/32/ - Psychopolitics

Technocratic Chile under Allende

http://www.damninteresting.com/nineteen-seventy-three/

>>2159

I read about that, it was just a system for information retrieval back in a day when most of this stuff was done by phone and paper and in that case you had to add the baggage of a undeveloped third world country with a huge bureaucracy

TLDR: they made it to try and fix some of the problems the stupid system of planned economy that most commie countries had, problem is that very system was intrinsically failed since it was created on the principles of ideology rather than real-world economic necessities

Please, explain me more, OP.

Never heard of these groups.

Any book, documentary or article i should look for an introduction?

>>2195

First watch this for an engaging primer on cybernetics

https://vimeo.com/groups/96331/videos/80799352

This exquisite blog has much information about applied cybernetics right now

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/surreptitious-vision-ed-reforms-as-designing-an-internal-keel-to-control-people-and-manage-society/

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/tag/cybernetics/

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.MachinesOfCommunism

>>2085

>1- The inescapable partiality of information sources.

This is only a problem if you have a single or one-sided source of information. The simplest solution is to not trust anything and try to interpret information for yourself. Or better yet, seek out information independently.

>2- The simplicity of language.

This is the most interesting point part of your post. I've heard the idea that human language is fundamentally incapable of correctly communicating some information before. I can't remember where I read this, but it was proposed that describing qualia is the prime example of the failure of human language, since it simply cannot be communicated, and perhaps if our language was more "advanced" this wouldn't be an issue.

How to fix this? Besides the utopian dream of telepathy, I really see two options:

1. Create a new language from scratch that describes things with more precision than we thought was possible.

2. Stop using words to communicate altogether and instead utilize other ways to get information across, like body language or symbolism.

Both of these of course, are extreme, but so is the problem.

>3- The inherent limitations of human perception.

I don't think we can really fight our biology (unless posthumanism becomes a thing), not to mention the deeper questions of whether our reality exists at all. So realistically, until we can do something about this, we must rely on our perceptions, because that's all we have for now.

>>2114

>This is only a problem if you have a single or one-sided source of information. The simplest solution is to not trust anything and try to interpret information for yourself. Or better yet, seek out information independently.

The problem arises because most people don't have the time or access to all of the possible sources of information. Let's say an individual wants to learn about an ongoing conflict in a foreign land. They would initially seek information on the news outlets of their country, and then on other outlets on languages which they spoke. Even if they managed to watch, read and listen to every report by every one of those news outlets, there would still be the possibility that the combination of their reports amounted to the whole "truth". Let us assume this individuals is extremely drive to learning more about this situation, so they learn the language of the country and begin communicating with individuals who reside there and have direct experience with the situation. Even then, these individuals (who we are assuming are transmitting every bit on information without leaving anything out or altering it) will only be able to transmit the information to which they have access. Even if the individual goes to said country and has complete freedom of movement and can observe and interview as they please, they can only be at one place at a time, which forces them to rely on second-hand accounts. Thus, the mere fact that several events occur simultaneously is enough to prevent anyone from seeking direct information about any mildly complex event.

> Create a new language from scratch that describes things with more precision than we thought was possible.

A perfect simulation becomes that which it simulates, thus rendering the practicality of such a language moot.

I probably didn't express myself well enough. Like scarcity, these are problems which do not have a solution. In the same way that economics looks for ways to deal with the problem it can't fix, we must deal with these problems as best we can. One of the ways to deal with them is to do what you mentioned, which is seek multiple sources of information.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>2084

As always the devil is on the details

The press has gone downhill worldwide because of the internet. The other day I was ready a NYT article from the 80s regarding the coldwar and its amazing how devoid of bullshit opinions it was. It was just "situation in russia, declaration of DC, economic numbers". No ifs, maybes, perhaps, no weasel words, and it was just one page. Same with other sections like science or movie critics. As it turns out all this could be maintained only through the artificially high prices of classified ads. These days nobody wants to be a pro-journalist because the pay is shit so you only get the famewhores at the bottom of barrel who will work for free. At the same time there was an increase in the number of regular ads. Now classified ads clients don't give two shits about the content of the paper, but regular advertisers do. The guy placing an ad to sell a camaro car doesn't cares that the cars sections says camaros suck, but chevy does, and chevy is not going to pay for a full-page spread unless camaros are declared to be awesome.

