XV. Outsourced Me
Manners, suit, social security number, birth certificate, and passport maketh man!
Guide:
I. Introduction
II. Components of thinking
III. Mechanisms of cognition
IV. More mechanisms
V. Types of memes
VI. Meme2Meme2Gene interactions
VII. Human2Human transmission
VIII. A Bigger World
IX. Gravity of 'plexes
X. Three is a crowd
XI. Third scenario
XII. Religion and philosophy
XIII. Mental disorders of the new age
XIV. True vs Fake
XV. Outsourced Me ← you are here
1.I make I
Definition of one’s soul is an elusive matter.
And while a typical human being cannot spend too much time pondering glassy surfaces with questions “What art thou?“, - there’s stuff to do and be busy, - the nagging feeling of incompleteness persists, especially in younger folk. Nature abhors vacuum, so the empty space in the equation “I am ___“ is filled eventually.
“I’m a communist“ decides the youth, and for the ease of communication buys a shirt with ☭ print. Feel like the proletariats are oppressed, and we need a class revolt? Would you like to find more like-minded comrades? The symbol is a signal which communicates to others what they are dealing with, unless the contents of the shirt chose their apparel with little consideration. Or didn’t choose it in the first place. Would you deny a Christmas gift from your grandma?
Operands in identity equation are a subject to cost-effect analysis, so people define themselves, more often than not, with markers that provide maximum benefits for the smallest price - usually $$$. Underexplored side-effect of having industrial might is manufacturing not only consumer goods, but also titles for all who can afford them - Funko Pop may cost 15$ (or more. a lot more. and it accumulates), but it also provides the buyer with an ability to declare “I collect Funko Pops“, and enter the community of funko-pop-collectors, with all it’s boons and “boons“.
Defining personality through actions is trickier: collectors can talk for hours about qualities of various goods, be it price, toughness, resistance to elements, you name it, but there’s less talk about qualities of skills - practicing art has an entry cost, the payment takes form of actually doing, proving the validity of the title through work and effort. Can’t be a “lumberjack“ and fall no tree, can’t be a “carpenter“ and build no tables. There are gradients tracking different parameters: the ease of adoption, cost, benefits, and the method of application (title was given by an outside force, of self-claimed):
You can build 1000 bridges, and they'll never call you Jonny the bridge builder. But you suck one dick and you're a cocksucker for life.
Maximum cost, maximum benefits, high difficulty, and outside branding are characteristics of a title of a “Hero“ - do something selfless, dangerous, and benefiting others and you might become a “Good person“ in others’ eyes. Self-applied identity would be “I saved a person“.
Low cost, low benefits, low difficulty, and self-adoption give you a “Luxury belief“. (To be fair, same identity markers would have different values in different places, somewhere it’s very cool to just believe a certain thing). Or you can say “I’m coming from a long lineage of Prussian generals“, all while living in a rented and climate-controlled condo somewhere in LA, giving little consideration to restoring the military might of your family. Bloodlines can be an identity too. Too bad so many care about it’s boons, and avoid it’s responsibilities.
But that’s all a product of you making your own narrative. What would it be like to have your identity completely made up by others? Surprisingly enough, it can be manufactured too, and the tradition existed for a while.
2.Beauty, among other things, is in the eye of the beholder.
I don’t mean slander, gossip, or lies - those are easy to create and have little sophistication in the process and it’s results. What i do want to focus on is deliberate reinvention of someone’s reputation, with their consent, for the benefit of both parties, - this facilitates careful input from the system’s participants, which, in turn, creates some beautiful machinery worth examining.
The question arises: why?
The first step in answering that is realising it’s a consequence of cost-benefit analysis once again, - nobody reinvents their standing in the world from scratch just for fun (‘cept maybe a few weirdos). Two scenarios: 1) The cost of staying with the old identity is too big; 2) The new one confers more benefits. Sounds like these are identical in nature, just an arbitrary focus on different parts of singular logic “if cost too high, then change is good“, but they are starkly different directions, which would land you in different situations. To illustrate: first point will lead you to a Witness Protection Program, second - to Hollywood. So let’s describe those.
2.1 Reborn, unknown
Preface: I didn’t find a lot of information about it. Maybe i didn’t try hard enough, maybe the algorythms are set to surface the most insipid and repetitive content (too many “10 FACTS ABOUT WPP YOU DIDN’T KNOW“ dated “uploaded 6 years ago“), or maybe the nature of the initiative demands secrecy, and thus only surface observations are availible. Alas. For those who want to read about it on their own: some source.
The Witness Protection (and Relocation) Program is born out of need to give sufficient defence to people willing to cooperate with the Law. And such a measure was a necessity: to know of a crime is to be the target of the criminals, who seek to eliminate all means Justice could use to find them and deliver. Not everyone can or will be protected however, the program is costly, so the defendee must have something of significant value to the defenders. Most frequent clients are mafia and gang members, snitching on their ex-brothers-in-arms, and thus putting themselves at risk. They wouldn’t cooperate if law enforcers didn’t provide a lucrative deal either.
