Disinformation, or what we now call, Social Media

First, I'd like to share this. Marc Maron's WTF podcast opening commentary on the Right's "Wokeism" oft disingenuous rants, in dissecting & explaining the reality of it all, is one of the best I've heard: Episode 1590 - Jessica Lange

Moving quickly on...(but seriously, if you've ever had trouble countering the Right about "Wokeism", because some "Woke" types are a bit extreme, this is a good listen)...

Yuri Andropov, former Soviet KGB chief and later General Secretary of the Communist Party, is often associated with the concept of disinformation ("дезинформация", pronounced dezinformatsiya).

Yuri Andropov

He reflected on his view on disinformation (and propaganda) when he reportedly said:

"You can take some of it once in a while, but if you get too much of it too often, it becomes addictive."

He was talking about how social media works, without even knowing it, back in the late 1970s/early 80s. But not just about those who are fed disinfo, but also those who utilized it for political, or other purposes.

The concern Andropov had regarding those using disinformation can be broken down into a few key points:

1. Loss of Credibility

Andropov, despite his reliance on disinformation, likely understood that excessive use could erode the credibility of the government or institution employing it. If people became aware of the manipulation or falsehoods being spread, it could backfire, leading to mistrust and skepticism, both within the targeted population and internationally. This could damage the credibility of Soviet leaders and the KGB, making it harder to maintain control over the narrative.

2. Backlash and Unintended Consequences

Another concern Andropov might have had was the potential for disinformation to spiral out of control. Once false information spreads, it can be difficult to manage or retract. As disinformation takes root, it can grow and take on a life of its own, leading to unintended consequences. People might start believing and spreading the misinformation further, and the truth might be obscured to the point where it’s challenging to regain control over the situation. This "addiction" to disinformation could create a cycle that was difficult to break.

3. Overuse Leading to Predictability

The repeated use of disinformation as a tactic could make it predictable and less effective over time. If a government or organization becomes known for spreading false information, its efforts could lose their impact. People might become more adept at recognizing and questioning the information they receive, reducing the effectiveness of the campaigns. The very tool that had been so effective in the past could lose its potency if it were relied on too heavily or overused.

4. Psychological and Societal Impact

On a broader level, Andropov might have been concerned with the long-term psychological effects of disinformation. He likely recognized that constant exposure to falsehoods could distort reality and manipulate societies in ways that might lead to confusion, polarization, and instability. If a population becomes addicted to a false narrative, it might lose its ability to discern fact from fiction, weakening its resilience and ability to make informed decisions.

5. Internal Control Issues

For Andropov and the Soviet leadership, internal control was paramount. Disinformation campaigns often had to be tightly managed to ensure they didn’t spiral beyond the control of the government. If they became too pervasive or uncontrollable, it could destabilize the very political system they sought to protect. The addictive nature of disinformation could cause divisions and fragmentation within the leadership and government apparatus itself, leading to power struggles or challenges to authority.

Conclusion

In essence, while Andropov and the Soviet Union’s leadership saw disinformation as a powerful tool for manipulating perceptions and achieving strategic goals, they also recognized the dangers of overuse. Excessive reliance on disinformation could undermine trust, create instability, and eventually erode the very control they sought to maintain.

Interesting times...

Finally, let me drop this on you.

Kleptocracy update... Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Scoop:

Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Actually? This is not good.

Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

And gonna do more like that with others.

We have two emotionally immature financial & political leaders who think they know how to run things.

This isn't going to end well.

We've been edging toward kleptocracy.

That wasn't my intention, though.

I hadn't expected we'd just go all-in on it.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Outed: Russia Today (RT), Long Russian State Propaganda, an Arm of the FSB & Simply Putin's Mouthpiece

I had discussed this on this blog in 2017 (I wasn't the only one who noticed), but I had complained about it years before that. That RT (Russia Today) was a tool of the Russian government, If not a branch of Putin's FSB, it was certainly his mouthpiece. I was stunned to find ANY American personalities or professionals would sign up for what was obviously just Russian State TV, regardless of their incessant denials.

Among the channel's shows were + One with Dennis Miller, CrossTalk with Peter Lavelle and The Keiser Report with Max Keiser. Other shows included News with Ed Schultz (2016–2018) and Larry King Now (2012–2020). Bizarre. Aiding and abetting the enemy.

It was also bizarre to find RT, which they changed to after "Russia Today" became too problematic, was touting a line curiously similar to American right-wing (nut) propaganda as on Fox News (a huge flashing light in both directions), touted by the Republican Party extremists and eventually and clearly by Donald Trump and his MaGA adjunct to Russian disinformation. Something Newt Gingrich began to make popular since the early 1990s.

