Did Wikileaks tell us anything we didn’t already know in principle? It seems rather that Wikileaks gave the corporate media a public reason to tell us some things (not all things) that the corporate media was silent on before, despite the fact that “Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows…”

One of the essential pacifying features of a corrupt, abusive system is the mechanism of letting off steam, akin to a pressure valve. The abused demographic is occasionally allowed a little triumph, a little space for revenge and gloating, creating the illusion that the ‘tide is turning’.

Fashion appeals to vanity and self-esteem to inculcate compliance with capricious directives of some faceless power (of fashion experts), a celebrity, or a group you would like to belong to. It makes you feel special and privileged to be able to diligently follow their commands. It coats blind obedience with the veneer of your own vanity. It gives you social proof: ‘you are onto it, you get it, I seeee you’. And it tastes sexy. Yum. Just like the luscious stars who seduce everyone with… whatever role they were paid to play.

Anger cannot be resolved by means of compassion, understanding or empathy. On the contrary, all attention validates it, normalises it as a term of discourse. The most rational response to anger is the withdrawal of attention.

Authority does not entail the rightness of actions; only right actions entail authority.

The majority act in relation to politics as if they preferred being represented by someone else than speak for themselves. At the same time they act in social relations as if they know everything and their value judgements are absolute. This contradiction can be explained by their inability to conceive of politics working in any other way than compulsory representation; they blindly accept the contradictory terms of political discourse. How could any politician respect that?

Here is a wild theory. Americans did land on the moon, but they also staged the landing and aired the footage of the staged landing only, perhaps to confuse and confound, perhaps because they did not yet have the technology to efficiently transmit the signal of sufficient quality. Also, it gave the curious autistic minds a bone to chew, away from the Real political and financial action. This could be a great sci-fi book topic, on par with Lem’s ‘Master’s Voice’.

Americans really did land on the Moon – Roscosmos

The head of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency has weighed in on conspiracy theories surrounding the US Moon landings, insisting that there is no doubt that soil samples retrieved by the Americans during their Apollo missions actually came from the lunar surface.

“According to the expertise of our Academy of Sciences, the lunar soil turned out to be lunar indeed,” Borisov reassured lawmakers, insisting that the samples were analyzed in numerous countries, not just the USSR.
The previous head of the Russian space agency, Dmitry Rogozin, was far more skeptical about the Apollo missions, saying that while many in Roscosmos defended Washington’s version of events, no conclusive proof was ever presented to him.

#Russia #NASA - Boost

Let ‘trust’ signify a conviction that ‘P is true’ held without a proof. To assert that ‘P is true’ without a proof implies that ‘P is true without a proof’, therefore anything can be true without a proof, therefore the negation of P can also be true without a proof, therefore contradiction. The absurdity of trust is amplified by not merely trusting (as an act of existential desperation associated with individual epistemic impotence) but by asserting the associated conviction as a truth that ‘ought’ to be trusted.

Do we have the right not to trust the government? It seems like an important right to have, because it is immune to arguments from authority.

It is not even ironic, just bad form, when people who deny the fundamental laws of sense complain about being oppressed or colonised. One could earnestly ask: what do they mean?

There can be no meaningful conversation with someone who rejects any of the laws of sense. Their words cannot be interpreted to mean what they typically mean since they could also be intended to mean the opposite, or something altogether different. Someone who rejects any of the fundamental laws cannot be understood; their speech has no meaning, they renounce their own voice.
“To be and not to be, that is and is not the question”…

Narrative conformity is a hypothetical state of epistemic anxiety under which people choose to unconditionally believe the mass media because they cannot make sense of reality as it is mediated to them and cannot endure the scope of uncertainty this creates. It could be induced on societal scale by mediating facts in a way that makes them unbelievable, possibly by introducing obvious inconsistencies in the accounts of reality, and simultaneously mediating internally consistent, elaborate fictions that have the appearance of reality but are inconsistent with the mediated facts.

The more confusing and inconsistent the mainstream messaging, the greater the psychological incentive to unconditionally accept it.

The mainstream is a global cult, based on unconditional faith in the guidance of the news-makers vis-a-vis the abyss of uncertainty and the trauma of alienation if each were to rely on their own devices to construct a coherent vision of reality from the same information. As in all cults, the cult of the mainstream depends on idiosyncratic and entirely constructed ontology of ‘the world as we know it’. Belonging to the cult is determined by the unconditional acceptance of its world ontology, not on how one engages with it, which allows for countless adversarial factions who, by means of common terms in their disagreements, mutually give credence to the fictional world.

When discussing human rights people sometimes object with the slogan “you only have the rights you can enforce”. I contend that we cannot enforce Any rights against the ruling power, so the objection is moot. It is only the ruling power that “enforces” anything, typically against us. When i talk about rights i typically mean moral rights. For example, are we morally entitled ‘not to trust the government’ or is any distrust of the government morally wrong. By implication, is the government morally entitled to discriminate against and vilify those who do not trust it, or is it morally obligated to respect our distrust.

Why work towards perfecting our conscious agency, why pursue the ideal? Because we are intrinsically ‘conscious agency’, we cannot not be it, but only more or less perfect as conscious agents. To be less perfect than one could be is a kind of hell for a being that cannot be anything else, not even nothing.

In order to convince IT managers that CrowdStrike did not commit the biggest cyberattack (cyber-sabotage) in history, CrowdStrike will be required to demonstrate how the update passed a series of pre-release test runs despite containing a fatal memory access error that makes it impossible for the update to complete the run.

Smart meters are hackable. Dumb meters are hack proof. It is smart to have a dumb meter.