The trick isn’t in making people under protection surrounded by agents with guns (although that is a measure taken at the start of the process), but to make them… Untraceable. Unrecognizable. Impossible to find and harm.
General blueprint the “client“ can expect to go through looks something like this:
• Call the police and request protection
• Sit through lectures to be legally informed and sign all papers provided
• Gather your belongings and move out in a black van.
• Get transported into a place only people in black know about and lose all contact with outside world.
• Get new documents, new appearance, new identity, - get a new role to perform for the rest of your days.
• Move to a new place, new property, and get a new job.
• Regularly visit your “manager“ and enjoy a clean slate of a life.
Old records are purged from all legal systems, while new ones are conjured up from the arcane by the law whisperers, - facsimile of a past is planted everywhere one might look. Even the name, the most noticeable anchor to the history, is changed into a mask, and you will be trained to respond to your new moniker. Wouldn’t want to slip and be found, right? It’s not that bad though, e.g. John Smith will turn into John Stewart - for the ease of persona adoption initials are often kept the same and only last name is changed, - hard to find a specific John, for they are many.
The principles behind the masquerade are simple: 1) Remove everything that links the “Witness“ to his previous life, and can be used to break the charade: eye-catching clothes are abandoned, tattoos are removed, facial hair - altered, even plastic surgery can be utilized. Unique names are on the chopping block too; 2) Put the “Witness“ into a place where it would be easy to blend in. Hiding trees in a forest sort of thing, not dissimilar to the Grey Men philosophy, even if not as radical and thorough (some of the witnesses are just unlucky family men and women, not paranoid schizophrenics worried about facial recognition). Criterias for selection are multiple, and simple too - just put the person away from his old life, where he won’t be recognized, someplace where he wouldn’t look odd. Sometimes it means traveling to the other side of the country. The protected can suggest where he would prefer to settle, but don’t dream of living in Bahamas, this isn’t a tourism program.
The most important rule of the program is that witnesses must not make contact with former associates or unprotected family members. They also must not return to the town from which they were relocated. According to the Marshals Service, no witness who has followed these rules has ever been killed.
Some emphasis is put onto managing the psychological state of the protected, - being ripped out of the old lifestyle is traumatic, being forced to live as someone else is harrowing. People in distress tend to act in counterproductive ways (like contacting their relatives), which might result in small increase of local homicide rates, which runs contrary to program’s goals, so counseling is a part of the whole deal.
Financial difficulties are addressed via free paychecks until a proper job is found. Just have to actually search for one, parasitism isn’t allowed.
And yes, the gov will demand you to be kept on a short leash, - local authorities will be notified of your nature, annual trips to Marshals are mandatory, and attempts to relocate again of your own volition require approval from the System.
There are various kinks in the system, like what kind of surgeries are allowed, how does it treat relatives of the system (imagine being unable to meet your children, if they aren’t a part of the program), or even providing protection to pets, but i’m not making a full review, just planting a general understanding in your mind, so you can form parallels with it later.
2.2 Reborn, renowned
Source: “The Star Machine” by Jeanine Basinger, read through shitty epub. reader, so no paging for quotes (skill issue, i know).
The old Hollywood was a factory system. (There is nothing like these studios in filmmaking today.) Back then, MGM could complete a full-length motion picture every nine days. In the year 1950 alone, it made 16 cartoons, 12 “Travelogues,” 9 “Pete Smith Specialties,” 8 “People on Parades,” 104 “News of the Days,” and released 41 features, among them Father of the Bride, King Solomon’s Mines, Royal Wedding, and The Asphalt Jungle.
Clearly, a major part needed on the assembly line of Hollywood’s successful manufacturing system was a “movie star.” Stars shaded everything around them inside the movie frame, defined the story’s meaning, lured viewers into the theatre, sold products off the screen, and had films designed especially for them that could be made rapidly and cheaply. In fact, the entire studio system depended on movie stars and was built on top of them.
Since the system needed movie stars every day (and lots of them), it did the sensible thing: it manufactured its own. The studios dedicated themselves to creating stars, and they made all kinds of them.
ALL YOUR IDOLS ARE FAKE.
THEIR SMILES ARE FAKE, THEIR PAST IS FAKE, THEIR FUTURE IS MANUFACTURED, A PRODUCT OF CONVEYOR BELT, STAMPED OUT OF ROUGH ACCORDING TO THE LATEST BEAUTY STANDARDS.
Oh well, such is the price of stardom.
Yes, Hollywood studios were, and probably still are, engineering people, propping them up from relative obscurity into a vision for millions. And while you may find some similarities in the technology with WPP, Hollywood evolved under different pressures - there were money at stake, and results depend on being watched.
Being liked, - that is the biggest obstacle they had, which shaped the “Machine“ in a particular beast.