And that's without even getting into interest groups and the like, and because all the press workers are now expendable nobody dares to have a different opinion because they'll get fired immediately.

As for politicians I try to use the "think like the enemy" approach: these people are not the brightest but they don't know it, they are also absurdly entitled and crave attention, and they move in a morally ambiguous environment thats rife with corruption

My opinion is that anyone who gets into politics as a career and stays there past their 30s usually doesn't gives a shit about the general populace anymore and is on an ego-trip trying to get as much money and power as they can, even if that means playing the puppet for someone else's interests

>>2189

>all the planets rotate in a counter-clockwise direction

not so fast

it depends on your viewpoint; if you're above the plane of rotation, then they orbit counter-clockwise; but if you're below the plane of rotation, they orbit clockwise!

>>2126

Some do. It depends on the community, really. /v/ and /pol/ don't get it and likely won't. /tg/ and /sp/ seem to.

>>2132

I hear you about catastrophic drama happening after a population balloons. The problem is that now we're getting to the point where people peel off after the drama, things are condensed and slowed from where they were, and more people slowly leave. We're seeing a lot of attrition on /sp/ at the moment.

And yes, /sp/ still likes you largely, though they've more or less gone isolationist, in a way. Board drama normally gets sagebombed when it comes up there, since people are tired of it and want this site to be something to enjoy rather than be upset about. They kind of feel alone in having the mindset where you can be unhappy with aspects of the leadership above you, but tolerant of it to a point.

I never understood where the conspiracy theories about 2hu coordinating raids on IRC came from. Any insight on that? It was something kicked about when the raiders were still on /int/. Also, there seems to be a development where the raiders are trying to find a new board, since there was a board change on /intl/. It'll be interesting to see where it goes.

>>2137

If I'm not mistaken, it was something /int/ started because /2hu/ now had its own IRC, back when they were still relevant.

Either way, the retards at /pol/ ran with it and they ended up getting raided by weebs of all kinds.

>>2137

I don't know if Hotwheels ate the last part of my post, or if I should sleep already.

/sp/ and their GET Watch not a general is actually one of the few comfy but not dead places to discuss 8chan and its boards as a whole.

I have no idea how our /sp/ turned out this way, OC-generating, shitposting, and still managing to remain on-topic half the time.

I think we have to consider the very likely possibility of a paid-for attack

Consider voat's problems, it was clear there were people from reddit (the company) involved there. You have some heavy investors who put a lot of money on reddit and expect results. Knowing how they operate, expending a few tens of thousands of dollars getting a massive DDoS going and calling in for favors to hosting companies and the like seems plausible, after all they can't risk their shares going to hell because of some copycat like voat.

On that aspect consider how 4chan has most likely gone 100% commercial after moot decided to leave. He probably sold the site (perhaps he sold it years ago in exchange for the investments for his failed canvas startup) and whoever owns it right now is planning to turn 4chan into a profitable company, and seeing that 8chan is its only considerable rival in the western market why wouldn't they pay for raids and DDoS?

>>1847

Wow, I haven't seen such a rambling concentration of stupidity like the one in those links in a long time...

>sweden

This country is truly becoming the bane of western intellectualism, sometimes I wonder how things would turned out to be if sweden had been occupied by the USSR at the end of WWII just like hungary or romania were.

>>1847

Any chance of someone making a archive link of these?

This is a way of abusing a human tendency of "getting to the point" (I believe there is a technical term for this but it slips my mind).

Fnords are almost exclusively applied in news articles, be it online or in newspapers. As you might imagine not many people read articles thoroughly.

They see a headline and just glaze over the sentences searching for the most "relevant parts". This is where the magic starts. Since the main interest of the reader

is to get the gist of what's being said in the article as soon as possible and get on with his life, fnords stick out as a sore thumb among the text. Your brain believes

it singled out these words willingly, to speed up the process. when in fact they were put there on purpose for you to notice.

