lifetime obstacle course for women.

Ladies, as I’ve been saying for years, the glass ceiling is made of the same material as their jaws. They can’t take a punch. You’re dealing with a pack of inferior, talentless office boys that most other men see for what they are – Cowards, fools, nasty little bullying insects who need to be trodden on, not “debated with” as if they were anything but cockroaches.

Maybe you don’t see them the same way, due to the vast range of issues, but they’re not fighters. There’s a very old male joke about bullies getting married – “Finally found someone you could beat?” which pretty much covers the image of these misogynists with other men. We despise them, for so many good reasons.

The immortal Celts in EnglandMany of us guys are baffled that these uninvited insults to our gender brand are anti-female at all, let alone making an industry of being anti-female. We’re not anti-female. Why the hell would any real guy have some psychosis about oppressing women? Why would you beat up the one person who can stand the sight of you enough to marry you and have your kids? How much more of a friend could anyone be? It’s irrational, not to say downright insane.

We have nothing against women. We’ve never had any reason to be hostile to women. We all had mothers, sisters, girlfriends who are/were real friends, daughters, and associates as friends, lovers and long term partners. Even these misogynist filth know better than to risk certain death when it comes to a fight with other guys on these subjects.

Ways to empowerment

Allow me/us to offer a few suggestions:

  • Hit these bastards with anything and everything – Class actions in the workplace, whatever hits their bottom lines professionally and personally. Their money and status are sacred to them. (This is mainly because like good little clichés they simply do not know any other values. Their BS is literally who they are.) Threaten that, and it’s as good as a hard kick in the balls.
  • They’re weak and stupid – They fear personal risk of any kind. They couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag, let alone fight their way out. Any conflict will show a lot of weak points you can exploit. The weakest point will be the breaking point. You may not get the satisfaction of turning them in to hamburger with your fists, but you’ll see a shrivelled up little bastard or so falling to bits.
  • Their “business savvy” and social skills are as fake as their masculinity – They’re parrots, hiding behind anything they can find to make them look good in a group. Make them look stupid and incompetent in front of professional peers, and they’ll get nasty, but not if those peers tell them where to go, (which at some point they will) and particularly if anything requires them to stand up and make themselves targets for criticism.
  • They’re scared of their own methods – Fear is their weapon, but it works even better against them. Outmaneuver them, get them to fear any sort of personal consequences, real or imagined, and their own cowardice and genetic incompetence will do the rest. This is ad hominem in the most practical sense. Nothing more hilarious than a terrified bully, too, always good for some featherweight entertainment.
  • Their “friends” are as untrustworthy and weak as they are – These vermin always align with the stronger side in any conflict, so they’ll bail out and join the other side when things get difficult, particularly if they’re at risk. Don’t trust them, obviously, but they’ll cave in and get out of the way of the juggernaut if you push the right buttons.
  • They usually have long track records of mistakes – Get as nasty as you like about making these records of ridiculous behaviour visible, preferably through a third party. Just do a good job of it. Even a mountain can be undermined if it’s on shaky foundations.
  • Please, please, please – Do NOT descend to the level of “boys vs girls”. That’s for kindergarten, not adult life. It’s also a potential own goal. It gives easy cover to “men” who will try to use it as a negative against you. Other guys may feel threatened, or more likely, irritated by the “all men are monsters” sort of thing which wore itself out through overuse in the 80s. Being a human being standing up for your rights doesn’t need explaining, anyway. Also very much to the point; hard facts and real leverage do far more real damage than rhetoric which puts people in a position of having to take sides based on gender.

Male friends will be happy to support in practical ways. It’s the same as taking out the trash, in so many ways. More sanitary, more aesthetically pleasing, and so on.

You want to be empowered? You’re on the right basic track, so make sure you stay on track.

So get on with it!

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

Yet more issues with website, thanks to a spammer. Will fix when possible. 

 

Dumb science – Weaponizing science against humanity


 

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2Is “Science” totally thoughtless? Or just very stupid? From the ongoing mass of research which might be used to oppress humanity, it seems so. Very little thought appears to go in to handing the means of oppression to anyone prepared to pay for it.

In China, the Surveillance Society already exists, in a particularly pernicious form which drags in friends, family and associates in to culpability for an individual’s behaviour. This tech didn’t exist a decade ago, nor did the processing power, but now it does, and it’s being used against a nation of over 1.5 billion people.

That hideous spectacle may be just a taste of what’s possible. The new “wonder”, decoding thought, could be a lot worse. This technology is being given to governments, corporations, and other life-destroying, unaccountable, imbecile groups. Imagine cults, nutcase religions and terrorists with mind reading technology. They could literally be able to oppress people simply for thinking.

Speaking of thinking – Did anyone ever wonder why this great interest in decoding thought? Let’s consider the usual wrong answers:

  • Psychological/psychiatric benefits – For whom? Not for the patients, obviously. You don’t stop having a psych problem simply because some machine can decode your thoughts.
  • Understanding the human mind – Since when has that ever made a difference? Understanding what? To do what with that understanding? It’s a bit like inventing a gun to see what happens. No good can come of it, because the method can never be good for whoever’s on the receiving end of it.