So, you want some of the glory? Condolences. The ads may say “Everyone can be a star“, however what it actually means is that while a good material is found among Average Joes, not every Joe can be made into a Legend. The scouts of the system didn’t pick random people from the street, they were looking for something special. They couldn’t measure it, they couldn’t define it, but the spark could be seen. The spark that may be cultivated into something magnificent, with proper care and effort. Too bad it couldn’t be created, merely discovered, which made every recruitment a gamble. But the execs made bets anyway, because the pay-off was huge, so, those, who somehow embodied the spirit, received an offer of their lifetime.
Excerpts from the book, to illustrate the process, describing the start of one specific individual:
In Springfield, Massachusetts, on November 21, 1912, a baby girl named Eleanor Torrey Powell was born. No rockets were launched. Her mom was a housewife, and her dad worked in a hardware store. Scandalmongers later said that little Eleanor’s dad had contracted a “social disease” during his wife’s pregnancy, and the baby was born prematurely, without fingernails, toenails, or eyebrows.
Eleanor liked the school. She studied ballet and acrobatic dancing, gaining a focus for her loneliness and shyness and some much-needed self-confidence. She was twelve years old when she was hired by impresario Gus Edwards to dance in his summer show at the Ambassador Hotel in Atlantic City. Twice a week, for a salary of seven dollars per night, Eleanor Powell, wearing burnt-orange velvet pajamas sewn by her grandmother, did an acrobatic ballet routine to the music of “The Japanese Sandman.”
What happened to Eleanor Powell at MGM was what happened to all the young hopeful actors and actresses who came there, whether they could dance or not. The MGM experts coolly assessed her. She was very tall by the star standards of the day, a full five foot six. She was a bit gawky and certainly no actress. Powell had looked okay in Scandals, but just okay. She had no inherent glamour. She was not a beautiful girl, and she was never going to be, but she was pretty, really pretty. She could be cast only in musicals, and she couldn’t sing. On the other hand, MGM bosses knew they could make her over, give her all the pizzazz she needed, and they could dub her vocals.† She would never be any real financial risk for two reasons: They had signed her for only one film, and she could dance.
Powell wore her brown hair short, in a Dutch bob with bangs. The straight and casual style looked stringy and severe on film, and it flopped around when she danced. A special shampoo was prescribed to give it more body. She was ordered to grow it longer, to shoulder length, and hair extensions stood in when necessary. She was given a permanent wave to create wispy little curls around her face, which softened it. Her hair was lightened by a rinse (not a dye) and highlighted to give it shine under the lights. Her part was changed from the side to the middle, giving her face balance, diminishing her strong jaw, and emphasizing her lovely cheekbones. Powell was heavily freckled, so the studio had her undergo a series of violet-ray treatments that caused skin peeling. Her freckles disappeared, and a dermatologist gave her a daily skin-care treatment that was designed to reduce the size of her pores, since the close-up camera showed everything. Her eyebrows were plucked and given a flattering shape, and a special design for her lip makeup corrected an overly thin lower lip.* Her nails were grown long, shaped, and painted. Her teeth weren’t straight, and they looked yellowed on-screen. Since one of her best assets was her natural grin, Powell’s teeth were immediately whitened. Three pure white porcelain caps covered the crooked ones. Despite her years of dancing, she was taken to “posture class” and taught how to stand up straight and square her shoulders—the “MGM female” stance. Her real problem, thought studio bosses, was her legs, which looked knotty, bunched up at the calf and the thigh. She had highly developed short leg muscles—and her overly large knees were already a Broadway joke. Walter Winchell described things as being “as homely as Eleanor Powell’s knees.” She needed a tough daily regimen to exercise both her long and short muscles to give her legs a smooth look. Her figure was not voluptuous, but since she was a dancer, no one expected her to be zaftig. She was, however, put on a diet to help her gain the exact twelve pounds (not ten, not fourteen) the studio felt she needed to look attractive in front of the camera. In the meantime, she was padded for a better figure. The wardrobe department made personal foundation garments for her that would mold her hips, flatten her already flat stomach, and uplift her too-small bosom. The famous dress designer Adrian, who created glamour for the women of MGM (Garbo, Crawford, et al.), designed clothes that corrected what the star machine operators had defined as “figure faults.” Adrian put Powell in big squared-off collars and dresses with tucks all around her shoulders. When she wore a low neckline, he strategically placed flowers on her bosom to offset the flatness the eye would wander toward.
See what i mean by “Different pressures“? And that was just the beginning.
Shooting movies was perhaps the most straightforward part of the machine, but it’s not the goal, nor was it the product that was sold. Hollywood was in the business of making and selling people, “Ideal” people, which is why most of the effort was put into refining them into a state of perfection, and making sure they were desired. But they weren’t “Ubermench“, they were actors, so it was all about appearing good. Therefore, the Stars existed in the public mind through many means other than movies: PR articles, interviews, photosets, gossip, advertisements, - you name it. Chances are the paparazzi, for all the negativity they receive, were controlled by the same execs at the top as everyone else, playing a role of an extra arm for the studios.
