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. 

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.

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

The modern good guy


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2What IS a modern good guy? Incredibly unfashionable, for one thing. Guys are taught to be jerks, and all else follows. It’s as if being a jerk is an achievement. It isn’t, never was, and never will be, but that’s the role model guys are given, the nasty little jerk who makes money and is hated by just about everyone.

It’s a mediocre aspiration. Anyone can be a jerk. Anyone can be a hypocrite, a coward, a thief, a stooge, or a lackey getting a few extra bucks. There’s not really very much to achieve. The problem with being a jerk is that you can’t actually be a real person, or even pretend to be a human being. Animals can pretend to be friendly to get food, run away, steal, be part of a pack, or grovel for some patronising reward.

Not being a jerk, basics

Being a good guy can be purely a personal values issue, but more often it’s a mix of experience and thinking, too. The decision not to be a jerk comes from multiple areas:

  • Loathing jerks.
  • Disgust with jerks, jerk culture, and jerk behaviour
  • Experience of jerks
  • Some genuine personal ethical standards
  • Growing up; jerks are often permanently infantile

This can be tough for younger people, whose jerk recognition systems aren’t fully developed. Not surprisingly, younger people prefer not to think of their world as full of jerks and untrustworthy, sometimes very dangerous and expensive, jerk-based risks.

Younger people usually experience jerks as bullies. You’ll note that bullying is ALWAYS the same behaviour. Whether it’s an obnoxious kid in day care, or a CEO, the actual behaviour is identical. The early experience effectively starts the revulsion against jerks, but a few decades of it can become rather tiresome.

The good guy perspective

Good guys see the world diametrically opposite to the way jerks see it. Their aspirations are always positive. Good guys build, add value, and improve things for themselves and others, naturally, sometimes not even consciously. Jerks are always trying to do damage to someone. They never build or improve anything. If they do build, it’s at someone else’s expense, and risk.

Paul Wallis books, sydney media jam

Fear of creativity is the sure sign that you should be a publisher. Read this, and you’ll never need homicidal maniacs again.

Good guys, ironically, aren’t “good on principle”. It’s a much deeper motif, based on some sort of sense of what’s good and what’s not. It simply doesn’t occur to good guys to think like jerks. Jerks have no idea what’s good, or why it should matter to them, and what’s not good seems natural to them, so jerk-dom is their default behaviour in all circumstances. There’s no real intersection between good guys and jerks.

The difficulties with being a good guy, however, are pretty demanding. Having a very different perspective on everything in Jerk World is hard work, requiring personal and emotional stamina and sometimes baffling depth within oneself:

  1. You have to stand on your own two feet. That makes you the inexcusable loner, the uncooperative non-team player (absurd, isn’t it?) or some sort of implied sociopath.
  2. You have to understand and define what you’re trying to achieve. That can be extremely difficult, and take years to really get a grip on what you’re trying to do, while you’re doing it.
  3. You have to disagree, sometimes often. Jerks can sit around fearlessly agreeing with themselves for years. Good guys can’t. They have to be honest, particularly with themselves, whatever the cost, because hypocrisy and lying is the basis of the difference between a jerk and a good guy. Those easy options for jerks are not available for good guys.
  4. You can’t take all your life cues from some damn TV show or movie. Jerks do, and it’s one of the reasons everything they do is so superficial. They’re just lousy actors, trying to look good, while being incapable of even understanding their role beyond the dog biscuit level. Real actors are believable; jerks make any role look ridiculous, usually very melodramatic and overstated to mindless levels.
  5. Nobody understands the good guy perspective on any level, and they will think you’re stupid, naïve, a dreamer, whatever. That doesn’t make doing things any easier. (Not that it matters to you, but you find yourself being a good guy with obstructive, pig-ignorant, useless jerks under foot everywhere.)
  6. Being a jerk is no longer an option. You may have to reinvent your entire life, if you grew up in Jerk World. You have to do the right thing, partly because it’s your normal reaction, and partly because the jerk option becomes so much more repulsive over time. That can be a problem, in Jerk World, because you’re no longer any kind of fit for that world.
  7. Your jerk-free social life has to be created. The society of jerks is no longer even slightly tolerable to you, as a working good guy. That raises a few social logistics issues. Jerks have the luxury of being able to associate with swarms of their own kind. They’re the fruit flies of society, passing nuisances with very limited roles, but always in spoiling any fruit they can find. Everyone in Fruit Fly City thinks being a jerk is better than sex. So you basically have to invent your own private society, somehow, in that environment.

Survival as a good guy

OK, so as a good guy, you put a certain self-imposed weight on yourself as a load to carry. The good news is that you do develop the strength to do it easily. The other news is that survival in Jerk World is the next hurdle.

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, AmazonIt’s not quite as difficult as it might seem. Jerks have no stamina. They defocus easily, and often. They can’t do step logic beyond A-B. A-F is too much for them.  They’re not really fighters, and won’t fight unless they’re a few thousand times bigger than what they’re fighting.