Now, there is most certainly a method to this, and it's complexity depends on how effective you want it to be. The first step is identifying or even creating fnords

out of thin air. News corporations usually have teams that analyze and survey how people react to certain words and phrases. More specifically what emotions and ideas

are associated with them.

But of course, if you're sufficiently in touch with the culture(s) you're working with, using fnords will come quite naturally since you will be able to predict people's

reactions with sufficient accuracy by introspecting your own reactions.

This is a fascinating idea.

My first thought was not to apply this to texts by other people but my own. If I were to reduce my post on this board, for example, to just the "bare essentials", what would they look like? Is there a subconscious emotional tone I use without realizing? Do I follow a pattern regarding how I distribute my emphasis?

Just by writing this text I noticed how much I write in the first person (not only on this post but on many past ones as well). It would be interesting to learn what other text analysis techniques such as this exist.

Now for the problems.

Firstly, how are the "bare essentials" determined? There doesn't seem to be an objective criteria for determining what words are to be kept and which are to be discarded.

Secondly, how does this apply to humorous, parody or otherwise unconventional texts, in which the meaning is implied by the way words are combined, eliciting a response that a computer would be unlikely to detect (such as sarcasm)?

>>2101

Yes, our essence is collectivist. Chan boards are mind virus in it's purest form, completely ignoring the carrier.

You will notice however, where the virus is regularly attacked, the IDs (being the most basic form of identification) are introduced for the sole purpose of easier protection against the enemy virus.

I would say that, at its best, imageboards create a Darwinian survival of the fittest regarding ideas, while stripping away any sort of ethos that would taint someone's opinion of the idea being shared. The problem with this is the same one plaguing /pol/ right now, a group creating mob rule and a hugbox. The problem is the concept I mentioned is a commonly shared one, and the mob uses social pressuring to chase out rival groups, while convincing themselves that their success is this concept working, despite them using identity politics to undermine the concept.

At its worst, imageboards become just like a subreddit. Wrongthink threads get met with sagebombs and cries of "bait" and "shill," moderation works to maintain an ideological consensus through direct action hotpocketry, and commonly-held beliefs go completely unchallenged and become "truths," despite evidence to the contrary existing. After all, if a tree falls in a forest, everyone says they didn't hear it, and those that did are pressured into denying it, it really doesn't matter if it made a sound, now, does it?

In the end, like all things social, it comes down to the integrity of the community in question.

Fuck the quality of this board has gone downhill since the last time I been here

Anyway, on the subject at hand I don't think there's any collectivism in here, a lot of the stuff that happens at IBs like these are a matter of momentum, you have threads with good ideas that go nowhere because not enough people post in them

On the other hand a lot of shitty threads go far because of shitposting, which creates momentum, everybody likes an active thread and the number one complaint you hear from cuckchan visitors is that most boards in fullchan don't have the same amount of posting, regardless of overall quality.

The problem with reddit is that it became a fucking popularity contest, its just so big most people don't notice but you got a ton of users who are just karma whore. This is much more obvious in reddit clones like quora which make people use their IRL names and thus you can see the whoring more obviously since a of pretentious fucks there try to sell themselves on every post

>>2119

>Fuck the quality of this board has gone downhill since the last time I been here

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I would appreciate it if you took the time to post your specific complains on the Meta thread, so we can discuss possible solutions together.

6 month later bump; i feel the topics here are relevant and a lot of people missed them.

<3

>>1049

>it's far more difficult to track people on anonymous boards

on infinity (the software this site runs on) if you click on the '[▶ Show post options & limits]' link you will see a generated password the system will use to delete your posts, this password will be stored in your browser (in localStorage AFAIK) even when cookies are deleted/disabled

this only works with JS enabled

also when using TOR with 8chan you must let the 'TOR cookie' be set (https://8ch.net/dnsbls_bypass.php)

also see MasterChan's Anonymous Account system (https://masterchan.org/AnonymousAccounts)

>>948

There's an obelisk in the center of Buenos Aires as well, it was just trendy at the time

I'm a seasoned advertising/PR professional and this was a poorly communicated attempt by CEI to create a "parody" infographic. It looks like the idea of poorly paid twenty-something account executive from a PR firm supporting the CEI front-group.