There is no way this technology can ever “benefit mankind”, when it’s simply intruding, doing nothing much of value of itself, and making thoughts accessible to third parties. Would you voluntarily tell just anyone what you’re thinking, at any given moment, let alone invent a technology to help people know what you’re thinking? Nor is there any clear limit to how much intrusion is possible. It’s the ultimate invasion of privacy, and it shouldn’t be allowed to exist at all.  Yet “Science” is trundling along on its tricycle, happily handing this tech over to anyone who wants it. People who couldn’t find a sunny day or be trusted with the contents of a urinal are supposed to be trusted with something so fundamental? If you do trust them, you’re morons, and not the good sort.

You, Science, are going to be responsible for what may well be the worst oppression in human history. The fact that most of the idiots who weaponized the technology will also be oppressed by it is small beer compared to the responsibility for creating these technologies.

Unthinking Science?

Didn’t know that, eh?

Does “Big Science” ever think about these things? Not noticeably. Consider the vast range of current risks and threats to privacy and personal freedoms “Science” has unleashed, unwittingly or otherwise:

Genetics: The issues of genetic disease as a risk factor, accessible to employers, and basically anyone who knows how to set up business to find this information. Who knows what sort of other genetic information can be used to disadvantage individuals? I could guess, and you should be able to, too. Let’s also not forget GMOs, crank stem cell science, etc., etc.

Surveillance: A truly maniacal type of relatively new science, now much more efficient, where tiny minds use advanced tech to monitor employees in bathrooms, but can’t stop massive amounts of data being lifted from governments and the military.

Automation: A type of science whereby the entire life model of humanity and global economics will be irrevocably altered. The theory is that automation releases people from drudgery. If there’s no way of earning a living however, it also throws perhaps billions of people in to poverty and probably more crime. Careers, education and personal wealth by default, may well become things of the past through this single line of research. What’s the point of getting an education if you can’t have a life?

Hacking: I don’t have much time for hackers since I managed to get in to some firewall-making company’s email using four characters through a search engine. To me, that’s way too easy. No mental challenge at all. How much easier could it get than that? The fact is, however, that hacking, which is also highly preventable, is also highly profitable. It’s an industry. Internet security, that contradiction in terms, isn’t doing the obvious A-B things to stop it. Corrupt, like all other security? Bet your plastic petunias. The working practice is that someone creates a problem, you build an entire industry about NOT solving it.

Pharmaceuticals: You could hardly leave out the world’s least responsible area of science, creating iffy quality drugs for sick people at incredible prices. Suicidal thoughts as a side effect? Whoever thought that up should be shot, and so should anyone who tolerates it. Yet, it’s “Science”, in its modern clown suit of mistakes and idiotic ramifications. This, you trust? Why?

Science is naïve? Maybe not, but… About managing spin

Arguably, Science is totally naïve in one way. Modern science isn’t necessarily a pretty environment. The bitching, the backbiting, the bullying, you name it; it’s like an office environment, and no better ethically in many ways. Any rat race is still a contest of rats, and if the rats have PhDs, it’s a very complex marathon.

Being naïve in this environment isn’t a good move. You can have your work stolen, and maybe your money, too, if you’ve got skin in the game. More likely, in fact almost certain, is that your work will be subverted to some whacko mindset of the more or less totally criminal culture in all areas of management now able to abuse technologies.

If you want to read about science and corruption, read this actual history of a true obscenity, created by massive corruption. This was over 50 years ago, and it's a lot worse now.

If you want to read about science and corruption, read this actual history of a true obscenity, created by massive corruption. This was over 50 years ago, and it’s a lot worse now.

OK, so how do you be a scientist and be sure you’re not naïve? It’s tricky. You need to manage the spin on any science you’re doing. That’s a true qualitative issue, but you have an advantage. You’re dealing with criminals, sycophants, and often the usual corporate psychopaths. Any form of information can be stolen or otherwise accessed by these vermin if it exists in an accessible form. The easier to interpret the information is, the less secure it can be. The “cat sat on the mat” form of science, spelling out everything, is particularly vulnerable. Any fool can interpret it accurately.

The more secure form is “puzzle” form, where only the real experts can put together all the elements in any research scenario and extrapolate correctly. Expertise is a strange thing. The only truly consistent thing about it is that experts on the higher levels are much more risk aware, and more able to withhold potentially dangerous information from the global nutcase environment.

Anything can be broken up in to hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of components. Think of it as SSL2000, any number of elements. Destructive practices can be derailed in the process. A very simple example – The new antidepressant, for instance, can be delivered without the unforgivable “suicidal thoughts” side effects, even if some moron wants to include a very dumb, dangerous psychoactive compound. The dangerous elements can be written out of the research very easily simply by quoting the usual performance of garbage of this kind. Nobody needs to know why, just dollar values, and that sort of crap doesn’t stack up too well on that basis, either.

Put it this way – Research and its effects are the responsibility of REAL science. What idiots can’t see, can’t interpret, and can’t act upon can’t be used against humanity. Just bear that in mind before you give yet another weapon to some herd of imbeciles.

 

www.sydneymediajam.com