Jerks are very risk averse. Anything at all that looks like a risk will be studiously avoided. Be a risk to them, and they’ll avoid you. Any risk to their social status, in particular, will be considered far too dangerous, and they’ll leave you alone in droves. Any kind of defeat is real damage for jerks, too. They are extremely vulnerable to any perception of weakness by others, as most weaklings are. Make them look weak, and you’re killing them.

Jerk culture, however, is much harder to avoid. The pathological liar, the asshole supervisor, that nasty little object in the workplace, etc. are endemic. The best way to dodge this culture is to create your own, inaccessible, space. Anything involving intelligence, perception, or actual passion will do.

These things are incomprehensible to jerks. They’ll avoid the subjects, unless there’s some cliché so they can be loudmouth jerks, “asserting” themselves, which is their sole social ranking capability. If something you care about is under scrutiny, that can be a problem. To avoid the problem if a relevant subject comes up, ask them a question where their answer can only make them look stupid, even to other jerks. Their ignorance will do the work for you.  Problem solved.

You can, and will, move on from the local grotesqueries, anyway, in time. Jerks do come and go, if they never go fast enough. The trick is to disengage from the jerks, preferably ASAP, and keep your space separate from them.

It’s not easy being a good guy. There are no moral Brownie points for good guys. You don’t spend decades in self-congratulation, like the jerks, because that’s not how you see things. You do, however, get to be yourself and lead a meaningful, fulfilling life on your own terms. Those are things no jerk can ever do.


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

Conformity is death



Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2If you can’t even survive an encounter with the need to have your own opinion, are you alive at all? If so, why? If you can’t stand on your own two feet without “peer group approval” why do you bother existing? That’s conformity at its most dictatorial, and it’s everywhere.

Check out mob rule in the States at the moment. A collection of yes-nobodies, agreeing with everything. They even agree to have their own health care slashed to bits, in one of the most expensive countries in the world for health care. Presidential candidates roll over after public denigration of themselves and their families by the Head Yes-Jerk.

Conformity is REAL tyranny. It’s thinly disguised as “everyone does it”, and it’s been a disaster for anyone and anything who’s ever gone along with it. It exists in religions, politics, and those weird little groups of truly insane people who assume their superiority over all others – Because someone else told them they’re superior.

You see it in academia; the ferocious hiding behind ancient theories. In business, the non-existent “corporate ethos”, (aka hate your employees, your customers, and anyone who makes less than you do), is the norm.

It even applies to puberty. Check out the expression “friend zone”, which means a no score, usually for guys. That’s bad – You can’t have a relationship, apparently, without some not-very-surprising ulterior sexual motive. (You fiend, you.)

Behaviourism enforces conformity

This book was specifically written to be as anti-literary-conformist as possible. The plot doesn’t work, the characters aren’t described, and the reader has to VISUALIZE, aka use their brain, not just soak up whatever they’re reading.

Behaviourism is an enabler of conformity. “This is normal behaviour”, according to someone. Therefore everything else is abnormal.  Friendship is a case in point. At one stage, back in the 90s, I think, every relationship HAD to be sexual, otherwise nobody could think of a motive for friendship.

People assume behavioural norms like corn flakes. Some buffoon in a position of authority is assumed to have all the skills, expertise, and leadership to be in authority. There’s no reason for this assumption. The guy’s a fool, petty, and very small-minded, but somehow attains this mystique, mainly because he’s called a manager, not an office boy.

If earning respect was money, this guy could never afford to blow his own nose. There are millions of them, mismanaging everything around them because they don’t even know their own jobs.

Women get by far the worst of this conformist crap. You’re strong, independent, empowered… And you get told how to act. You get told who to be, even. How to be respected, how to be sexy, how to live the 1950s suburban dream, in fact, with a few new buzzwords. Cue the Flintstones.

Fortunately, most genuinely strong, independent women ignore this crap relentlessly. Otherwise humanity would be even more of a global doormat than it is now.

Fear of being different and conformity

Arguably, the most damning, and rightly so, expression of conformity at its helpless worst is “Fear of Being Different”. The link is to Harvard Business Review, and it’s a brief, if nauseating, read, even despite the polite phraseology. Check out in particular the “motherhood penalty”; an indictment of a failed culture enforcing failure.

And lastly, because this is a repulsive subject, and doesn’t’ deserve more than acknowledgement of the obvious:

The ultimate conformist is the hypocrite/sycophant. This is a parasitic life form, conforming to EVERYTHING around it. It can’t live without the support of others. It makes money agreeing with everything, even total contradictions. This conformist animal has no personality, no substance, and has usually been that way since day care.

The conformist, in fact, is a total failure as a person, because they can’t be a real person in ANY sense.That’s about as dead as you can get.

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books


Reef management: Too conventional, too slow, too stupid



Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2With the great respect due to the people who’ve dedicated their lives to saving coral reefs, the old approaches don’t work. The high mass of pollutants, climate change, and general “commuting between disasters” can’t do the job.

Case in point – Our Great Barrier Reef. Inaction and incomprehension have been the catalysts for failure. The Crown of Thorns starfish plague, for example, has rarely been under sustained attack. It’s been a problem since the 1960s, and it’s still a problem now. 50 years of dithering has done incredible damage to the reef, as much as bleaching, according to some estimates.