Photographs of all types would be taken: fashion shots, close-ups, glamour poses, cheesecake, “human interest” (posing with dogs and children), and seasonal shots (cheesecake shots for Christmas, Halloween, and other holidays), all of which would be widely circulated to newspapers and magazines.
Stars were a force multiplier for everything that works of attention, - their domain wasn’t just in the movies, they guided public gaze to products to sell (lipstick ad with Lana Turner, or with Judy Garland), places to be in (Ciro’s), or events to pay attention to (“Out of This World“ charity).
Plants included photos of actors dressed up and partying at nightclubs like Mocambo’s or Ciro’s. Sometimes these photos were real, but often, as actress Bonita Granville told me, they were faked. The two dates would be driven by the studio publicity people to the nightclub. A “wardrobe,” which had been brought along, would be handed out, so the boy and girl could go into the men’s and ladies’ rooms to get dressed. After they were suitably gowned, they would come out, pose at a table, then return to the bathrooms, change back into their own clothes, return the finery to the studio rep, and be driven home. (Maureen O’Hara commented: “If they wanted me at a charity event or a premiere—I went.”)
Still, despite their appearance being the main product sold and a product seller, the shell wasn’t the only thing the studios defiled. The change goes deeper, and like in old fairytales, the Stars got their names and their past taken away from them, as a price for fame, too.
The first step was the all-important name change. There could be no believable glamour in an Irmagard Gluck or Percy Flutterman. (Having your name changed, often without your consent or participation, must have had some effect on these people. But most were willing.) If, by some lucky chance, your name was deemed “bankable,” you could keep it. Eleanor Powell had a musical flow, and she had already established her name on Broadway.
Most potential stars, however, had to undergo the name change. This was imperative if your physical image and your name were at odds. For instance, strongman “Duke” Wayne’s name was the unacceptable Marion Michael Morrison. The tall and exotic beauty Cyd Charisse had the comedy handle of Tula Finklea. Cary Grant was Archibald Leach—no elegant man of your dreams there—and Robert Taylor, a pretty man always striving to seem more masculine, carried the original name of Spangler Arlington Brugh—a name that would not work on a marquee, or with his image. Names often needed to be shortened—Harlean Carpenter became Jean Harlow—or made more elegant—Ruby Stevens became Barbara Stanwyck. The British Jimmy Stewart had to become Stewart Granger for obvious reasons.
It was famously publicized that her star name, Joan Crawford, was the second-place winner in a movie weekly’s “name the star” (and win $1,000) contest, after the first winner, Joan Arden, turned out to be the name of someone already in show business. Second place! How would you like to live your life not only without your own name, the one your mom and dad chose for you, but also with a second-place contest winner from a ten-cent fan magazine?
About the background… That was changed too. Not drastically, because Hollywood didn’t tamper with actual legal documents (as far as i’m aware), but what they told to the masses was altered. Not by erasing all “blemishes“ and other matters that normal people would consider bad, no, they redacted everything that couldn’t be marketed, and twisted events for their benefit. Tragedy can be sold too, just gotta doll it up a bit.
After the name change, the “star biography” was created. The best part of the studio bio was that it could eliminate anything boring or unsavory about a star’s past. It could also exaggerate small things, turning an actor who’d won a meaningless medal at a local swimming meet into a “celebrated swimming champion.” Fathers who were plumbers became engineers or architects, and two years in reform school could be recast as “continuing his education.” The creation of a star bio was essential, because it defined the story that was going to be fed to the public: where he or she came from, and who the family was.
The “bio” was a blatant advertising tool, designed, like all advertising, to shape the buyer’s attitude and convince him that he needed the product. And the bio had to be clever—attention getting. If there were something a little bit exotic that could be used, such as the fact that Olivia de Havilland and her sister Joan Fontaine were born in Japan, it was emphasized.
To enhance the “creative” process (as it were), the newcomer was asked to fill out an elaborate form that asked such questions as “What does your father do for a living?” and “What are your hobbies?” and “Where did you go to school?” There were also queries about favorite colors, pets, phobias, or exciting vacations, but it was a questionnaire designed to provide the publicity people with something tangible to use. Clark Gable’s questionnaire helped the MGM publicity department understand how Gable wanted to see himself. They used his answers to weave together the truth (Gable had worked a great many odd jobs when he was young) with his secret wishes (he had been around men who hunted and fished when he was a kid, and he wanted to be like them). Publicists wrote about him as a “rough-and-ready guy” who had worked with his hands and done all kinds of labor (true), and they photographed him in sportsman’s clothes, posed against fireplaces, surrounded by guns, smoking a pipe, and looking calm but ready to wrestle a polecat should it become necessary in Beverly Hills (false).