CEI did not frame the context of the parody infographic properly on the infographic itself--rather, context was placed in the text of the blog. From a PR strategy standpoint, if the infographic image is separated from the blog post, the context is lost.

They failed at Social Media PR 101.

How? Well, CEI eventually acknowledged that their right-leaning audience did not understand the purported "joke" of the kale infographic.

Quote from the CEI blog:

"Update 8/7/2015: This post pokes fun at those who trust bogus, nutritional advice they find on the Internet. Unfortunately, some of you didn't quite get the joke. So, just to be clear, CEI is not claiming that kale or kale juice is unhealthy OR that people should over-indulge in drinking soda. Our point is consumers should not assess the quality of their diet or the diets of others on the basis of infographics or Internet memes. And, dearest kale-eaters, we have nothing against you, kale was simply the newest miracle-food fad that we chose to use to parody junk science, like the viral Coke graphic mentioned above."

Original blog post: https://archive.is/dJTRK

When fighting a losing battle, like Coca-Cola, the campaign, it's important to do several things:

1) Have diet academics as third-party sources for news and opinion

2) Influence news and opinion leaders through funding and other methodologies

3) "Own" the fact that there is a downside, but factually counter any arguments utilizing an argument highlighting "moderation." This places the onus back on the user.

>>2016

Thanks for this post.

False dichotomy. "Sure, you might not like the sound of what Coca-Cola does to your body, but you wouldn't want to be one of these smug ironic hipster twats, would you?". The poster is set up to completely avoid options such as, say, drinking a glass of water.

>>2003

Got a link to that post?

As for effectiveness they went overboard with the smugness bit, should've made it more scientific and less "we're obviously trying to talk shit about the competition"

No doubt greenfags would've still gone fullretard at it for talking crap about their shitty dietary choices but as it is right now it makes it really obvious this was made by PR and not some organic food skeptic

The article, which is worded strangely at some points, seems to take a generally anti-nationalist position. Thus, I will try to defend nationalism.

The fact that humans are social animals is well known. A social animal is that which requires the company of others in order to lead a healthy and full life, both physically and psychologically. As individuals, we crave to be part of a larger unit, a social system that is made up of related persons who are more than their sum. While it is easy to form an informal group, a social system (i.e. a society) requires a series of factors to be in place, the most important of which being cooperation. Cooperation itself also has requirements, the most critical of which that I can think of right now being communication and trust, these two also being related to one another, as I will explain further ahead.

Communication takes place when there is transmission of information through some sort of code that both entities can comprehend. In the case of individuals, this means a language. Also in the case of people, there must be a measure of trust that the information being transmitted is truthful, otherwise it will be immediately dismissed. The action of communicating something not only has a very significant practical relevance (because of cooperation), but also holds a symbolic importance in the idea of sharing with another a piece of your thoughts, and thus yourself, and believing that the listener/reader/spectator will comprehend you.

Trust is a belief that something is reliable, dependable and certain. To trust someone is to hold the belief that one can depend on that person, either in a specific situation (like a patient trusting a doctor to operate on them) or in a general one. Without trust there can be no cooperation, because every individual in the group would need to constantly verify the results of the actions of the others in order to believe that they have performed them, and done so correctly. A group without trust is worse for the individuals than being by themselves, because all of the people around them are not only almost useless, but potential threats. Communication plays a role in trust because it allows individuals to present themselves, argue why they are worthy of the other's trust, and create a bond in the form of contracts and informal relations.

>>1962

the rules of grammar cannot be sanctioned by governments or people

Aṣṭādhyāyī grammar is far more refined that English and cannot be attacked by mortals

The phrase 'free speech' is being corrupted by association. Every time you hear about it in the media, it's "how do we balance the risk of terrorism against the right to free speech" or "how do we defeat child pornography while still acknowledging free speech?" The phrase is already bordering on pejorative, which will have a knock-on effect on both free and right. If you're in an argument and you bring up your rights, everybody in the room unconsciously associates you with terrorists and paedophiles. It's regarded as more of an excuse than a valid point.