None of this was difficult to see. Certainly not for any of us who had for decades, followed Soviet and then Russian disinformation campaigns worldwide. All of which became clearer as now war criminal Putin turned more and more into a despot and faux democratic leader of Russia.

Finally, the American government is being overt about it too:

Alerting the World to RT’s Global Covert Activities:

"Today, the United States is designating three entities and two individuals for their connection to Russia’s destabilizing actions abroad. According to new information, much of which originates from employees of Russian state-funded RT (formerly “Russia Today”), we now know that RT moved beyond being simply a media outlet and has been an entity with cyber capabilities. It is also engaged in information operations, covert influence, and military procurement. These operations are targeting countries around the world, including in Europe, Africa, and North and South America.

"RT and its employees, including Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan, have directly coordinated with the Kremlin to support Russian government efforts to influence the October 2024 Moldovan election. Specifically, in coordination with the Kremlin, Simonyan leverages the state-funded platforms for which she serves in leadership positions – namely RT, Sputnik, and their parent company FEDERAL STATE UNITARY ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION AGENCY ROSSIYA SEGODNYA (ROSSIYA SEGODNYA) – to attempt to foment unrest in Moldova, likely with the specific aim of causing protests to turn violent. RT is aware of and prepared to assist Russia’s plans to incite protests should the election not result in a Russia-preferred candidate winning the presidency." For more see the article...

The U.S. government's release on RT’s global covert activities reveals that RT is part of a state-backed disinformation effort, promoting pro-Russian narratives and undermining Western democracies. This covert strategy aims to spread divisive content globally under the guise of independent media. 

Regarding Fox News, while they operate in a commercial, non-state-backed capacity, both networks share similarities in fueling skepticism toward U.S. government institutions and amplifying anti-establishment views. RT strategically exploits Fox's narratives when they align with Russian interests, particularly regarding foreign policy, media distrust, and cultural conflicts.

Wishing you all, all the best!

Conspiracy Theories - Incompetence More Than Insight?

There are a few laws or theorems if you prefer,  that need to be applied to Conspiracies before one shouts them to the world. One thing Conspiracy Theorists seldom do is apply the right rules to vetting the subject of their typically ridiculous theories. The conspiracies they hammer us with in the media and online, which are usually more wishful thinking than fact, simply because of the nature of things that fit the theorist's conspiracy mold, typically are not reviewed well.

Or if they are well reviewed with the right filtering factors applied (like Occam's Razor), they simply ignore their findings and continue on; because at some level it makes them feel better because action, even incorrect action, feels better than non-action. Which oddly enough is typically what lead to the situation of a subject of a conspiracy theory in the first place, and not conscious thought, or conspiratorial collusion.

One of the obvious things about conspiracy theories are that they tend to be things that weren't conspiracies to begin with, but after the fact, because of a lack of information or transparency, they appear as there having been a conspiracy. Usually however, there wasn't. It was just how things played out over time. It's similar with recorded history wherein by simply writing out history, changes history, changes what actually happened, and in that small (sometimes large) variation is where conspiracy theories are born.

Occam's Razor is one of the best:

"Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better." - Wikipedia

Hanlon's Law is a Conspiracy Theorist's bane: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

There are methods to apply to conspiracy to prove or disprove is to a reasonable degree, something theorists tend to avoid doing as it kills their theories. Theories which are fun for them, cathartic, and spire their inner fears which supports the theory in a never ending cycle.

For those addicted to conspiracies, a form of belief system that is fueled by lack of information and distrust of authority, and underlain by a sense of having little control in life, it is much the same mind type as are those addicted to religious beliefs, what is referred to as a "monological belief system".

My desire (and more importantly, pleasure) to believe in aliens and UFOs as a child in the 60s, became initially inflamed with I started to hear of other conspiracies. I thought those once in charge, in their sharing hidden knowledge, with information once allegedly disallowed to the masses, was a great and exciting thing. My first conspiracy was one by General William Westmoreland who ran the Viet Nam war. After Viet Nam he wrote a book which I read, which spawned many other conspiracies.

It was an interesting theory I cannot now remember and I cannot find that book any longer, which says something in itself. But my first thought after reading his book was not to merely believe or disbelieve, but to study just what conspiracy theories are, how they work, who were attracted to them, and why they happened. This is an important and key point in those who grab on to conspiracy theories and those who don't. Many of those who simply do not pay any attention to conspiracy theories, are not relevant in this consideration, as to ignore them from the start with little or no thought, indicates another type of individual altogether.