The Crown of Thorns is not invincible; it’s a very high volume problem but not invulnerable. It’s  a big area, but not an inaccessible area or anything like inaccessible. Any form of removal will do some good.


  • Use “marine vacuums” to harvest as many Crown of Thorns as possible. This is quicker, cheaper, and highly efficient, not requiring as many divers or as much time as other options. These marine vacuums are basically the same as vacuum cleaners. A decent size capacity could remove the starfish before their breeding cycle, throwing a few spanners in the population issue. An older ship with enough room could be used as an incinerator. Turn the starfish in to nutrients for the Reef. Fair enough, surely.
  • Attack the starfish larvae. These things breed in huge numbers. Any method of attacking the larvae and throwing the repopulation cycle out of whack is at least worth trying. Doesn’t matter if you use a kid with a butterfly net or a lot of artificially bred micro predators, this is a serious weak spot in the Crown of Thorns life cycle.
  • Sterilize the bastards. There must be some way of trashing their ability to reproduce. This method has been used on land, but not at sea, to my knowledge. If it works, the Crown of Thorns has been crippled at its most dangerous point.

One thing I must add – The pattern seems to be that every new environmental problem is instantly put in to the Too Hard Basket for reasons of:

  • Cost, which is a fraction of the losses caused by degradation of our leading tourist attraction, and marine powerhouse for fish populations.
  • Scale, as though the size of a problem means “do nothing”.
  • Resources and failure to allocate resources in a timely way.
  • Political ignorance and cronyism, however irrational.

This is a book I did a while back about Australia’s self-inflicted problems. I don’t have a political ideology, because politics is obsolete. To have “Buckley’s chance” in Australian slang means to have no chance at all. No coincidence.

This pattern of failure must end. This is NOW an expensive problem because previous admin failed to deal with issues promptly.

The bottom line here, and the only show in town is to wipe the Crown of Thorns out. This problem should have been solved in the 60s. There are no excuses for not doing so now.

The Australian “ethnic” summary – Any obstruction from Bogan third armpits can be ignored, or preferably beaten to a pulp. This is a fixable disaster, and fixed it must be. Then we can get on with the plastics, bleaching, and the greedy ignoramuses causing the disasters.

This is a book I did a while back about Australia’s self-inflicted problems. I don’t have a political ideology, because politics is obsolete. To have “Buckley’s chance” in Australian slang means to have no chance at all. No coincidence.

The compulsory slum in your head


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2Human existence is a range of slightly augmented basic needs. All societies impose a large number of restrictions on human life. That includes providing a full-function conceptual slum by default.

The conceptual slum is based on a series of How Tos. How to be normal, how to have a family, how to have a career, how to have a social life, et cetera. This range of How Tos also eats up a lot of time.

This is a historical phenomenon with many ramifications. The totally screwed current generation of millennials can be easily forgiven for thinking that the past was some sort of great-grand-paternal benign haze of “old things”. It wasn’t.

Quite the opposite. The past was a collection of similar How To compulsions, including status-sucking middle-class imperatives like the nuclear family, two cars, endless appliances, and so on. Who you were was basically dictated by what you had in the way of possessions and social status. Sound familiar?

Paul Wallis, Live Lazy and Love It, Amazon

The theory of this book is that if you can afford to be lazy, you must be doing something right.

If Machiavelli doesn’t deserve fame for any other reason (and he doesn’t, the smug sycophantic little bastard) he deserves acknowledgement for defining a hierarchy of social compulsions. Sycophancy is nothing new. It reflects the realities of social hierarchies/real social relationships very effectively. These social relationships are a virtual map of social compulsions.

Social grovelling is your instant guide to who’s who, what’s what, and the passing priorities of whole societies. All this is based on what are bizarrely called “real world” factors.

This means that your desperate need to socialise with somebody you can’t stand is compulsory. You are afflicted with a range of social relationships whether you like them or not.

Even more excitingly, your own priorities are also very much affected/afflicted with the effects of other people’s compulsions. This banal mechanism is the basis of human society of the past and present. It dates back to the caves, and probably the trees. The big atavism of Jack London’s Before Adam, Orwell’s Big Brother, any form of vague social authority is all you need.

The Mental Slum

If you’ve ever wondered why seemingly intelligent people are virtual slaves to every sort of materialism, ideology, fashion, or whatever, the compulsion is very insidious. The metal slum is derived from the social slum. The lowest common denominator is mediocrity, and the lowest common denominator is also the average.

It may not be your idea to blunder around in a world full of idiotic lifestyles, ridiculous extravagance, and “terror by tantrum” in the form of real terrorism or office tyrants. Socialising with psychopaths may not even be your idea of a good time. This is the social environment, and this is the real slum.

A slum, by definition, is a filthy, disorganised, poverty-stricken, crime and disease-ridden environment. The mental slum is no different. Mental filth could be described as mental trash. Mental poverty doesn’t need a description. Mental crime, in its many forms, is pretty normal. Is it any wonder that mental disease is so common?

Imagine, if you will, a world where compulsions are avoidable. Real choices are available, and your mind and intelligence don’t have to wear the repulsive prison uniforms of suits, offices, mortgages, and constant need.

Somewhat different, would you say?