Then of course we have terrorism, the most staggeringly blatant language manipulation of the modern age.

>>1964

"Freedom of speech" is both a legal right and a cultural value. Many people (esp. media elites.) support the legal right but support the cultural value only when it suits them.

Other words that are used more for their associations then actual meaning:

"Conspiracy theory" (Imply there are no conspiracies, or that everyone who believes the government does illegal things is a loon).

"Democratic" (Good, irregardless of the outcome.).

Denialist"

"Hate Crime" (Someone *worse* or *more evil* then the crime would be normally.)."

"Hate Speech".

Since I see this hasn't been posted in this thread yet; East Germany had a movement in 1968 doing all this already, with the (probably) sincere intention of teaching children sexuality, so they'll be experienced already when they grow up and won't make wrong decisions (as silly as this may sound).

Personally, I don't think it's intentional, it's just an unfortunate consequence of sexual liberalisation of society that started because of widely available contraceptives and generally carefree lifestyle (because in age of abundance, children never learn to understand the need of responsibilities, only rights and liberties).

Though, I understand there may as well be underground influences trying to speed this up for their own benefits.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

https://archive.is/vPjQA

>>1944

Low quality post. Refer to the picture in the OP and think about what you did. This isn't about your dick, it's about media portrayals, dissonance, and society at large.

>>666

just kill the paedo-sexualizers >>>/meta/84303

and no i'm not joking

>>725

Not just your government is going to kill you, kiddies; you all are going to kill each other

>>1855

Not OP, but I googled "memetic energies" and got this:

>Memetic energy is energy produced by the effect of sentient organisms on the quantum fabric of the universe. To put it susinctly, thoughts have power and that power can be harnessed. There's also a hell of a lot of it, and it doesn't obey Conservation Of Energy at all. It literally comes from nowhere, like zero point energy. It's an extremely potent energy source.

Memetic energy was first harnessed by the Aincient Stephinians more than a million trillion years ago. It was what contributed to their extremely fast technological development in relation to their cultural development. It is the foundation of most Stephinian technology, expecially the SDW cannons and their womhole drives. The New Stephinian Empire was formed due to a lack of memetic energy and the subsequent crash of the starship Rocinante on Stephinia.

lol...OP do you subscribe to this definition?

>>1855

>Fat acceptance, which is a way of discouraging individuals to take part in lifestyle changes that decrease their fat body mass, includes the ridicule of individuals who take part in physical activities because they are traditionally associated with a shallow pursuit of an idealized appearance. One could argue that this discouragement also -if not primarily- targets the populations cognitive abilities. Now you've got me wondering about the effects of diets on the mental and neural development on individuals...

Very interesting point anon - the powers that be want to fatten people up so they are weak and controllable. It's really the only explanation for the increasing gluttony of our society, which by most respects makes us less productive and harms the environment.

>>1916

or youknow, its not a conspiracy, but just that sugar is a superstimulus, maybe?

>>1941

It's easy to get carried away. People often see what they want to see.

>>1858

yes but the imbuer controls the potency of energy

दो सौ घोड़ों की शक्ति इस कल में है।

ईश्‍वर हमें शक्ति दे।

हमें विध्वंसक शक्ति का प्रयोग करना पड़ा।

>Who doesn't control the society as much as Christians? Burning a Christian bible will cause a worldwide outrage

I think many would have no problem. A Qur'an however...

>Interesting that this is the only religion overly criminalized

If by 'interesting' you mean a reflection of the fact they infiltrated the US government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

>>1891

what?

Interesting observations anon. I would say that the motivations for war are becoming increasingly economically focused, and it's unsettling to note the many private military contractors playing the big roles in the Middle East right now.

Now to the actual psychopolitical analysis. Most of the effects you're seeing now are more likely caused by withholding information relating to the actual goal and interests involved with the current wars, or at the least swaying the public to be inclined to believe that any current war benefits the country. The patriotic conditioning is of course tied to respect for the military and nation and any disapproval of the war will be tired, often by popular consensuses, to being unpatriotic.