What is important is, for all of those who do pay attention at least initially and do look into them, what is the key deciding factor between those who keep going and those who see a conspiracy theory as simply white noise that appears to be something, but in the end logically just isn't. For me, when I read the General's book, I fell into a part mid book that just seemed questionable to me. So I researched it and his theory, for me, began to fall apart. I was stunned. How could such a high level official seriously believe in such nonsense? Was he just trying to make a buck on a book he saw was fictional, but sell-able? Or did he really believe what he was trying go convince others about.

I think he really believed it, at least at the time. But in my finding it was very likely his theory was not true, it brought up the question of how was that possible? That was my break, with conspiracy theories. Rather than try to swallow what he was selling, I instead looked into how it was possible he could believe what he was saying, and how others could believe something that to me appeared to be easily debunked. As it turned out, there was a certain type of personality (which I learned more about a few years later when I got my university degree in psychology) and certain elements needed that support a conspiracy theory as rational to that group of individuals. There are also those who know absolutely that it is an incorrect theory and yet, continue to push that theory for political and financial ends to better their position in some way.

It is important however, to consider the difference between my path and that of those who believe in these conspiracies, the point at which I branched off to learn about the theory of "conspiracy theory", and those who simply eat up the perceived conspiracy and ran with  it. They like to use various techniques to quelch dissent in their beliefs, such as by being demeaning, calling those who don't believe in what they believe in as "sheeple" (for people who are sheep following the flock of the ignorant masses), something which elevates them in their beliefs and objectifies those who disagree with them. Objectifies others as is done by soldiers in war so they can more easily kill the perceived enemy. Except that in this case, the "enemies" are fellow citizens.

What I found in researching what a conspiracy theory is, rather than simply focusing on a specific theory in particular, saved me a lot of time over my lifetime in realizing that the majority of popular conspiracies are simply bunk, and those attracted to them have a certain type of personalty and view of the world, based in a general distrust and perceived lack of control in their lives which affects them deeply and personally. The belief  that our government is a super secret, super capable institution, says more about conspiracy theorists than it does about our government, or their abilities or desires.

I find there seem to be far more people believing in conspiracies in the extreme movements, in the "right" or "left" political arenas, but more so for some reason on the right, in the conservative and Republican movements.

We should indeed pay attention to our world, to find out what's going on out of our view, but we should also realize when it's time to move on, to take other action then complaining and making noise, like removing people from office in a general sense, or protecting ourselves in a more personal sense. It is just important to be on guard that you are not simply of a certain mindset that makes you susceptible to silly conspiracies and focus on what is provable and reasonable and not something that will inevitably turn out to be simply a mass delusion, of which now a days there are so many.

If you are going to shout about conspiracies to the world, before you add to the dissonance in the mainstream, study what conspiracies are, and apply that judiciously to your beliefs. You may think that simply by making noise right OR wrong, it will help regardless as others will also look into it and eventually the truth will come out. Many times, there simply is no "truth" to be found out, just more incompetence and stupidity.

Don't attribute more capability of secrecy and institutional skill where there is none and therefore become one of those on the stupidity side of the argument. Because then you are just doing yourself and the rest of us a disservice, adding to the groundswell of chatter and nonsense, and that helps no one.

For more on this, I highly suggest you research more about conspiracies themselves rather than any one conspiracy. Then apply what you have learned to a particular conspiracy, pick your favorite conspiracy and see if it doesn't begin to fall apart on you. Here are three articles from Scientific American to begin with, but don't stop there, until you have as solid a handle on what conspiracies are as you do believing in them. These are three interesting and useful articles.

• The Conspiracy Theory Detector 
• Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories 
• Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists 

From Nov 17, 2010 |by Michael Shermer - The Conspiracy Theory Detector:

The more that it manifests the following characteristics, the less probable that the theory is grounded in reality:

1. Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
2. The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
3. The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
4. Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
5. The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
6. The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
8. The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
9. The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
10. The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

Dead men walking

I've been conflicted about this for a while. But I think I found a way that works for me.

Should we have the death penalty or not? Sure, why not. Why? Because some people should be destroyed off the face of the earth. But, I bet within the United States, there may only be one or two of those, if that, every year. 

I've confused people most of my life. I don't believe in killing people for much of any reason. I do think you have the right to kill someone trying to kill you, however. I mean, it's one for one, right? And they are trying to kill you, you have the right to stop them. You should try not to kill them but stop them, but hey, sometimes                 passion just gets the better of you. But then if they started it they asked for it. 

Okay, but for the most part we shouldn't be killing people. (War is bad says Subliminal Man). 