While studios tried to ground the bio in reality as much as possible, they also treated the questionnaire like a trampoline. They jumped on it to achieve an unlikely soaring upward toward some pretty elaborate lies. Mickey Rooney saw the studio put out a release claiming his favorite author was Eugene O’Neill, but “that implied I read books…I didn’t read books.” Even “quality” magazines published false stories as if they were gospel. Life said Ann Sheridan “smokes thirty cigarettes daily, likes aquaplaning, wears an opal ring, has read Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and fears policemen.”
None of this was an unplanned sequence of events, with no aim in sight (besides popularity and money), all Stars were developed into their own niches, “types“. Eleanor was known for her strong tapdancing, - directors avoided placing her in roles where that aspect of her would be diminished. Tyrone Power had “ambiguously sexual“ energy (read: homo-sexual), so he had to wear a lot of tight costumes and play roles that would emphasise his qualities (e.g. Zorro). Predictable tools are easier to use, market, and manage, especially if you didn’t have to waste time figuring out where they can be applied.
Lucille Ball said, “What you were encouraged to do at the studios was to become a flapper girl, a glamour girl, or some type. You were that type of girl belonging to that type of picture. It was very limiting.” It was limiting, but it was the price of movie stardom. Furthermore, the studios considered it the crowning achievement for a performer. If an audience responded to the actor or actress as a type—and they liked that type—they’d pay money to see it many times.
Typecasting was a powerful box office tool. Once a star was labeled or defined, it was dangerous to try to extend the actor too far—and very dangerous to “cast against type.” The public didn’t like it and let everyone know about it. Cary Grant gave a great performance in the stark Clifford Odets drama None But the Lonely Heart (1944), but no one liked him as a tragic Cockney with a dying mother (Ethel Barrymore).
And so the Star was made, movies were rolled, and money continued to flow. There were mistakes, none were devastating, and i’m going to ignore them, because i spent enough time copypasting quotes already, so let’s move on.
3.Global Manufactured Identity
The process couldn’t restrict itself to eating and spitting out single people forever, - every idea spreads, while mutating in unrecognizable forms, often guided by a simple, but oh so perverse, principle - “More“. One, probably, unremarkable day, someone conceived a new atrocity and pledged an offer to his managers: “We are good at this. What if we manufactured whole groups instead?“.
It isn’t a secret that corporations like to have a “loyal consumer base“, but what majority of people so far fail to grasp is that such kind of fandom isn’t cultivated by offering a good product plus some ads, no, people are offered implicit instructions on how to interact with the brand via marketing techniques and whatever psychological manipulations their CEOs can concoct during the next shareholders’ meeting. This isn’t new, but nobody that matters seems to care (never trust someone who “has a vision“, for you are dealing with a messiah). Well, let’s be fair, most people at least vaguely understand, feel, that the methods employed are way beyond conventional human morality, but they aren’t at the point when they are openly hostile to being processed by the machine. Plenty embrace it.
There are many articles and essays written about dangers of C̳̿͟͞a̳̿͟͞p̳̿͟͞it̳̿͟͞a̳̿͟͞l̳̿͟͞i̳̿͟͞s̳̿͟͞m̳̿͟͞, and yet the recognition of the “Fifth Column“ by the public is rather poor. Let’s pose a question: can a mighty outsider force cultivate a group of people within someone else’s territory with malicious intent? The answer is “Yes“.
For fairness’ sake - i don’t have good evidence that examples provided further down are all organised by foreign hostile interests, but i’m going to write like they are anyway. Maybe there are some documents stating “we want to subvert the world!“, but they don’t have much convincing power, you either already believe that those groups are a psyop, or don’t (or hesitate (i would still post a link to a doc if i could, but i’m too lazy to thread through weeks worth of google requests to find relevant info (skill issue))). At the same time: “Once is an occurrence, twice - coincidence“ - how about four different groups all having somewhat suspicious similarities in their behavior?
Let’s assume i’m a proper bastard with a lot of power, with a grand goal of ruling the whole world. Gotta aim for the stars, as they say. Just a few countries are still outside of my grasp, military options are not feasible, but abandoning my dream is out of question, - momma raised no quitter, - so how does one lay claim on the land and it’s people in such conditions?
Simple. Convince them.
The blueprint looks something like this:
1) Locate the target populace i want to… dilute
2) Identify the power structures that oppose my rule
3) Identify power structures that oppose the existing rulers
4) Give them resources to grow and prosper
5) Cause maximum amount of conflict
6) Sufficiently big (or powerful enough) group will steer local politik into a direction that is beneficial to me.
Let’s examine the points closer.