Talking about “different”– One of the strangest things I have ever heard, and believe me when I say I have heard some pretty strange things, was a single sentence: “Fear of being different”. Think about that seemingly innocuous expression for half a second.

Different according to whom, or what? Society, of course. This pathetic, clapped out, hopeless, mindless excuse for total failure which we call society causes people to fear being different?

Paul Wallis books, sydney media jam

Fear of creativity is the sure sign that you should be a publisher. Read this, and you’ll never need homicidal maniacs again.

If you’re claiming to be a human being, (and you really should know better), you ARE different. Nobody else is you. Even mathematically, you are different. Forget pseudo-egalitarianism; Person A is not Person B in physical terms, mental terms, life experience, perceptions, perspectives, add dictionary here.

The social slum you were born with, however, dictates “normality”, however absurd. The irony is that normality is usually a conglomeration of accepted How Tos, and equally normally completely out of date. The norms of the previous generations are therefore inflicted on younger generations to whom they are basically meaningless.

In Western culture, that famous contradiction in terms, the norm continues to be a whole series of compulsions from roughly the 1950s. These compulsions are now almost completely irrelevant, and progressively becoming more absurd as models for doing anything.

Why inflict new generations with the mental slums of the past? What possible use could it serve? Who benefits?

Getting out of the slum

To get out of the slum:

Keep your distance from it: There is no need to participate. You’ll have a much healthier, much happier life as a result.

Avoid the Idiot Factories: Ideologies, in particular, simply restrict thinking. They rarely if ever add anything to do it. You may also have to waste a lot of time un-learning the bad habits and lousy arguments of ideologies.

Don’t merely accept anything: You don’t have to believe a damn thing. Check out your information; is it consistent, and does it make actual practical sense?

Either you run your life, or it runs you: Who’s winning, the groceries or you? Make sure it’s you.

Forget How Tos: Nobody can tell you how to be yourself. Nor do they have any right to do so. Your best friends will insist that you be yourself, and that should be enough of a hint for anyone.

When you get out of the slum, stay out.

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

The problems get bigger and the minds keep getting smaller


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2When you think of all the possibilities for human advancement in to a species almost worth calling intelligent, it’s a grim picture. The minds managing the most crucial issues aren’t anywhere near the kind of thinking required to solve problems and get ahead of them.

We could have had Star Trek by now or something like it if it wasn’t for the seemingly endless reduction of everything to tinier and tinier fractions of the big ideas.  The big ideas are too big for the small minds.

I wish this was intellectual snobbery at work. Sadly, it’s not. It’s observation, and the observations truly stink. It’s easy to denigrate anyone or anything on the basis of what they don’t do. It’s far too easy for my tastes. It’s also off target.

For example:

Wanderlaugh, Paul Wallis books, Amazon

My books are set in the England of the immortals, not some dreary little off license. Wonder why? No.

The subject is ending world hunger. The result in terms of actual thinking is a catfight over everything but practical issues. I’ve been watching starving people all over the world for decades, and absolutely nothing has changed.

Meanwhile, imagine the thinking required to obstruct ending world hunger. It can’t be rational, it can’t be even coherent, yet people continue to starve for no good reason. Apply this lack of mental cohesion to:

  • Pollution
  • Health
  • Education
  • Housing
  • Quality of life
  • Unprecedented levels of parasitic crime
  • Human aspirations in general

This is why we have unheard-of levels of technology and unheard-of levels of imbecility at the same time. Nothing is impossible, and yet nothing, or near enough to nothing, gets done.

In the case of human hunger, you can have sophist/regressionist arguments like:

“Why end world hunger? There are too many people. Maybe starvation will make people breed more responsibly.” This load of self-satisfied/we’re so superior (you’re not) crap can actually be considered a rational viewpoint in some areas of gaga land. The fact that population pressures have never been addressed competently at all in most countries, of course, is neither mentioned nor factored in to existing situations. It’s the starving people’s fault.

And so on. Every single damn problem on Earth is fixable, and the chances of them getting fixed are exactly zip or less.

The problem that has to be fixed first is the total lack of objectivity. Small minds have small aspirations. To be head idiot is enough. To preside over adoring morons is sufficient. To do anything, however, is likely to be a very modest attempt at meeting a random selection of “achievements”, however banal.

The randomness with which problems are seen and addressed is one of the big issues. There’s no system. Imagine a type of scientific research where bits of a subject are researched on a “whatever” basis. Consider basic human daily issues. You get fabulous deodorants, but no broad spectrum disease prevention. You get driverless cars, but no working traffic system which maximises movement.

In this case the thinking isn’t just small minds doing small things badly. There’s no thinking at all. Even the idea of systemic progress and development barely exists outside science fiction. The theory and mechanics of them are there, in everything from town planning to economics, but not much really happens.

Paul Wallis books, sydney media jam

This book is all about creative ideas. Nobody has yet died of reading it, but it’s a pretty tough call for those not familiar with working with ideas. “Passive voice”, eh?

Humanity just blunders on through a maze of avoidable disasters, and the thinking is no more advanced than the next election or next funding episode. The problems have become gigantic in direct proportion to the smallness of the minds supposedly there to solve them.