If several people are trying to kill you, really you shouldn't be trying to kill a bunch of people to save yourself. Yet then again, if they are choosing to try to kill you and you are better at it than they are, who's to say that you shouldn't, as some would say, use your God given talents at their utmost to save your skin? 

Right?

So fine. What about State sponsored killing, like Capital Punishment, the Death Penalty? When I was first in college in my first Philosophy class, our Prof. brought this up one day as a learning experience. I said I thought it was okay for the State to have the death penalty. But he pointed out (many things I won't go into here) that it is basically State sponsored murdered and a Government should never kill it's people to whom it serves. It's just ethically wrong.

Okay then, maybe he had a point. And so I passed that class, I graduated, years passed and here we are.

Now we have Florida who has been letting go like one in three prisoners on death row because they have found that in all the time since their trial and verdict, they were actually innocent as proven by various things like DNA and confessions. Or Texas who are about to celebrate their 500th execution as of mid June 2013, next week. 

The Colorado Governor just interceded to keep the death penalty live in their state, while signing an order so as not to be responsible for any executions during the rest of his term as Governor. He upholds the death penalty but doesn't want anything to do with it, himself.

So, where does that leave us? Well, I know where it leaves me, because I have an idea. 

Go ahead, keep the death penalty. But let's do this, make it possible only if and when the Governor him (or her) self actually goes to the room execution chamber, and personally executes the prisoner. 

Why? Because what we seem to have here is too many people not caring or thinking deeply enough about the situation and so they just let it continue on. Much like with Right Wing Conservatives who are staunchly against the LGBT community or Gay marriage, they are all against it until it turns out to be their son, or daughter, or someone close to them. Then it is fully and finally brought home to them, it becomes personal and so they tend to turn away from their beliefs and change their mind, altering their original position to one of agreeing with say, Gay marriage. 

The death penalty is a very similar and strange animal. The problem is that people seem to be too divorced from it to make a fully qualified decision. So let's make it personal. If someone is really so bad that they have to be executed by the state, then let the highest authority in that state carry out the execution, personally. I think it might only take one execution for one to come to realize that this is a bad thing. It is cruel and unusual punishment to hold someone for years, and then on a day set very much previously, to take that individual knowingly and murder them.

But what about their victims, you say? So we should become like them, and kill them? Besides, isn't life in jail far worse than death? 

Here's the thing. If you have someone that is a seriously deranged serial murderer, someone truly and wholly evil, then I do think that they should be destroyed. But even they could possibly be saved, make a turn around at some point. Still, I'll grant you it's very possible or even likely, that there are people like that who do need to be not only removed from society and imprisoned, but removed from life itself. I'm also willing to recognize that these types of people are very few and far between. 

Even so, we really need to stop killing people as a nation, both internally and more so yet, externally. War is bad, necessary on occasion, but far too many times we have been illegitimately pulled into it. And too many times we have killed too many innocents in the strife and fog of war. But so too have we killed innocent people through the death penalty. If Florida is accurate in releasing people who are innocent at so high a rate as reported, a third, then how many other states have killed how many innocent people over the years? 

I would argue that if we kill even one innocent person it is one too many and we need to stop. One innocent life is more important than all of the guilty lives we could execute. After all, one thing that Time does really well is release information, it loosen lips, allows knowledge to rise to the surface of the social conscience. 

For those who are truly dangerous and evil, I really wouldn't have trouble executing them. And I don't think many who hold a position of power would. But if it were someone who had a moment of anger, who had grown up with a chip on their shoulder and just need to be locked up, then they might just have a problem. If for no other reason than that, we have to consider that old adage, "There but for the grace of God, go I."

Yes some of those on death row are real bastards I'm sure, and have caused a lot of people a lot of grief. But when you also take into consideration those who have to handle these people on a daily basis, those who have to deal with them leading up to their death and those who have to actually execute them on their day of atonement, we have to consider, why would we want to do THAT to our own citizens, either?

I once heard that considering how expensive it is through trials and appeals and so on it is really cheaper to keep a prisoner for life in prison, than execute him. Which surprised me because I would think, you flip a switch, inject to fluid, bingo, money saved. But not really and certainly not assured. And so too there are non-monetary costs we should take into account. 

I'll say it clearly, if someone is trying to kill me (especially if I don't deserve it, which is another matter entirely), I will have no problem killing them instead. Once I know there is nothing left for me to do but kill them, I'm 100% behind the idea. Of course, getting to that realization is what typically gets good people killed and gives the bad guys the edge in being able to more easily kill some unsuspecting victim. They don't have to consider, they just act. They kill. They have the element of surprise. They are murderers and cowards.