★ First one is rather simple, unless you go into real deep detail based on the actual field experience of organising psyops, - locate the target based on many criterias, many of them of strategic importance, such as: proximity to important trade routes, proximity to potential adversaries, ease of further expansion, technological development, resistance to outside influence, presence of other foreign agents. If there’s a good land for building the oil pipe between two other nations - you probably want to control that and get transition fees. The real manual provides an example of a factor which would limit operational capabilities - AA installations, which would prevent bombers from dropping propaganda leaflets, - you can tell it was written during the times of Iraqi war, which makes a lot of it… outdated, incompatible with more civillian-oriented propaganda warfare. Peruse at your leisure. More pressing concerns for modern times is getting your propaganda accounts banned from social media and having your income sources revealed to the public.
★ Second stage is more about finding out how the people and institutions, which i aim to control eventually, work. Where are the weaknesses? Where are the strengths? Where the power lies? All systems are faulty, bound to create societal rejects, - finding the system’s mistakes will aid my endeavors. Some people should be replaced, some laws - rewritten.
★ Third is necessarily tied to the second: to subvert the populace, i have to find the subvertable parts of it first. To groups of people are of interest: ideologically driven, whom it would be easy to brainwash with propaganda, and those who are willing to cooperate for benefits, be it money or goods. Not just anyone is going to be willing lend a “helping“ hand, gotta find those who are… dissatisfied with the current order of things. Knowing societal faults will help with locating societal rejects, whom would be very cooperative in the field of changing the status quo. Also criminals, bands, preferably high-order organised syndicates and mafias - they can be quite power-hungry, and would appreciate receiving additional funding and opportunities for growth. Those already integrated into existing “legitimate“ power structures are a target too - corruption is full of opportunities. Precedent-based legal system is a bitch, but if every case is resolved independently, then having a malleable judge gives a lot of leeway, - like making said judge give shorter sentences to my agents, or setting up cheaper bails, thus reducing the cost of getting my boys back on the streets.
Usually, the subvertable groups are low in numbers initially, but i can make more of them. I will.
★ Fourth is straightforward - $$$ and whatever those money can be used on. Besides direct patronage, gotta establish the channels for transporting goods and money in the first place. But subversion is not all about hostile take overs with guns blazing, remember ideological types. We want all kinds of people on our side, but without channels for communication we don’t have reach. The government will try to garner protection from my attempts by “educating“ it’s body about me and my intentions, plus some scaremongering and hyperbole, - without support of the masses i will be able to do little, and instating my people at the top may start an uprising. They all need to believe me, to know what i want them to know, and all of that requires building methods of disseminating propaganda. Radios, web-sites, TV ads, whatever, all will be my mouth and hands.
★ Fifth point is spicy. Mostly concerned with average civilian humans, who can become the footsoldiers for my regime. You see, if groups are working together coherently, then over time they’ll assimilate and absorb each other, failing my plans, but if they perceive each other as enemies, then the segregation will only grow. I don’t want them to blend in the present socium, i want them to be loyal to me, not the opposition. Every attachment to something other than me will lead to hesitation or switching sides, - few can maintain dual loyalty well, and i’d prefer my subordinates to be focused on their goal, without “distractions“. Even if it means abandoning their families and relatives, because those are loyal to the current regime (they participate and benefit from the system). But achieving that is going to be tricky, the task of making “the right choice“ and serving me look appealing is hard, but it must be done. To achieve that i will require not just propaganda, but a proper, robust, ideology, which also wasn’t just conjured out of thin air, but something based on local history, old grievances, actual, real, events and problems. Can’t blame people for sins they didn’t commit.
To put simply: i need to build an identity for these people, identity that is going to define them and inform their every action. They all need to be autonomous, not requiring constant micromanaging from me, - helps with the adaptation to current culture and makes it harder to trace all their misdoings to an actual source of funding. “You are the Oppressed, they are the Oppressors“ and show everything bad that happened to them. The streets are littered? Gov is failing their duties and pockets the money to build palaces and yachts for themselves. You were beaten for some specific quality of yours? This is a consequence of culture fostered by the authoritarian forces at the top. You are poor? You know who to blame and you are right. The message will differ from place to place, because no culture is the same in every place, but the overall scheme differs little. Another tricky part is that due to all my agents acting of their own will, the messages they put out into the public will often contradict each other, and differ in scope and intent. Some will demand just the legal reform, others will demand to torch both buildings and people, - i’ll have to curate which ideas go into the public. By bribing journalists, for example, and telling them whom to interview and which events to highlight, and which to avoid. To add to that - gone are the times of quick military power grabs, with weapons and fanfare, we are going public now, and because of that - the good PR is of utmost importance. We need “Legitimacy Points“ - we don’t want to appear made-up by CIA (or other intelligence agency), like a still-born born baby of the latest psyop which existed only the last 5 minutes. Our appearance must be of old, grassroots, “We aren’t a foreign tool, we were here before“. To achieve that a simple process can be initiated. Remember that very important even in the history of your place? Yeah, actually, we did it. That very important tool you use every day? My people invented it. Your past is now ours. And thus we claim the land.