The lack of trust in government is based on this observation. Globally, most governments are despised with a contempt they thoroughly deserve.  Those who do nothing/have done nothing aren’t expected to do much. In fact, merely saying that you’ll do something is enough to give you far more credibility than you deserve.

Why such small minds?

It’s interesting, if infuriating, to note that in the past small-mindedness was seen as such. Now, it’s pretty normal. What has happened in the last 100 years or so to cause this degeneration of human thinking in to a slopfest of mediocrity?

A theory:

Environmental factors: If people are raised in a bland, sterile old kitchen sink environment like most cities, their perceptions are based on looking at very dull, unimaginative things. This lack of environmental stimulus has to have some effect, and very low levels of thinking are pretty predictable.

Life models: In the past you could discover a new world. Now, you can discover a new fast food chain. Again, no challenges, no stimuli, no thinking.

A life based on trivia and intrusive problems: The change from self-motivation to force-fed, unspeakably dull lives of paying bills and dodging bullets of various kinds is very mentally time consuming. How brilliant are you supposed to be, if your next phone bill is towering over the horizon, forcing you to stop thinking about everything else.

Half-arse social models: You could be forgiven for thinking that everything is a shop window. The two dimensional nature of human life is basically a commercial. That’s supposed to create a functional society? No. It’s supposed to create the image of a society which has never existed, like a cheap visual teddy bear. There’s no life and commitment to anything in the real society, just a collection of meaningless selfies.

The illusion of personal advancement: Personal advancement has de-evolved in to a collection of possessions and status role playing. The actual people usually aren’t particularly advanced, or even interesting. They’ve been promoted from plodders to paragons, and their thinking is still that of plodders. As people, they haven’t advanced at all; they’ve simply become more smug and insular about the artificial exterior image of themselves. Add to this the Pecking Order of Peasants/ Right to Patronize ingrained in every status promotion, and you get boring, boorish bullshit artists banging their tin drums of the few thoughts they can understand themselves.

The illusion of wealth: Let’s not denigrate wealth for being wealth. It is what it is. Wealth is fun, if you happen to have it. It’s an escape from the problems lack of wealth causes, as the old saying goes. It’s also a sort of insidious personal hallucination. It doesn’t make you somebody else. Your mind, lucky you, is the same accumulation of whatever put your personality together. You can be a billionaire outside, and a pauper inside. No amount of money cures emotional, intellectual, or any other kind of internal poverty. Quite the opposite; you have to hide outside yourself to avoid the issues. You may be the life of the party; too bad about the corpse inside, eh?

(Can’t resist quoting one of my favorite stories: Nathan Rothschild had a furious visitor, a Lord Something, who barged in to his office and demanded to speak with him. Rothschild told him to take a chair, he’d be with him in a minute. Lord Something exploded and asked if Rothschild knew who he was. Rothschild said, “Take two chairs.” A good working example of what I mean.)

Inferior quality insanity: Insanity used to be interesting. Now it’s just another middle class trade. It’s predictable, if ugly, dull, if noisy. The small minds don’t even go insane with any great level of gusto or achievement. Some minds benefit from the spark of stimulus that makes them brilliant. Small minds don’t. They simply become more passionate about very trivial, very boring, things. They don’t even create their own insanity; they copy it from something else. How else do you go insane and become fanatical about tired old ideas, religions, pedantic absurdities, and theories about the sewer of hideous non-facts that make up modern life?

Not all that sorry to take a little time to build a case, but this is the real killer scenario in the saga of small minds vs problems:

Real achievement is based on real thinking. The progress from bashing rocks together to electronics and gene management is based on that process.

To advance, humanity needs people who can do that thinking. There’s no future in thinking which only goes backwards or sideways. Non-progressive thinking simply stirs up the existing sewage.

Small minds can’t, and won’t, handle big ideas. They don’t have the range or the capacity to even understand the macro issues, let alone work on them. The small thinking is more likely to run away than to deal with issues. (See the last 30 years for details.) They’re scared of the big problems and frightened of the responsibilities.

Regression always totally fails. There are countless examples throughout modern and ancient history of small-minded attempts to turn back the clock and oversimplify to the point of madness the most complex situations. None of the regressive societies has ever survived. Tyranny, maniacal fanaticism, and all the clichés of the past, have died out in a flurry of failures.

The moral of the story is simple enough: Find the minds that can solve the problems, and preferably get ahead of the problems. Stop looking for obliging idiots and start looking for thinkers. No amount of fake news, fake people and fake logic can solve what’s coming.

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

Users please note: Amazon A-store is being discontinued by Amazon in July 2017. Some graphic image links on this blog for older articles may not work. 

History as psychosis?


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media JamThe definition of psychosis is: “ A severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.” If you consider that as a description of humanity’s relationship with other people’s realities, psychosis covers it nicely.

Humanity is its own worst enemy, and worst friend, in some cases.  In this time of global disasters, it’s worth looking at how thought and emotions have basically lost the plot.

Psychotic is definitely a word which can be applied to the current mess.  This world is so bad now that losing contact with reality is probably a better option than facing it. Thought and emotions, however basic and delusional, paranoid and absurd, were the mechanisms which caused it.