In response to the second question it is certainly indicator of underlying commercial interests not only prevalent in warfare, but also in politics as a whole. I wold not say this is necessarily a logical development of warfare.

Low-income, males, usually from ages 17-28 are the most reasonable targets for military recruiting for a number of reasons. The first being that there are limited opportunities for employment or education given the lack of money available. Poorly educated men for low-income backgrounds may see this as a means of upwards mobility that would not require getting a degree. It's highly unlikely given the commercial focus of the upper branches of the government and military that this demographic is being chosen for any other reason except for their susceptibility.

Well that's my attempt at analyzing.

It seems erroneous to think that modern wars are not motivated by the well-being of a nation's people while the ones of earlier times were. Firstly, because the economic factors that can act as causes for hostilities between nations can also be major factors in the well-being of those nation's populations. In fact, one can trace a good deal of the most common problems that a society faces to economic causes. The problem arises when the well-being of a handful of companies is confused with the well-being of a country's economy in general: certainly very few people would try to save a studio that made snuff films with the justification that letting any media company go under would incur great loss to the film industry in general.

The second problem is that economic motivations have been central to warfare for a very long time, just look at the Punic Wars. Despite the notions of nobility and honor, our ancestors were men such as we, and equally likely to be motivated by greed and pride.

Thus, a discussion can be started not only on your questions, but on your subject. The search for what makes a war "just" has been going on for as long as there has been war, and is likely to continue for as long as it exists. Notions of justified use of violence between nations vary according to the historical and cultural context in which such conflicts take place, but it is generally accepted that war is less advantageous for all parties involved than being in peace. Yet, all throughout history nearly every nation has been at war at one point or another, and while many have not initiated such conflicts, the choice of violent resistance over peaceful submission is still one that should be looked over. This can be attributed in part to the fact that societies, by nature, are managed by small groups of individuals, who are usually a minuscule fraction of the total population. This obvious observation has as a consequence the fact that one does not need to convince the whole group of the necessity of war, only the smaller group in charge of making decisions to whom the rest of the society has agreed to transfer control over themselves. Without going much further into what is one of the central psychopolitical matters, those who are in control of a society usually have a great influence on who they share their influence with and who will succeed them, as such, it iPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1936

(2/2)

>Is the increase in the use of private military contractors an indicator of these hidden interests, or is it a natural and logical development in warfare?

Both. Hiring a top-tier private army can be more effective than maintaining larger armed forces, and better than having to resort to a draft. There are undoubtedly situations where it makes no only financial but tactical sense to use PMCs.

>Is the targeting of young, low-income, poorly educated men by the recruiting apparatus morally reprehensible, or are they merely offering another option to a demographic that has few of them?

I see any effort to make men overcome their most basic instincts and become able to kill other human beings in an industrial scale as a deeply disturbing thing, regardless of the social placement of those men (or women). The young and poorly-educated are targeted because of how well they react to the conditioning, and the fact that they are poor is usually tied with the second, as well as being an extra encouragement from them to take any stable employment they can get. I am currently reading "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Grossman, and the mental toll that falls on humans when they are forced to commit acts that go against their very nature is testament to how abhorrent system that is currently in place is.

I agree with the previous poster in the sense that honesty would be a refreshing stance to be seen from our rulers, not only when it comes to matters of war. Truthful and accessible information would be perhaps the solution of a great deal of political and moral problems, not only when it comes to nations. But that is another discussion. Something related to that is the idea of men going into war out of their own volition, and conscious of the reasons behind the conflict. Two situations come to mind: mercenaries and religious fanatics.

Mercenaries choose to fight purely for personal gain, both in the sense of the money and their search for adventure. They have no illusions about their reasons to fight, and do so fully aware of the futility of trying toPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>1934

>the patriotic conditioning too strong in most people

>natural and logical development in warfare

>both morally reprehensible and offering another option to a demographic that has few of them

the only solution is to wipe out every aggressor until it is known that no digression from the norm is tolerable