The consequence of constant mantras is separation of society along the lines i drew for them, and they are going to hate each other, because, inevitably, if the system is oppressive, then it’s participants are also complicit in sin, and those who thrive under the current order will be recognised as the cogs of it. Guess what happens to cogs when you aim to break the mechanism? And every attack will prompt a response, which will promt a response, and so on, turning all of them, for all their differences, very similar in how they express their anger towards themselves.
Ideally i would also want the sides to look at each other constantly, so they would permanently and irreversibly become aware of each other’s differences. And if they are too different, then there can be no co-existence. The methods for that vary, usually simple “exposes“, “investigations“, and other media pieces work for a bit, but nothing will top physical forced proximity. If you live in filth, while, in front of your very eyes, the 1% lives in luxury - that would be hard to reconcile. Problem is - arranging that would be, pretty much, out of my power, for the land isn’t mine and i can’t define it. But it might become doable, once i establish a foothold and gain power to sway the masses and push economic trends.
★ Six is the finishing line, if enough important people obey me, then so will the rest of them. I don’t need the crown, all i need is to control the gates.
That’s about it.
3.1 The tools
Now the right question is: which world’s events fit the blueprint (which i totally didn’t make post-hoc, based entirely on said events)?
Women’s Rights Movement, Blacks’ Rights Movement, LGBT, and Ukraine(and maybe Israel, but i don’t know hebrew to see how people there tick). Some more, some less.
Let me offer you a very specific interpretation of the events.
1✩ The beginning is with women, - “Feminism”.
This one started a long while ago, and most of the causes go beyond the reach of my eyes - the roots of this history a really deep, and digging them out requires more effort than i’m willing to waste.
Wait, this doesn’t nice, let’s wrap my excuses in a prettier form: being so late to the party has it’s benefits, and it allows us to see which ideas persisted through the noise. Time is a good filter, separating wheat from the chaff, random meme mutations from relevant culture.
So what do we have? “On paper” feminism is about “women’s rights”, - sounds cute, noble even, but as miss Emma Watson eloquently put in her speech:
“feminism too often became synonymous with man hating”. As it frequently happens, marketing didn’t describe the product accurately. But some women really believed it’s all about advancing humanitarian causes, - what happened?
”Patriarchy” happened. Or to be more precise, the creation of explanation how world works from a point of view hostile to men, e.g. - “all positions of power and privilege are occupied by men“, so women are viewed as “inferior“ and thus - underdogs. Specific terminology was advanced further, created with the goal of demonizing specific aspects of “patriarchal“ behaviour, like “mansplaining“ or “male gaze“, while “female gaze“ is “better“, because unlike a male one, it’s not about treating women like objects, but like real people with personality and history(totally not biased, as you can see). It’s no honest examination of gender dynamics. Remember “manspreading“? Well, this one is rare to see today (well, i rarely see it), so the answer is slowly turning into “no“. This and many other fruits of intellectual labour are produced in the field of “Feminist Theory“.
This resulted in women noticing various aspects of life and human condition, and expressing their annoyance at them, while men saw the underhanded malice in those expressions, and thus the division grew.
More extreme sources of hostility were branches of thought like “Political Lesbianism“ and “SCUM“
I cannot gauge the scope of the damage they inflicted on human relationships. Might be negligible, but that’s not the point.
The point is that the feminist movement was recognised as hostile for half of the society, not on a systemic level, i.e the structure of governmental systems, but actual real people - men, while women can do no wrong, and all ills befalling on men were blamed on the victims themselves. Those, who adopted such worldview, start acting in peculiar ways and express rather unrealistic statements.
All of that would be irrelevant to my “thesis“, if this movement was organic, “naturally grown“ without some malignant assistance from outside. Well, i don’t know who’s to blame (i’ll leave the building powerpoint presentations to others), but here’s a glimpse into the problem:
"Most women without children spend much more time than men on housework; with children, they devote more time to both housework and child care. Just as there is a wage gap between men and women in the workplace, there is a "leisure gap" between them at home. Most women work one shift at the office or factory and a "second shift" at home."
the author of this quote is Arlie Russell Hochschild, a professor at University of California, Berkeley, self-described as politically left, and who studies the mechanisms and consequences of emotions. She received many awards and wrote multiple books.
Here’s entire part of United Nations dedicated to women (there’s none for men, except this). Here’s someone’s project telling us how women have contributed to society throughout time. Here’s fake history. Here’s more attempts to claim the past. Someone even erected a statue of a cause (there are probably more, but i’m lazy).
A simple question: who funds this? This one i can’t answer.
Another question: what’s the benefit for the player? That i can answer:
They do what i want.
2✩ BLM
and other african-american-centric movements aren’t that different in how they express their grievances.