The mere fact that a collection of brattish fools and criminals of various kinds are now in charge of a disgusting global dunghill should be proof enough.  Poverty, slavery, gigantic pandemics, you name it; it’s the Middle Ages with smart phones.

Psychosis in history

Psychosis, you say, Aarfy? Nah…

This has happened many times before. It’s a textbook case, in fact. The diagnostic pattern couldn’t be more obvious. The more out of touch and delusional a ruling clique, the more catastrophic the backlash. History is full of ruling cliques who were running empires one day and being executed or assassinated the next.

Yes, this type psychosis is stupid, as well as delusional. The bigger, more obvious targets are the first hit. One of the reasons that astonishingly untalented people become “leaders” is that everyone else isn’t quite stupid enough to make a target of themselves, particularly in dangerous times. In the corporate world, the least mentally agile or most trusting are the ones given responsibility for failures, etc.

Power does more than corrupt. It rules rulers. It makes them its slave. The most idiotic actions in human history can be traced to the incompetent being “given” power.  In practice, the “gift” is a trade off with those ruled. Real power exists in its exercise, not in titles like Emperor, President, etc.

Psychoses don’t need conspiracy theories. This book is history. Consider.

The Roman emperor Augustus, one of the smarter leaders of all time, basically disappeared from sight while ruling. It’s an almost unique achievement. He continued to actually rule, but from a safe distance, away from the poisonous and dangerous Roman Senate and the entrenched politics of his time. He became a god, in fact, rather than theory, because he could override the Senate and anyone else. That was a mix of personal and national survival, about as sane as any leader needs to be. He basically dodged the psychosis of power and the psychoses of history. His successors, with a few exceptions, did the exact opposite, and destroyed the empire.

The psychosis finds a home among the stupid, the greedy and the lazy. Those who perpetrate history’s horrors are never truly intelligent, but they are psychotic by any standards. The politics of the cave, the friends of the powerful and the corrupt, continue, and that really defines the problem.  The stupid, greedy and lazy always associate with the powerful. Even if the ruling clique isn’t psychotic by nature, it will become so, sooner or later, because of the corrupting influences on it.

Didn’t know that, eh?

The psychosis becomes the norm. Loss of contact with reality requires a particular type of logic. Some subjects are forbidden. Others are ignored, or ridiculed.  Facts are interpreted, rather than understood correctly. In a truly psychotic environment, there’s little point in understanding facts, anyway. There’s nobody there who’ll be prepared to do anything about them.

The loss of contact with reality, however, includes a fatal flaw in the psychosis; it also means denial of real dangers which can destroy it. The dangerous enemy is devalued. Even actual attacks are downgraded to nuisance value, not seen in their true light. The psychosis thrives on its achievements, whether they exist or not. Therefore, anything which contradicts those achievements is not accepted as fact.

The psychosis, like a disease, also has a weakness. It tends to kill its host. That’s long been argued by biologists as an own goal for diseases; it’s anti-survival. That a psychosis, the epitome in human history of anti-survivalism, acts against its own survival is rather reassuring.

Psychosis  as a living thing

Isaac Asimov wrote a story published by Galaxy Science Fiction in 1951 called Hostess about a parasitic species which existed only in the minds of people and aliens. It was an intelligent species, but it didn’t have a particular form, just a mentality. The parasite can breed by mixing hosts, and then the hosts are no longer required. The parasitic species continues its existence at the expense of the host species. It actually is a typical parasite.

There’s nothing at all unlikely about this scenario. A psychosis, created by chemical actions, is alive by most definitions, if it acts consciously and reproduces in some form. It’s a bit strange, in fact, that humans, so obsessed with their own mentalities, don’t recognize the difference between parasitic behaviours and natural behaviours. The historical psychosis has a long list of examples of itself in genocidal maniacs, serial killers, tyrants, religious nuts, and megalomaniacs. About 10% of managers, in fact, are believed to be psychotic, and they sometimes show all the traits of true human-hating psychosis.

Do you see it?
I see a herd of beautiful wild ponies.
Thanks, Daria.

Much less reassuringly – There’s no credible, survival-based rationale at all for humanity’s seemingly endless psychotic social, military, religious, psychological and economic wars against itself. It’s as if an anti-human psychosis was a sort of plague, acting the way it does, for thousands of years. Whole civilizations have come and gone on the basis of psychotic behavior.

Being anti-human also  isn’t any kind natural human mental state. Humans are basically co-dependent, whether they like it or not. The only reason humanity survived prehistory was because people cooperated.

Humans survive a lot better when they’re not at war with each other in any form. Another friendly human is a major asset. Anything which promotes human conflict is anti-human, anti-survival, and therefore psychotic. Anything which poisons the social environment, like bullies, criminals, etc. is also anti-survival on the same basis, simply because they disrupt valuable natural cooperation.

So – The psychosis is anti-survival, but it’s also a historical fact. There’s a trail of disasters all the way back to the beginning of human history showing how useless this psychosis is and always has been. Did humanity defeat all its natural enemies and simply replace them with itself? Or is there some serious disease affecting people throughout history which is a real risk to future human survival?

Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

Still working on the upgrade, sorry, and working pretty much all the time otherwise. It happens when it happens. 