However, once you start talking about my Government killing American citizens, I have a serious issue with  it. I have a problem with them killing non-Americans too, but on a list, Americans are definitely on top for who NOT to kill. Consider for a moment that ultimate rule of empathy, "what if one day I'M in that situation, and worse, what if I'm INNOCENT?"

This country needs to start advancing again. We need to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps (we've done it before) and get our act together. We need to get smarter, deeper, funnier, happier, more benevolent and stronger. And Strong, does not mean you kill people. It is after all, harder not to.

I've always said that I always try never to lie, because it makes you smarter as you have to think your way around things. Any idiot can lie, just say the opposite of truth. But try finding a way, any way but lying and it's not so easy. Is it. Probably why so many people lie so much. Telling the truth also sets up a kind of Karma for you as people start to realize you are an honest and loyal type, dependable at least in your word.

America needs to find the high ground again and live it. Inflate our mind, body and spirits and not just inflate our egos and pride as we have done for far too long and far too much in recent decades. We are a great nation and a great people. And we can be more so. If we just have a mind to.

We just need to start looking more closely at the things we do, to be more honest with ourselves, more open, more rational. 

Killing our own citizens, just isn't one of those things that will put us on that road upward and into the future with grand prospects. Because if we don't make some changes like these, we can only have more to look forward to of the same. More and more right wing nutzo propaganda, more ridiculous religious fervor, more partisan patronizing, more stopping intellectual progress, more, more, more...but not of the things we need more of. 

For one, we don't need more dead men walking....

Playing telephone in Life with the world and one another

I wish you all a very pleasant and reflective Memorial Day holiday. It's good and well on this day to solemnly consider for a time the sacrifices made by those who stood against those powers who sought to put an end to our country and as well for the mistakes we as a country have made and therefore lost our forces to battles that perhaps we should never have been involved in. That latter is the more solemn consideration, for sure.

We all make mistakes from time to time. But on a National level, the mistakes need to be as few and far between as can be made possible. Because it affects so many and so much through time and perception. Perception of others toward the United  States. Perception of ourselves toward who we have become. And the perception of who we have become at this time in History by those who shall follow us and reflect back on our deeds and actions. And motivations. And Humanity. How we are perceived by others is far more important than we tend to give it weight. The weight of importance, of reactions, and of delayed reactions.

Perception is a difficult thing at times to deal with. It can be overwhelming at both a national, world stage level, as well as in a more intimate, interpersonal level.

Have you ever played, "Telephone" at a party? Basically, it's where you tell someone a secret and it's passed down the line, everyone trying to remain as true and accurate as possible to the original statement. Then, from the last person in line, you hear what they say they were told and compare it to what was originally said and sent down the line.

Typically in comparing the two ends, you get two very different statements.

Well, consider this. When you're in a romantic relationship, you are actually playing "telephone", with your mate. There are far less involved, it is only the two of you. But some of the communications you receive from one another are not just from words, but actions, looks, and other people's comments. Indirect actions, even. But the concept is the same. You start with your thought, and by the time it reaches your partner's conception of what you are communicating, something about it has almost always changed in the process.

Last year I was watching Kofi Annan, once head of the United Nations, on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. He was talking about how hard it was when he was head of the UN, to try and explain between the leaders of the US and Iran how, what one Iranian leader had said to its farmers in the countryside of Iran, shouldn't be incorrectly interpreted by the American leaders in Washington DC, from considering directly what was said. Sometimes, what was said in the countryside was merely an attempt for the leader of Iran to explain to an uneducated farmer, topics such as Nuclear power.

For that explanation to then be understood by the leaders in America well, it simply doesn't translate well; or in fact, at all. Kofi Annan said that he had so much trouble in pointing out that, that what was said to an Iranian farmer shouldn't be listened to or reacted to by the leaders of the US.

It was like playing "telephone" between two world leaders. That is one side of it.

The other side is considering communication simply from one entity to another. That's talking at the country sized level. Now drop it down to individual sized level. Every person on earth has a different understanding or filter of the world, from every other individual.

Certainly, we all have a somewhat general understanding or we could never communicate at all. Still, that being said, we really don't all FULLY understand exactly what any other person is saying. On an international stage, this is very disconcerting.

Now, apply that concept into the tiny confines of a romantic relationship. Tiny confines from an outsider's perspective perhaps, but from an insider's perspective it can become an overburdened, intolerably huge affair. How do we ever truly communicate? How can we truly know the other person? Or, other nation for that matter.

Kind of scary when you think about it. Right?