Their domain of “others are bad, and we are victims“ is called “Institutional racism“. It’s notable outputs, which define backs’ relationship with the rest of the society, are particular focus on blacks’ interactions with law enforcement (famous cases are Michael Brown and George Floyd), and the history of slavery(1, 2, 3). Overall, the people and institutions are cultivating the perception that United States, and the West in general, are using black people as cattle, - they were taken from their land and made into slaves:
Humiliated and controlled:
And experimented on.
The consequences look like this:
Additionally, they redefined “racism“ as a formula “racism=power+prejudice”, meaning, you can be racist only if you have “power“ in society, and since blacks “have no power“:
Once again, the underdog can do no wrong, but you better recognise their efforts and respect them.
Of course, it’s all coming from universities too, like with “female rights”, and yet through all similarities once curious difference shines through. You see, African populations on western soil don’t have that much history and culture left in them, they are a new and emergent section of populace only (300~ years) relatively recently formed into an egregore along racial lines. They have no past.
So they make it now:
They also claim landmarks
both real:
Well, that is inevitable, if you live long enough, you have a right to claim time you lived as yours and describe it as you wish. It is a noble cause to celebrate the contributions of those who shaped the land and life.
So what’s the problem then?
They claim that which doesn’t belong to them:
Really doesn’t belong to them:
Really doesn’t belong to them:
All while the real statues of real people are brought down.
They fight existing social structures, they say. They call it “decolonising“.
3✩ Gay and trans rights
Need i say more?
This stuff is very popular despite representing the slice of populace which barely, on average, takes 10% of space.
Do they have an “underdog“ story? Yes, a lot of it. Although they aren’t particularly hostile to their counterparts. “Love“ is the brand.
Except when they are motivated by different spirits:
Are there attempts to fake history? Yes, they are certainly trying (although those don’t fare far).
Well, it’s not “fake“, because people engaging in homosexual relationships, like women and black people, existed for a long time, so there’s always going to be the footprint to trace. But, as with “two-spirits“, they are taking other people’s culture, remove unnecessary nuance, and claim as theirs. They are seeking legitimacy in the past too.
Whatever, G and Ls have some basis in the time, is there something actually “fake“ happening now?
Yes
Like, why?
You can find so much with this simple search (not all of them are from horror movies, thankfully):
I don’t get it, but they are tying to claim land in fiction, even if retroactively.
Real land is also taken:
Perhaps the reason is hidden in these two graphics:
4✩ Ukraine
As Lindsay O’Rourke noted in Foreign Affairs earlier this year, “out of 35 U.S. attempts to covertly arm foreign dissidents during the Cold War, only four succeeded in bringing U.S. allies to power.”
Presence of US in Ukrainian territory goes back many decades, but to fruition their efforts came only the last few of them. The pivotal point is placed somewhere 2013-2014, during the revolutions aimed to deposit current leadership. Which succeeded.
What emerged from the upheaval? It would be easier to demonstrate:
A Galician SS member was brought by Ukrainian president at the request of Canadians, and heralded as a hero for “fighting russians“. The current war in Ukraine is frequently explained by pro-ru side as “denazification“, because, they say, there are too many swastika-wearers in their neighbouring territory. So, does that validate “Putin’s“ words? Not quite. As pro-UA side is fast to demonstrate - there are plenty of monsters on the side of RU as well, many of which are donning sonnenrads too. Does that indicate hypocrisy? Not quite.
You see, in their infinite wisdom, US is “funding the Taliban” again, because they wanted to weaken USSR/Russia, but to achieve that they needed to find on Ukrainian territory people who would be radical enough for strong actions, and who would also hate Russia. Which means Naz- No, just extreme nationalists. These people don’t particularly care about jews(until they start questioning who did Holodomor) or aryans, but they aim to build “strong and independent Ukraine”, which manifests itself in strong opposition to Russian culture, and strong favouritism towards figures which fought for independence of this land (and against Ru people). So you gonna see a lot of this.
Russia aims to get rid of nationalists controlled by the US, because:
1) Fuck having hostile people on your borders
2) US are bad at controlling their puppets
3) Last time dudes with blocky lines on their uniforms were fed guns and land Russia had Great Patriotic War as a result.
But do they have an “underdog“ story?
You bet.
Is there tampering with history?
Another winning bet.
They also claimed borsch as their own, Sikorskiy, this and this.
They invented everything, really.
In pursuit of shedding “Russian influence” they replace notable landmarks and symbols with their own imagery (Киев - Київ). Not anomalous, untill you get to actual silly cases, like taking the name of Ukrainian city “Харьков”, named after the Ukrainian man Харько, and ukrainionising it even more into “Харків”. Perils of nationbuilding.
If you want to see antagonism towards Russians just search “Russia is a Terrorist State“, and you’ll get a lot of this:
Not undeserved considering the rockets flying, but dehumanization goes further than 2020:
TLDR: If, on some bright day, an unknown, obviously new, group of people appears, starts demanding the change of society, while also claiming that they were here all along and painting the cities in their symbols and colours, and saying you are a bad person for opposing them, - it’s CIA.