17 reasons why non-writers need to understand writers


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam

Non-writers are as much of a curse to writers as non-artists and non-musicians are to those arts. They know staggeringly little about the actual facts of writing, the need for continuity and are usually 20 years behind the market. (Sorry for the text layout on this blog. Formatting issue.)

To explain:

  1. Nobody can be forced to read, let alone made to want to read, anything at all, online or anywhere else.
  2. “Engagement” is the key to any kind of content. Modern writing isn’t based on style guides, auditing practices, focus groups or anything but interesting content.
  3. The modern audience actively searches for information. It is therefore fussy about what it reads. Ignore that fact at your peril. Fizzy, featherweight copy can be a major non-lead generator.
  4. The commercial audience isn’t clueless when it’s looking to buy products. Many customers are as knowledgeable as, or more knowledgeable than, the sales people they deal with.
  5. Customers can take or leave sales spiel. In practice, they’ll ignore 90% of what they see, and be fussy about the other 10%. They need hard values in sales form, not sales form disguised, badly, as information.
  6. The “I should know everything I need to know in 30 seconds” thing is now at least 20 years out of date. Less can be better, but more provides, well, more. Lack of information, not too surprisingly, looks like lack of information. Worse, it looks suspicious, like obvious questions are being left unaddressed.
  7. Grammar, schmammar. Making sense is more important than archaic usage. Bad grammar may be inexcusable in some cases, but it’s not like lawsuits will result unless you louse up your sales terms. Grammar is not written under oath, and unless the usage and syntax are actually suicidal, it’s not worth nitpicking.
  8. Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, AmazonPomposity is not an asset in business writing or copywriting. You can be as “corporate” as you like, and the readers will simply edit it out. It’s useless to them. They need applicable, relevant information, far more than mere presentation. Friendly/casual works far better than “we’d like to patronize you to death, right now this minute,” as copy.
  9. You can’t pass off “useless” as a synonym for “professional”, either. Filler is filler, however overloaded with standard phrases. (It also uses up space which could be made much more productive.)
  10. Garbage is garbage. “This exciting, innovative, money-making product” doesn’t mean a damn thing until you get down to cases. A lot of long form direct marketing stuff is guilty of this, and it’s a major turnoff for anyone who’s survived puberty.
  11. Portfolios matter to writers. If your portfolio is full of crap, prospective clients will think you’re full of crap, and you’ll be able to prove it to them with substandard materials.
  12. Non-writers have their own problems. They need to work with clients, sometimes at kindergarten level, but failing to understand what better quality writing can do simply devalues their product. Most competent writers can contribute both subject knowledge and value-based writing options. That usually doesn’t happen. (Just look at what’s trying to pass itself off as copywriting online for infinite numbers of examples.)
  13. Writers, like marketers and advertisers, target They write to actual people in context with subject matter. Non-writers may or may not know the markets or the people. In some cases, they don’t know the products too well, either, where most experienced writers make a point of understanding specific markets. If you’re writing B2B, you have to write to business values, not some damn obsolete image. C level readers don’t need pretty pictures. They want dollar values to their businesses.
  14. Depth of information matters to readers. “Whiter and brighter” isn’t the criteria for buying anything any more. Superior product, better value, clear user/buyer information, and anything along those lines, goes a lot further. (Remember customers do check out competitors. So should agencies. You can learn a lot.)
  15. “We’re not experts”. This cliché, invented in the 90s, has a lot to answer for. Says who? Is the assumption that because you’re a writer/agency, you know nothing about your client’s products? Does it sound plausible?
  16. “Writing like a lawyer”. I’ve been accused of this, and it was in relation to stock market-based materials in Canada. What I was worried about was market disclosure, providing information which may or may not be accurate. Not writing dubious/debatable materials which can be used to discredit a corporate client seemed to me to be a good idea, and still does. Caution is advisable when your client’s image is at stake.
  17. Conformity is death. Writing like everyone else is a great way of being totally ignored. Unique writing is as important as any unique selling point, when you’re trying to get a message across.

The bottom line: If you want relevant, reader-friendly material, acknowledge the role of the writer and allow appropriate input.

Good copy can’t write itself.


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

When society follows media like a sheep to slaughter


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media JamNobody should be too surprised that America’s recent history has been very much like a lousy bit of network programming. For those who’ve forgotten, media has always been a role model. Monkey see, monkey go nuts.

(Before we start, this is not going to be a media-bashing exercise in the usual sense. In this case, the people who need their heads kicked are the mindless acceptors, not the mindless purveyors.)

Before America became a sort of extended crack house, the basic norm was a sort of sitcom society. Not too dazzling, but pretty much in the nuclear family, “Honey I’ve just invented the computer/ been indicted/fired/promoted” mode.

The good side of America, believe it or not, actually did and does exist. By global standards, it’s a bit middle class, with a level of occasional extravagance few other countries could ever achieve. This is the real innovation-based, really inspired America, now out of fashion for about 40 years.

Media imagery

Ads_Cover_for_KindleThe whole history of America is based on innovation. Its economy was built on it. This is the nation which first really applied mass production in its modern forms. The entire 20th century lifestyle in its famous suburban image, is derived from America. So, however, and rather sadly now, was the media image of America.

Media image is a sort of social template. Fashion, jargon, and even social interactions come from it like a vending machine. Just think how many expressions you’ve learned from it.

A bit of media psychology at this point:

  • Perceived threats or rewards on a screen generate natural responses to stimuli.
  • Perceived groups are joined vicariously.
  • The tendency is to accept, to some degree, the good and bad values in any media presentation, even a puppet show or cartoon.
  • They associate with those values and the logic of the scenarios.
  • Behaviours are contagious; if others are acting in a certain way, more will do so.
  • People tend to accept group norms, at least to some extent, cosmetically or otherwise.
  • In many cases, the behaviours fill a gap in knowledge, making media a sort of reinforcing tool for actual responses.

Is any of this new? No. It’s a range of findings from the 1950s. Media provides psychological stimuli, extended association with what is seen, and a range of norms, depending on the scenarios.

However – What is new is applying this range of known factors to a whole society. On a societal scale, the effects can be horrific.


  • The normalization of crime as a way of life – It is, for career criminals, but now it’s a whole media industry, from CSI to The Sopranos. Add behaviours.
  • Greed is Good to the Wolf of Wall Street – A norm which has turned the financial sector psychotic, and is seen as smart business.
  • The Me Generation – A generation of lawyers and accountants, a litigation mad phase in America.
  • The “evil” crap – Any excuse to be a jerk, as defined by Hollywood, TV and some pretty iffy pseudo-psychology. It’s a form of wanking, wearing suits, etc.
  • Dumbing down – The “nerd” theory which so rabidly devalues intelligence, information and innovation has also been responsible for America’s loss of direction in the sciences. America’s intellectual property is worth more than the GDP, and the US is still fretting over the Super Bowl.
  • The Flintstones Effect – Turning everything in to a sitcom, with asking the boss for a raise, and the entire worn-out idiom still oozing along.
  • Youth culture – This so-called youth culture is old enough to be a grandparent. A soggy attempt at the 1980s, with the same boring nursery rhymes and sloppy patches. No innovation at all.

Media as an excuse

It’s all well and good to bleat about decency, good people, etc. and the rest of the social shopping list that never happens. Humans are wired to respond to humans, real or not. If you see people doing something, on a screen in real life, your response is going to be largely automatic.

Paul Wallis books, sydney media jam

This book is all about creative ideas. Nobody has yet died of reading it, but it’s a pretty tough call for those not familiar with working with ideas. “Passive voice”, eh?

Media also certainly doesn’t provide any good role models, examples, or much in the way of constructive values of any kind. Why would it? Those things are hardly fashionable, or even comprehensible to some people. Media is a business; it does what sells, and it’s not paid to make “uplifting” materials.

Meaning people rarely if ever see positive roles, situations, or anything else. Quite the opposite, they see stress, and prefer to relate to the people who aren’t stressed. The bully is always in charge, so that’s the best option. The nutcase megalomaniac is running things, so that’s the safest place to be.

Pretty damn predictable, isn’t it?

OK, there are the excuses. Now – Is it any wonder that an entire nation has turned redneck? No reliable information, no positives, no healthy society to aspire to, and a collection of cretins making billions per year out of the situation. Add the lousy wages, the go-nowhere career paths, the corruption, the health black hole, pitiful core education, the apelike animalistic employment culture, and the disenfranchised poor, and you have a true catastrophe waiting to happen.

Now ask yourself – Do you really accept any of it? If so, it’s probably only because you’re stuck with it. Some people, however, do it the other way round. They accept, and are therefore stuck with it.

The problem is that the usual psychological reactions are the default, normal, unquestioned reactions. Whatever two dimensional load of  half-baked crap slithers into view, it’s what they do.  They’re typically all over the old low grade FOMO and Emotional Intelligence stuff, like missing out on nothing and being a total hypocrite was a life goal.

They go to “meetings” like they go to church; they have to believe in whatever they do, because they accept the basic premises as dictated by media imagery. These excuses are lethal at both individual and social levels, and they’ve made the US a very sick place indeed.

Acceptance of anything is a form of trust, reluctant or otherwise. On what basis would you say that the media image of anything is trustworthy? Because it is just an image.

You may be surprised to learn that in the past, back in the late 1950s, media psychology was about positives. A future, fun, freedom, a happy life, and things to look forward to.  Media was breaking down barriers, promoting positives.

Black America in particular made more progress in that era than ever before… or since.  It also went straight backwards when all the “street” crap became saleable to a tween audience. Try telling anyone in marketing in America that not everyone in the US is a teenage gangsta, and they simply won’t believe it.

The Big Disconnect – Media reproducing itself.

That’s also a good example of the high disconnect between any socially positive information and “media” as we now know it. The image is making itself. Innovation in marketing is relatively rare, and the usual pattern is to stick to the script, however insane.

Call the 2016 election campaign exploitative, sick, nuts, whatever – It’s an accurate reflection of the psychology of media at its worst. Change that, and things will improve, probably drastically.



Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam, Paul Wallis books

I’m rebuilding SMJ, but have to track down my files first. Don’t hold your breath.